Back to BaSics

So, it's been a while since I last posted and things have changed. Somewhat.

Now that Barack Obama has secured another four years in the White House, we can finally shift our attention away from the campaign trail and focus on real issues of national significance.

Can anyone think of an issue? Oh, I know! How about the Fiscal Cliff?! I heard that this one is going to be even more exciting than the debt ceiling debacle because this disastrous bit of legislation hanging over our heads is potentially more damaging to the US economy.

If you are not very familiar with the "Fiscal Cliff," my housemate Sam and I found this article on about.com that explains it pretty well. But essentially, our elected Representatives were unable to reach a long-term budget agreement, so instead, they decided to aggregate the worst possible combination of spending cuts and tax increases in one single bill with hopes that Republicans and Democrats will reach a "Grand Compromise" before the stipulations go into effect on January 1, 2013.

The logic behind this decision is fairly straightforward: put a bunch of stuff on a bill that Republicans and Democrats don't like to provide an incentive to make a deal. In an ideal world, both parties will find common ground by combining moderate spending cuts with some new source of revenue. In the Economist blog Free exchange, the author highlights a few of these possibilities. One of the most intriguing solutions comes from a paper written by Martin Feldstein, Maya MacGuineas and Daniel Feenberg for the National Bureau of Economic Research. They propose "capping the total amount that tax expenditures as a whole" to reduce each individual's tax burden. Specifically, they project that a 2 percent cap would raise $278 billion in 2011 and help simplify the tax code for 35 million taxpayers. A benefit of this system is appealing to both sides of the isle "because the TE benefit cap that we analyze would not single out any particular form of tax expenditure but would apply to the total of a all deductions and the key tax exclusion[.] [T]his approach would reduce the revenue cost of tax expenditures without unfairly burdening taxpayers who benefit from a particular deduction." 

I think the most interesting part of this proposal is that it was supported by Mitt Romney during his campaign, but not mentioned by the Obama administration as an option. Romney never articulated direct support of the aforementioned paper or the authors, but we can definitely expect that Romney would have implemented a very similar plan. 

In my opinion that is exactly why I think something like this could go into effect within the next month. Both sides of the isle can agree that this will raise enough revenue to make a (small) dent into our debt without raising income tax rates or imposing other, more noticeable tax increases.  My only worry is that the Obama administration will continue to ride the re-election high and insist that we have to raise tax rates. I'm fairly confident (for maybe the first time ever) that John Boehner will not not screw this up as he did with the debt ceiling by proposing a super radical plan of spending cuts that had no chance of passing the Senate or getting Obama's approval. Although the debt ceiling debacle was significant because it affected our debt rating and the bond markets, it did not pose as great a threat to our economy as the Fiscal Cliff does. As it turns out, our debt rating was lowered even after we reached a short term deal to raise the debt ceiling. However, it didn't change much. Our weak economy stagnated for a few months, but has continued to chug along, growing somewhere between 1.5-2.0% GDP per quarter. (Yeah, we all know that's garbage, but its been than Europe. Much better than Europe.)

On the other hand, the Fiscal Cliff has the potential to send the US economy back into recession. If no deal can be reached, the draconian cuts to government spending and large increases in tax could neutralize the gains we have made since 2008. Unemployment would rise sharply and corporate profits in all sectors of the economy would plummet.

I must say, I'm pumped that Obama was re-elected (if you didn't know that already). But, I'm not sure what the future holds. Republicans have already seemed to moderate their positions on "new revenue" which puts Congress in a much better situation that it was two years ago when its primary objective was to "defeat Barack Obama in 2012." Obama's victory has given him some political capital, but how he chooses to use it is crucial. In my opinion, Obama and the Democrats need to show the American people jsut how sensible and moderate they are by working with Boehner and the House Republicans on a Grand Compromise. Even if it isn't the best possible deal (favoring the Republicans perhaps), it is better than the alternative. Moreover, it will set a precedent of compromise that Democrats can use to push through their agenda during the next four years. If Obama and the Democrats start small, they will end big.

RNC Wrap Up: The New GOP

Alright. Woo. One down, one to go.

I know, I know, please try to contain yourselves. The excitement from the conventions can be overwhelming. If you are a Republican, you might even be experiencing withdrawals after last night's extravaganza-- Ted Nugent has already checked into rehab, along with a handful of tea party patriots.

Truthfully, though, I thought this year's Republican National Convention was interesting and even mildly entertaining. Let's start with the entertaining part. Clint Eastwood clearly took the gold medal in this category after giving an improvisational speech to a chair (or with a chair, depending on how you want to look at it). If you have not seen the speech, you should check it out as soon as possible. Eastwood spoke, mumbled and rambled for a total 12 minutes (his allotted time was 6), making vague assertions about Obama's poor job performance and the political landscape as a whole. After watching it again, Eastwood's speech and demeanor reminded me a litte of Michael Scott from The Office: he walked on stage with a smirk on his face, probably thinking that he was about to just kill it and wow the audience, then quickly found himself struggling to stay on point. The real joke came about one minute into the speech when he said, "I've got Mr. Obama right here. And I'm going to ask him a few questions." He then proceeded to engage in an awkward, not-sure-if-he's-trying-to-be-funny dialogue with a chair on stage. Meanwhile, the Romneys and many other GOP elites were holding their breaths, praying to baby Jesus that nothing catastrophic would happen.

I think it's safe to say that the whole thing was a better idea in Eastwood's head.

Now for the interesting. I thought David Brooks' most recent column harped on many of the key takeaway points from the convention. He argues that Republicans have gone to great lengths to frame themselves as the champion of the individual-- the person who does any and everything to improve his standard of living in the United States. Republicans want to make the case that the Obama administration and Democrats have expanded government so much that it now stifles the average Joe's chance to achieve the American Dream. However, as Brooks points out, they have essentially abandoned the idea that "social forces" beyond our control have a direct affect on our "destinies." Instead, the RNC selected a series of speakers who told stories of how they, or their relatives, broke their backs to give their children a better life. The Republican party used the convention as a way to show the world its sleek, new "libertarian" look while, at the same time, distancing itself from the "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush years. They even had two of the speakers, Senator Marco Rubio from Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico, incorporate a bit of Spanish into their speeches to appeal to the Latino community. Only one spreaker, according to Brooks, spoke in the tongue of "an older, less libertarian conservative, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and Lincoln." That speaker was former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Before I move onto Romney and Ryan's speeches, I think it is important to note the differences between the more libertarian speakers like Rubio and Rand Paul and the more "traditional" conservatism of officials like John McCain, Sec. Rice, and even Mitt Romney himself. For the most part, the small government, libertarian wing of the Republican party has grown significantly since about 2009. One reason is that Republicans want to distance themselves from the Bush years. Another is that the Tea Party wins. In 2010, we saw a host of Tea Party Republicans win elections to help the GOP recapture the House. These Tea partiers, which includes Rubio, have proven to be a fiery group of individuals who can rally the base, mobilize voters, and stick to their guns. At the same time, however, they have proven to be very difficult to work with, even with members of their own party. Boehner has had his hands full with the House freshmen (think back to the 2011 Debt Ceiling debacle). Obama and the Democrats have been unable to reach any sort of compromise with them on fiscal policy because they initiated and proliferated a pledge to not raise taxes under any circumstances. Nevertheless, this wing of the Republican party, to my amazement, has steadily expanded its influence within the Chambers of Congress as well as the country as a whole. 

Meanwhile, moderates and traditional conservatives have become increasingly rare. A recent segment on NPR's All Things Considered refers to this dying bread as "Rockefeller Republicans." Robert Seigel, the reporter, found that moderates like Mike Castle of Delaware and Tom Davis of Virginia have come under fire recently by the right wing of the Republican party for a few reasons. First, congressional districts have been drawn to favor one party or the other (about 80% of redrawn districts), which means the elected officials "are not rewarded for compromise. They're punished in their primaries if they compromise." Second, Seigel contends that McCain-Feingold has starved political parties of funds which has subsequently tilted the scales in the favor of Super Pacs and special interest groups which tend to support more extreme candidates (admittedly on both sides). The political parties, he says, used to be a centering force in this country; but now, as their candidates sport the endorsements of "political action committees" and other groups, the parties have no choice but to follow suite and embrace the polarization. 

The most blatant example of this ideological migration is the Republican Presidential nominee himself: Mitt Romney. After serving as a moderate Republican governor in Massachusetts, compromising with Democrats and experimenting with legislation (even if the proposal contained the toxic word "mandate"), Romney spent the next six years trying to reinvent himself as a principled, no-nonsense conservative. For a while, I used the colloquial term "flip-flopper" to describe Mitt Romney as a politician. But now, I see it differently. Yes, he changed his views on abortion. Yes, he completely abandoned his health care victory. Yes, he hardened his stance on taxes, immigration, gun-control, [insert contentious issue here]. But that doesn't necessarily mean he's a flip-flopper. It means he's a conservative. A thoroughbred conservative. A true conservative Republican with the ability to adapt to different situations, different political landscapes-- like a chameleon. In a liberal state such as Massachusetts, Republicans simply cannot be ridiculous conservative because they rely on independent and crossover votes to win elections. Thus, Romney was compelled to lean toward the center. This was actually a huge selling point during his first bid for presidency in 2007 when the Republican party wanted to distance itself from the Bush administration and appeal to independents and minorities. Just four years ago, the Republican party nominated a candidate known for his ability to make deals with Democrats-- the Maverick, John McCain. When it came time to pick a running mate, McCain selected Sarah Palin because she appealed to the conservative base of the party. At the same time, the McCain campaign thought it could sell Palin as a maverick and a dealmaker much like McCain himself. 

Today, we are seeing more or less the opposite happen within the ranks of the GOP. After losing the election in 2008, Republicans focused their efforts on the 2010 elections. Their goals were to win back the house, make gains in the Senate, and prevent Barack Obama from achieving any sort of success. By 2009, the Tea Party movement began to sweep the nation and their mantra of "fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets." By the 2010 elections, several champions of this "grass-roots" movement found themselves with a desk in Washington, DC. The Tea Party Caucus now wields a significant amount of power because its members are bound together by a rigid ideology that loves to vote "Nay." Republican candidates at just about every level must swear by these beliefs or risk losing to someone who does in the primary. 

Its not surprising, then, that Mitt Romney has re-aligned his positions to reflect the "new and improved" post-Bush Republican party. To win the nomination, Romney had to defeat a whole slough of proven conservatives like Rick Santorum and Rick Perry-- not to mention, Mr. Libertarian himself, Ron Paul. However, instead of "pivoting to the center" for the general election as presidential elections tend to do (McCain did in 2008, Clinton in '96), Romney shows no signs of slowing down the conservative train. His selection for vice president, Paul Ryan, clearly shows his desire to prove himself as a bona fide conservative. To be sure, Romney and his team have avoided dealing with the "bold ideas" set forth by Ryan's budget last year. Mr. Ryan has publicly bowed down to Romney's core beliefs, such abortion in cases of rape. Nevertheless, the Romney-Ryan ticket reveals a fundamental shift toward the libertarian wing of the Republican party. This shift has manifested itself in the form of a hyphen that both divides and combines the last names of the candidates, placing Romney on the left and Ryan on the right.

As I said in a previous blog post, I thought that Paul Ryan would bring substance and detail to this muddy election. Well, after watching his speech I admit that I was wrong. He distanced himself from his own plans and proposals, choosing instead to bash the President with several false claims and misleading statements. He even omitted the fact that he served on the Simpson-Bowles Debt Panel and voted AGAINST the final proposal. 

I thought Romney gave a solid speech. He managed to meet the expectations of his demanding party and his fiery constituency by telling his story to the American people and appearing like a human being. He received many boisterous rounds of applause after doing a little Obama-bashing and poking fun at liberals. At the end of the day, Romney did exactly what he was supposed to do at the convention: accept the nomination and rally the base. I think its fair to say that Romney has proved himself as a principled conservative with strong business experience. Now, the question is: Can he win?

Should We Care About the Price of Facebook Stock?

I have used Facebook since 2005. I was in 8th grade at the time and I remember thinking that I was so cool for having a profile on a website for college kids. By the start of 9th grade, nearly every kid at my high school was on Facebook. Teachers even began to sign up.

Since, I was in elementary school, I owned a computer and frequently surfed the Internet. I mostly used it for downloading music-- first with Napster, then Morpheus, Kazaa, iMesh, etc.-- and chatting with friends. I also spent a lot of time on Ebaum's World and video game sites.

However, it wasn't until I got a Facebook that I developed a sense of what the internet actually was. Before 2005, time spent on the Internet was not much different than time spent watching television. Although I "actively" searched the web for whatever interested me at the time, I only "passively" consumed this information. In other words, watching a video on Ebaum's world or chatting with a friend online only affected me (and maybe one other person on my AIM "Buddy List"). For me, there was no legitimate sense of community. When I signed up for Facebook, I began to understand the essence of the Internet.

I will acknowledge the fact that many other online communities existed well before the conception of Facebook. You can check out Jonathan Zittrain's book The Future of the Internet-- And How to Stop It to learn more about the evolution of online interactions. AOL was my first online community. I also used MySpace for a very brief period. But these pale in comparison to Facebook and its behemoth of a (free) website. Facebook effectively transformed the Internet by providing each user with a "home base."Instead of connecting to AOL, searching with Google, or visiting Buddy Profiles on AIM, users found that they could log-in to their Facebook pages to check and see if any of their friends had sent them something interesting, like a newspaper article, a video, an inside joke, etc.

Facebook, during its early days, reminds me a lot of "homeroom." In middle school, students were assigned a homeroom teacher/advisor who took attendance, read announcements, and help us with any problems we may have. Most of the time was spent talking to our friends or doing last minute homework. On occasions, we would plan parties to celebrate birthdays, holidays, and other events. They usually weren't much-- chicken biscuits from Chick-fil-a, fun-fetti cupcakes-- but they made the school day more enjoyable.

Facebook functioned very similarly to this until 2008, when it released the Facebook chat. Up until this point, Facebook would only make small changes to the website because it was content with the look and feel, and it respected its users enough to refrain from doing anything drastic. There were some significant changes before 2008-- the Newsfeed and Home Page was created in 2006; but to me, the Facebook Chat changed the game. Rather than functioning as a sort of de facto "homeroom" for Internet users, it became the Student Lounge and the Cafeteria. Facebook chat allowed users to privately connect with their ever-growing list of friends in real time. It made chatting personal, easy, fun. Much more so than AOL group chatrooms or AIM Instant Messaging. You didn't have to remember someone's esoteric username or email address. You didn't have to publish something publically. You didn't even have to lift a finger to call that person. The addition of Facebook chat transformed the company into a constant-- a place that will exist forever. It went from being another "cool" spot to hang out online to being the best and most convenient spot to hang out. It also gave users a sense that they have control of their online presence.

As Facebook institutes more tweaks and changes to the website, it holds the title of world's most popular website-- perhaps of all time. An article from the San Francisco Chronicle found that Facebook will reach 1 Billion users within the next few days. That is insane. Unbelievable. It seems that everyone now has a Facebook. An article from Forbes even says that people who do not have Facebook profiles come across as "suspicious." The website has become the virtual Forum Magnum. People don't just use Facebook to connect and chit chat anymore. They play games, read the news, discuss politics, find work, listen to music, buy clothes, and express their individuality.

Admittedly, there are many people who are still wary of the site. One of my best friends still refuses to sign up despite my enthusiastic pleas. He, along with many others around the world, feel that Facebook is too public. "You can't control what other people post about you" goes a common saying. Some dislike the idea that companies can use your public information to advertise products to you. Still others feel that Facebook is "annoying to constantly check" and it takes away from time that you could spend with others.

These are all legitimate concerns. But I do not think any of them are unique to Facebook itself. Rather, these have been discussed since the birth of the Internet. Even the early personal computers like the Macintosh, Apple II, or the IBM 5150 were thought to be but slightly useful distractions. So were cell phones. Then smartphones. Then tablets (though I think the jury is still out on their utility). In my opinion, we can discuss these aforementioned issues until we are blue in the face and gasping for air; but at the end of the day, it comes down to personal preference: the type and amount of information you are confortable with publishing online and the use of that information by others.

However, now that Facebook is publicly traded on the NASDAQ, an new list of concerns has emerged in the minds of an entirely different group of people. Business men and women, members of the media, political pundits, and even government officials have become more and more interested in the performance of the company since its IPO last May. Clearly, this is to be expected after any company goes public. Nevertheless, the attention that Facebook receives on a daily basis is unprecedented and has, in my opinion, shifted the conversation away from privacy issues and user-related tweaks, towards company earnings, chart readings, and other valuation mechanisms used by stock traders. It even raised questions about high-tech trading software on its first day as a public company.

I understand that public companies have a duty to shareholders to make profits and engender growth and that media and traders are just using the tools available to asses the value of and make predictions about Facebook. I get that. But, I just don't think they fully understand Facebook or the value of its stock. What they do not realize is that Facebook, as designed and lead by Mark Zuckerberg, is not a "normal" or "regular" company. It does not seek to maximize profits or to please shareholders. It does not cater to the needs of its clients (advertisers). It does not derive value from revenue. The reason: because it can't.

Facebook has one purpose: to connect. If it is not able to connect its users with whatever it is they want, it will fail.

As I previously mentioned, Facebook is looking at nearly 1 Billion members. Each member has his/her own profile, friend list, public wall and private inbox, ready for customization. Each of these people joined Facebook to connect with someone else. After using the site for just a little bit, each person finds that Facebook, in fact, connects them with more people, more interesting things. A profile is more than a photograph and personal information. It is a symbiotic relationship between the user and his community. The user provides information and records activity on the site to give life to a cyber-community. Each cyber-community is unique to that individual but overlaps and connects with other users. The more we use the site and connect with our friends and share our interests, the better the site functions and the more value it earns. Since 2003, this system has grown and evolved into an incredible website and massive public company.

For a while, its value depended solely upon what the users themselves thought. Because each user's experience was unique and individualized, the company focused on making that experience the best it could be. Even as it became a highly profitable company, driven by advertising, Zuckerberg and the rest of the company kept the focus on the individual, refusing to change the interface to boost advertisements and, therefore, revenue. But there was one problem with this method of valuation: the site was free. The supply was free and the site functioned beautifully, so the demand continually increased.

How did that work?

More and more people joined the site, attracting more and more companies to purchase advertisements, leading to more profits for the company and better improvements to the website.

After the IPO, however, this cycle changed. The business community, the media, and Zuckerberg himself believed that Facebook was a mature, profitable Internet company like Amazon or Ebay, ready to capitalize (literally and figuratively) on its success by going public. The thinking went something like this: Because Zuckerberg had run such a great company with millions of members and dollars in advertising revenue, an initial public offering would provide him and the company with access to millions of dollars in capital. As a result, many believed, that they could continue to make improvements to the site as a way to bolster earnings. The central (but misguided) assumption was that people would just continue to join the site, which would only reinforce the company's success and value.

This has turned out to be wrong, and indeed problematic for Zuckerberg and his company. After an IPO of about $28 dollars per share, and a peak valuation of $104 Billion ($38/share), the share price has stumbled to just $19.41 in just 3 months. Everyday on CNBC, Fox News, and CNN, some market analyst or business journalist talks about its earnings reports and growth model, saying that it was overvalued and that it lacks a strong foundation for long term profitability. Other, less intelligent pundits, cite Facebook's fall as a symptom of the bad economy. I've even heard people blame Obama.

Although I agree that Facebook was probably initially overpriced, I think the other claims are nonsense. As I stated before, members of the media and the business community do not understand what Facebook is and why it has become so popular. They do not understand that its value stems not from earnings but from its ability to connect and its users' perception of that ability. Most importantly, they do not understand the vision that Zuckerberg has for his website. Zuckerberg wants Facebook to be cool, to be in style, to be used in the best. most innovative ways. Just like the Internet itself. Both the Internet and Facebook were not created for profits, but to connect us to each other, to information, to our favorite things. At the same time, both of them have come to rely on advertising and, thus, profits to continue to exist. Yet, ultimately, their true value depends upon their reliability and functionality in the eyes of its users. Now that Facebook operates as a public company, its economic value has failed the meet the expectations of the business community while its social value has continued to increase. Regardless of its economic value, its presence in our lives will remain constant as long as Zuckerberg and his team can innovate and make the user experience better. But if the focus shifts to the stock price and its quarterly earnings, it is toast.

The Dog Days Are Over

Just under two days after my last post, in which I criticized the shallow nature of the 2012 Presidential election, Mitt Romney gave us all something-- or someone-- to talk about. His name is Paul Ryan, the fiscal conservative from Wisconsin who has recently "captured the G.O.P." according to an article by the New Yorker .

To me, Romney's decision to select Paul Ryan as his running mate was very smart. The VP's job during the election is to rally the base of the party and to promote the message of the candidate. I believe that Ryan will be able to effectively complete those tasks. He is a thoroughbred conservative with a voting record to back that up. Moreover, Ryan has earned an enormous amount of credibility among conservatives for his detailed counterproposals to Obama's budgets and plans. Ryan's credibility extends from inside the Chambers of Congress to the halls of conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute. As Romney has struggled to gain widespread support from the conservative community, his Vice President has become the poster child for post-Bush conservatism. This will be a major selling point as the election draws closer.

Paul Ryan also possesses another important attribute: Washington experience. Romney's message has consistently focused on his business experience and his ability to lead. Ryan offers the Romney campaign a sense of political savvy, grounded in ideology and supported by proposals.

However, I believe that Paul Ryan will bring an entirely new wave of attention (and criticism) to the Romney campaign. A wave that the Republican hopeful has yet to encounter. As I  said in my previous article, Romney has spent the past few months engaged in a back and forth game of point the finger with Obama. This has been very beneficial to his standing the in polls. As one of my reader's pointed out, Obama still has a lead in the most recent polls and this could be credited to his Bain Capital attack ads. That's fine. But Obama has watched his mountain of support wane since his election in 2008 as Romney has slowly but steadily moved into contention without offering any specific proposals, plans, contracts, blueprints, or instructions for his supporters or critics to evaluate. This election has be called one of the most polarized in history. And without any method or mechanism to evaluate either candidate, this is to be expected.

Nevertheless, as we move closer to November 6, I can safely say the conversation will transform into a classic battle of conservative and liberal visions of this country. Paul Ryan has had no problem touting his belief in "personal responsibility" and fiscal discipline. Romney has. Paul Ryan has had no problem offering counterproposals to the Obama administration, even if they appear to be radical. Romney has. As Romney approaches the final months of the election season, he has a lot of political, economic and foreign policy to explain and promote. This time, we will not be asking about his dog.

The Election: Why Mitt Romney is Happy

I have a problem with the 2012 Presidential Election: there is no way for anyone to evaluate it.

Let me explain.

In 2008, President Obama inspired the nation with his message of "Hope" and "Change". Obama released his plan for America, which consisted of health care reform, tax changes and foreign policy goals. Senator John McCain spent the majority of his campaign trying to prove that he was not the same candidate as President Bush. He also released many proposals that illustrated this point. The United States population was given a choice between the old and the new-- they chose the new.

Now I may have simplified the 2008 election for some of you, but the point I am trying to make is that the 2012 Presidential election does not contain anywhere near the same magnitude or the parody as the 2008 election. What we are seeing now is a feud between classmates. A debate of the "nuh-uhs!"

For the past few months, television adds from both candidates have utilized out-of-context soundbites and calls of inexperience to bash their respective opponent. Obama has focused on Romney's work with Bain Capital, the Private Equity group. Romney has repeatedly referred to Obama as a politician in over his head.

To be clear, I believe that the United States has found itself at a crossroads. We, admittedly, must fix a problem with our financial services-based economy and our inefficient government. Republicans spend time calling out the failings of the public sector and propose spending cuts to remedy these problems. Democrats place the blame on Wall Street bankers and their "crony" politicians and political action groups.

While I tend to align myself more with Democrats, I do not think they have it all correct. The Republicans have many legitimate concerns with the direction of the economy and the public sector. The problem is that we have not addressed any of these keys concerns. Democrats have spent their time blaming Republicans for the immobility of congress and the demonization of President Obama. Republicans criticize Democrats for being barriers to progress and political lightweights in terms of budgets and fiscal policy.

I agree with both sides on this criticism. My problem is that Mitt Romney is loving this criticism. He might be able to take it to the White House. The deception is exactly what he needs. Right now, Romney is able to escape any and all criticism directed at the economy. Obama takes it all. Romney does not have to answer for Obamacare because it was passed by Obama (even though he passed nearly the same thing while governor of Massachusetts). Romney does not have to talk specifically about foreign policy-- He just has to question Obama's decisions. Romney does not even have to propose a 4 year budget. He just has to give general statements about what he thinks he may (or may not) do.

Romney's biggest point of concern, at least recently, is his refusal to release his tax returns. However, as much as the Obama campaign tries to use this to their advantage, it will never compare to the other points of contention for Romney. Instead, Obama has found himself constantly on the defense as Romney takes his place as the Republican nominee. As a result Obama has had to go on the offensive and release those negative adds about Bain Capital (which I don't think are a good strategy). The result has been a rise in the polls by Romney. As the economy continues to stagnate, Obama pays the penalty and Romney reaps the rewards.

Granted, Romney still has many barriers to overcome before he becomes president; nevertheless, the ability of the entire conservative community to demonize Obama and his administration is very troubling. Moreover, Romney has been able to easy cruise through this summer without any demand for him to release a major proposal. Romney is essentially running a Presidential campaign on vague generalities. This is an outrage.

If we as voters are supposed to elect a President, we must be able to fairly and EASILY evaluate them. Right now, the Romney campaign is doing their very best to make sure that his cannot happen.

The Arrival

I just arrived in Florianopolis, Brazil and was picked up from the airport by my host mother who is incredibly nice and welcoming! She has two sons, one of whom is my age and seems cool. I'm pretty exhausted from the traveling so I'm just chilling in my room as of now. The house is really nice, at the top of cool "rua" in Floripa. I have a room all to myself with a huge dresser and a nice desk and even a patio that I can go outside and chill on. I think I'm going to have a great time. I just have to get my portuguese up to par!

The Rural Alberta Advantage Rules

Try saying that five times fast...

Well, its not all that difficult, but if you happened to have done it, then you have just affirmed a little known fact: The Rural Alberta Advantage rules, indeed.

Henry Weatherly, an estuary of obscure musical knowledge, has been introducing me to artists since the genesis of our mutual appreciation for good music. But, if my memory serves me well, it was actually my next-door-neighbors Cullen and Will Wallace who sparked my interest in music by introducing me to the wonders of 90s music including Smash Mouth, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Eminem. However, it was not until I heard Will play "The Night Santa Went Crazy" by "Weird Al" Yankovic that I fully realized that I had an abnormal fascination with music.

As soon as I was able to store a few and album song names into my long term memory (which is fairly difficult for an 8 year old), I burned a mix CD for henry to enjoy. It consisted of five or six Weird Al songs in addition to various other musical parodies and 90s radio gems.

I could go on and on about the "Weird Al" stage in my early musical career-- selling copies of the lyrics to "Albuquerque" at school for 25 cents each; futilely trying to memorize the fast part of "Hardware Store" as I listen to it on my Sony Walkman repeatedly.

But, obviously, I grew out of that stage and began exploring all types of music. And as I lay in my bed typing this blog post, I listen to RAA's debut album "Hometowns" and reaffirm their awesomeness. The albums kicks off with "The Ballad of RAA." A soft, sustained organ and a driving kick drum lay the foundation for this melancholic tune as the unique vocals of Nils Edenloff soaked in nostalgia sing of a past life and love. The short ballad shows the band's ability to reconcile its mellifluous chord progressions with its solemn lyrical nature. In addition, the ballad segues beautifully into the next song "Rush Apart" which diverges from the central organ sound, opting instead for the textured minor chords of a semi-distorted guitar to accompany the busy and concise drums of Paul Banwatt. This can also be seen in "The Dethbridge in Lethbridge" and "Drain the Blood,"two favorites of mine

RAA's debut features a pleasant mix of the aforementioned sounds in each of its 13 tracks. I realize that after reading the description above you may not be sold, but rather concerned that this band is more repetitive than innovative. It is true, admittedly, that RAA's sound is neither as complex as Animal Collective (obviously) nor as gritty as Modest Mouse; however, their simple, original song structures supported by active drumming, distinct guitar rhythms and memorable vocals leave every listener wanting more-- more of whatever it is that they are doing.

The real beauty of their music lies in their ability to create a unique sound and consistent mood that transcends each individual song and permeates throughout the entire album. Whenever or wherever I find myself listening to the Rural Alberta Advantage, I almost instinctively choose to listen to more than just one song. Instead, when I stumble across their name in the Artists category of my iPod and think of a song that suites the occasion, I usually just decide to click on track number one "The Ballad of RAA," take the iPod off Shuffle mode, and listen to their debut all the way through. Their songs are fairly short across the board, at least compared to most other bands I listen to, which only further entices me to start from the top and further attests to RAA's musical genius. Many of the tracks on "Hometowns" could very easily be four or five minutes, featuring more instrumental breakdowns and "doo dads" as Henry likes to say. Nonetheless, the album's average song length is about 2 to 2 1/2 minutes. Although each track seems to begin and end abruptly, their is a certain degree of continuity in the melodies that breathes life into the hopeful, yet melancholic mood.

I say all that to say this: Buy this album. It's not expensive and it's very much worth the money. And if you do, give it a couple listens through. I know that these days a song has to grab a listener from the moment it begins, but this album might not-- at least it didn't for me. It took me probably three listens within a three month span to truly enjoy this album. And it was not until I was able to enjoy it that I realized its brilliance. But I know that there are plenty of people who just do not have it in their nature to sit down and listen to an entire album. To y'all, I recommend listening to the last song on the record called "In the Summertime." Perhaps the single greatest song about a person's longing for the summer and the time he spent with his former lover. If that song doesn't get you, I don't know what will.

Not a single song is bad. I would go so far as to say that not a single song is mediocre. Give it a try, it's a Parrish Pick, so put that in your pipe and smoke it