The Deuce and Liberty

Not long ago I got into a debate with a friend of mine. I said to him, "we're not nearly as free as we once were." He responded that we, as Americans, were just as free as we had ever been. This struck me as so ludicrous that I laughed out loud. Now understand, this friend is a bit younger than myself, some thirteen years younger, and he had not experienced first hand the level of freedom that I had in my youth. To prove my point, I tossed out a few examples off the top of my head.

I remember when;

...there were no laws requiring a waiting period to buy a handgun.
...there were no laws requiring seat belts in cars, much less a law requiring that they be worn.
...there were no laws demanding that small children, when in a car, ride in car seats.
...there were no laws preventing anyone from riding in the cargo bed of a pick up truck.
...there were no laws requiring motorcyclists to wear a helmet.
...there were no laws against smoking just about anywhere you felt like having a smoke.
...there were no laws against displaying a creche on public property at Christmas time.
...there were no laws against having a drink at age 18 if you felt like it.

My friend was not impressed but very quickly changed the subject.

Okay. So what? At first glance all the laws that now exist that didn't back in my youth may seem like perfectly good laws. After all, all were designed to save lives and improve the safety of all Americans, and maybe some of them have actually accomplished that. But ask yourself this. When did it become the role of government to save us from ourselves? When did Americans allow their adulthood, their right to pursue happiness, their right to make their own decisions, be hijacked by an all-pervasive nanny state?

Try this experiment. Every time you hear or see the word "government", substitute it with the words "your neighbors." After all, in a representative Republic, which is what we're supposed to have in this nation, laws passed by local, state and national governmental bodies such as city councils, county boards of supervisors and state and national legislatures are in essence the majority view of, you guessed it, your neighbors. The majority rules, unless the black-robed mystic shamans of the Supreme Court consult the oracles and declare otherwise. But that is another argument.

If the lady that lives across the street from you thinks carrying a concealed weapon is a bad idea and should not be allowed under any circumstances, and she advises her elected state representatives of that opinion, and enough of your other neighbors have the same opinion, then in all likely hood carrying a concealed weapon will be outlawed in your state. If you are of the opposite opinion, it doesn't really matter, because you have been out voted by your neighbors. Ah, but the question then arises, do your neighbors have a right to dictate to you that you may not carry a concealed weapon in defense of yourself, your family and other innocents, against threats to your life and the lives of others? I would argue no, she does not. Why not? Because my carrying a concealed weapon is of no consequence to her, except that if the unthinkable should happen, I might be in a position to save her life, which is not a bad thing no matter how you look at it. Laws allowing concealed carry but requiring background checks prior to issuance of a carry permit strike me as reasonable. As much as I have the inalienable right to protect myself, I don't want convicted felons or psychiatric patients carrying.

The bottom line is that your neighbors are foisting a lot of laws on you, diminishing your individual liberty, when they have no rational reason or right to do so. If I don't want to wear a seat belt, what do you care? I may die in an auto accident that I might have survived had I been wearing a seat belt, but what is that to you? Am I not in charge of my own life? I may want to smoke a cigarette while sitting in my favorite tavern listening to Lucinda Williams belt out a 'love gone wrong' song on the juke. As long as the tavern owner doesn't object, who the hell are you to tell me I can't light up? If you're afraid for your own health, go listen to Ms. Williams elsewhere. Surely there's a tavern owner down the street that doesn't allow smoking in his joint. The decision is not mine nor yours to make. Property rights used to mean something in this country, meaning smoking or non-smoking in the tavern used to be the sole decision of the property owner, the tavern keeper. Not any more. The nannies have won that battle.

For all of you dear readers who might reside in New York City, I feel for you. Your Mayor Bloomberg has taken it upon himself to improve your health, whether you like it or not. He has personally outlawed trans-fats, so a lot of your favorite foods like french fries and Chinese food and buttered popcorn aren't quite as tasty as they used to be. Now he's working on a huge tax on non-diet soda, trying to discourage the drinking of said beverages, because he's afraid you're getting too fat for your own good, and God knows it's his business how much you tip the scales at.

The mayor of Los Angeles is working on a law that limits the number of fast food joints in minority neighborhoods because it seems minorities are particularly fond of fast food and hence are getting a little too portly to suit the mayor. I can hear it now, "No Mickey D's, no peace!"

Oh, and lets not forget that that law outlawing incandescent light bulbs is still out there, waiting to go into effect in a few short years. 'Your neighbors' have decided that they're energy inefficient and you can't use them anymore. God help us!

And please, don't give me that cliched argument that when taxpayer's money is involved ( in treating the effects of obesity using Medicare or Medicaid funds ) the public has a right to dictate such things. If that were the case we'd outlaw getting old, because when it comes to spending taxpayer money on health care, nobody racks up the medical expenses like geezers.

So what's the bottom line? It's this; we're all on the fast track to being serfs. Every aspect of our lives is to be dictated by a nanny state made up of pretend Princes, Dukes and Viscounts that we have allowed to bore into our legislatures like ticks on a junkyard dog. Any pretensions we might have of being free citizens, in charge of our own lives and free to make our own decisions are evaporating like fog on a Summer's morning.

Free, truly free Americans, are an endangered species. Maybe the EPA can save us, but don't hold your breath. Spotted Owls and Snail Darters are worth saving...apparently all of us humans, all of us tired, poor huddled masses yearning to breathe free, are just a cancer on Gia the Earth Mother.

Global Warming...er, ah... Climate Change. Yeah, thats the ticket!

As Mr. Quarter writes this post, Al "the Bore" Gore is trudging through the ice and snow towards the Capital Building, ironically, to deliver his latest histrionics on global warming - or is it climate change, to members of Congress. This guy must be making some real $$ from this, 'cause he never, ever gives up! His latest plea is that "the planet will soon reach an irreversible 'tipping point' of damage to the climate," and that the United States must join international talks for a carbon limiting treaty "this year." Yeah, just put that on my tab with the $1 Trillion stimulus bill. Should help to pull this country right up by the boot straps!

I think the "consensus" on global warming is pretty much only in Al's mind, a consensus of one so to speak. You can read the last word on the global warming consensus right here.

Have you noticed that in the past year, the environmental extremists and global warming alarmists have quietly switched the jargon? Now the "crisis" is no longer actually global warming, its "climate change." Ingenious! No matter what happens, if the temperature changes up or down then they are correct in their assessment. Yup, the climate changed, give me your money!

Mr. Quarter has a strong background in geoscience and has spent the past 25 years working in the environmental cleanup industry. This much is certain:

1. The climate has changed in the past and will continue to change.
2. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they are now.
3. It has been warmer and it has been colder than it is now.
4. Changes in climate are more strongly correlated to patterns of solar activity than to atmospheric gases.
5. The climate data set that is trotted out as "irrevocable" proof of global warming is extremely limited relative to even recorded human history, let alone over geologic time scales.
6. Oh-and the reduction of Arctic ice? Well, it seems that accurate measures of arctic ice have only been available since 1979 when satellite photos started being taken. Prior to that it was anecdotal evidence. What a coincidence that the declines in arctic ice began in 1979!

Mr. Quarter is strongly considering writing a book to examine and objectively debunk the climate change myths that Al Gore is currently cashing in on. Think I should do it?

The Deuce Ponders...

If I were George W. Bush, this is what I would have said in my last speech to the American people.

"From September 12, 2001, to January 20th, 2009, over seven years, not one American has been killed, or even wounded, by Islamic terrorists on American soil. If you'll remember, shortly after 9/11 every government representative, every pundit and every MSM anchor were saying the same thing; 'it's not a question of if we'll be attacked again, only a question of when and how.' Not only was there not another attack of the destructiveness of 9/11 on my watch, there were no successful attacks at all. I may have let other things slide, some of them very important, and I regret that. But my first and most important priority was to ensure that innocent American men, women and children were not slaughtered again as they were on 9/11. If history records that was my only success as your president, I will gladly accept that as my legacy. Too all of you strong and faithful Americans who understand the decisions I made and the actions I took to protect us all, I say it has been my distinct honor to be your President and Commander In Chief. Goodbye and good luck. To all of you fair weather friends in Congress and the media who initially supported my invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the broader war on terror, but soon bailed out when the war took longer than you could stomach and U.S. casualties exceeded ten, I say, with all the sincerity I can muster, Fuck You!

What to do with the unlawful combatants currently held at Gitmo?

Leave them there for eternity. Barring that, I hear Rep. Murtha ( D-PA ) has said that the detainees are not particularly dangerous and that he'd be glad to hold them in his district. Well alrighty then...if Gitmo must be closed, let's take Murtha up on his offer...and then see what his constituents say about it. Or we could give all the detainees the 'Muslim Treatment' and cut their heads off and then drag the corpses through the streets of Gitmo with live video feeds to the Middle East. Turn about is fair play, no?

The Issue of President Obama's birth certificate.

For reasons that defy understanding, President Obama has repeatedly refused to allow the state of Hawaii to release his birth certificate, there bye defusing the nagging complaints that he's not a natural born U.S. citizen and hence not eligible to be the President of the United States. He did publish a document on his web site prior to the election, but the document he posted was not a Certificate of Live Birth, and it did not state the location of his birth ( and was claimed to be a forgery by more than one "expert" .
Assuming that Barack was in fact born in Hawaii, I can not come up with a rational reason Barack would refuse to release the document, going so far as to contest ( so far successfully ) numerous law suits filed by American citizens suspicious of his legal status. Here are some possible explanations.

1. The birth certificate would in fact show he was born in Hawaii, but that his father was not the Kenyan man he has identified as his father. Perhaps Barack's mother refused to divulge the father's name, either out of spite to injure a non-supportive father, or out of true doubt as to who the actual father was. Being a bastard doesn't carry the same social shame as it used to, but it can't be good for a presidential candidate.
2. Uh, I can't think of a second reason.

To torture or not to torture.

Here's a simple test to determine how you really feel about torture. Your only child has been kidnapped and is being held for ransom. The kidnappers have communicated to you that you must pay their ransom or they will murder your child. You have 24 hours to meet their demands. You do not have the money they're demanding and can not raise it by the deadline. However, the FBI has captured one of the kidnappers and are convinced, through multiple sources, that he knows where your child is. Question: do you beg the FBI to do everything they can, including torture the kidnapper, to locate your child and attempt a rescue, or do you threaten a law suit if the kidnapper is mistreated in any way? Yes, it really is that simple. Change the scenario to the classic 'ticking time bomb', with millions threatened by a nuclear bomb or a chemical weapon hidden somewhere in New York or L.A. or Washington D.C., and the only rational answer is, "Hell yeah! Do whatever it takes to save those people." If you can not find it within you to torture one kidnapper or terrorist in order to save the life of your child or of a million innocent Americans, then I suggest you are a terribly misguided coward. Of course torture is a disgusting, stomach wrenching reality that we all wish would remain forever unnecessary...but sometimes it is in fact necessary. Man up and deal with it.

Israel invades Gaza.

According to the MSM, the only Palestinians to die in the latest Israeli/Palestinian war are children who were minding their own business at school or a U.N. relief facility or a mosque. It's like the Israelis have these special bombs and tank rounds and artillery shells that seek out and destroy only children under the age of ten.
Have innocent children been killed in this latest Jew vs. Muslim conflict? Undoubtedly. My heart breaks for the death of innocents, in whatever the conflict. But the deaths of these innocents rests on the heads of the Palestinian people, who in 'open and honest' elections chose the terrorist gang Hamas to administer their government. Ever since being elected, Hamas has been lobbing rockets into Israel in an attempt to kill Israelis, including innocent children and otherwise terrorizing the Israeli people. As far as I can tell, the Israelis held their wrath for months, if not years, before deciding they'd had enough and invaded Gaza to stop the rocket attacks.
It has been said that people get the government they deserve. The Palestinians chose Hamas, and finally they are reaping their reward for making such an evil choice.

Being Neighborly.

In Bay City, Michigan, a 93 year old World War II vet froze to death in his own home after his electricity was shut off for non-payment. At least two neighbors were quoted in the press as being outraged that such a thing could happen in America.
I wonder...where were the outraged 'neighbors' when this poor man was dying? Did it ever occur to them to check up on him every now and then? Did they ever ask if he needed anything? Did they ever take him a meal, or shovel the snow off of his sidewalks, or contact the man's family or at least a state agency and let anyone know that their 'neighbor' was in trouble and needed assistance? Did they actually do anything to help?
It breaks my heart to think this man, who risked his life for his country so long ago in far away lands, died cold, alone and forgotten. God help us that we should allow this to happen to any neighbor, much less a veteran.

More to the Point

More to the point of Mr. Quarter's comments in the earlier post "A Few Real Inconvenient Truths", no less prestigious publication than the Wall Street Journal weighs on its opinion page today with the following:

"The stimulus bill is also a time machine in the sense that it's based on an old, and largely discredited, economic theory. As Harvard economist Robert Barro pointed out on these pages last Thursday, the "stimulus" claim is based on something called the Keynesian "multiplier," which is that each $1 of spending the government "injects" into the economy yields 1.5 times that in greater output. There's little evidence to support this theory, but you have to admire its beauty because it assumes the government can create wealth out of thin air. If it were true, the government should spend $10 trillion and we'd all live in paradise.

The problem is that the money for this spending boom has to come from somewhere, which means it is removed from the private sector as higher taxes or borrowing. For every $1 the government "injects," it must take $1 away from someone else -- either in taxes or by issuing a bond [as Mr. quarter pointed out, this bond being purchased by an outside investor, such as China]. In either case this leaves $1 less available for private investment or consumption. Mr. Barro wrote about this way back in 1974 in his classic article, "Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?", in the Journal of Political Economy. Larry Summers and Paul Krugman must have missed it.

The government spending will be a net stimulus only if its $1 goes to more productive purposes than those to which private investors would have put that same There are some ways we may want the government to spend money -- on national defense, say -- but that doesn't mean it's a stimulus."

So, it seems that the developing consensus of more and more "experts" and other commentators is in agreement with Mr. Quarter's assessment. This stimulus plan will not work and will result in the United States being hopelessly in debt.

True Greatness with the Passage of Time

Mr. Quarter could not agree more the with assessment of Andrew Roberts who writes in The Australian that when the background noise of the 24 hour news cycle abates, history will surely judge the George W. Bush Presidency differently. He is correct that the weak kneed elites of the East Coast and Europe are so completely blinded by their Bush Hatred, that only the objective viewpoint of history will truly give George W. Bush the credit he is due.

Excerpts of Mr. Roberts article are provided below because, frankly, Mr. Quarter couldn't have said it any better.

"One thing [historians] will doubtless conclude is that the measures [Bush] took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the US, eavesdrop on terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores, of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be but for the passage of the Patriot Act. There are 3000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airliner conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after September 11."


With regard to Iraq, Mr. Roberts summarizes quite nicely: ".... the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq [was] based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.

History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British government, Saddam Hussein's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course the Secret Intelligence Service and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.

Bush assumed that the coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil program, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter."

"When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was used on only three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qa'ida's chief of operational planning, who divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?"

And bringing Libya into the fold of civilized nations was a Bush accomplishment. Mr. Roberts summarizes as follows: "History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Muammar Gaddafi's WMD program was sitting behind glass in a museum"

George Bush certainly bears little or no responsibility for the current economic crisis as Mr. Roberts ably points out: "The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting on home ownership for non-creditworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead, Bush's very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $US700 billion ($1 trillion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000. "


Mr. Quarter believes that George W. Bush will, in the light of history be viewed as a fine man and one of the greatest Presidents.

A Few Real Inconvient Truths

As the Obamanation gears up for a week adulation and worship, Mr. Quarter thinks it is prudent to look at a few facts and make some observations on the savior's proposed economic stimulus package to see if it makes sense. Perhaps in the process Mr. Quarter can educate the unwashed masses that give "The One" his 80% approval rating before he has even been sworn into office and actually assumed the responsibilities of the Presidency.

Let's start with a couple of well known public facts as assumptions in our analysis:

1. The Democratic congress, at Obama's behest, is currently proposing an economic stimulus package of $825 billion in tax cuts and spending. This may swell to $1 trillion before it is sent to Obama's desk.



2. Obama asserts in his speeches that he will create or preserve 3.5 million jobs with his economic stimulus package.



3. Federal deficit spending projected for 2010, the first year of Obamatopia, is $1.3 trillion.

That means that the government will spend almost $236,000 to create each job. Rather inefficient by any measure. If the median income is around $40,000/year then it appears the program is that the government will subsidize those 3.5 million jobs at a 100% level for 6 years. Alternatively, is would appear that for the money spent, we should realize 6 times the new or saved jobs (21 million). By any measure it is a most inefficient program in terms of bang for your buck.

If you assume job creation every single day of a 4 year Obama presidency (i.e., 1460 days), jobs will have to be created at an average rate of almost 2,400 jobs/day or 72,000 job/month. To put this number into perspective, according to the US House of Representatives Committee on the Budget report issued on July 31, 2008 (a blatantly Democrat spin job, I admit), average job creation needed simply to keep pace with the growth of working age population is 150,000 jobs/month. During the years of the Bush administration, job growth averaged 58,000 jobs/month. During the years of the Clinton administration, job growth average 210,000 per month. Seems like we should get a lot more jobs for the money spent.

The theory of Keynesian economics is that the state should stimulate economic growth and improve stability in the private sector through spending and economic policy, for example: interest rates, taxation, and public projects. As applied in the current economic stimulus plan, the federal expenditures, tax credits and tax rate reductions will total $825 billion. The theory holds that government injection of money into the economy via these means will create excess consumer demand (more people have more money to spend) through jobs creation, etc. The demand is satisfied by spending the money on goods and services, which in turn creates the demand for workers to fill jobs to turn out goods and services, who then spend or invest their money creating more demand for goods and services. The initial feedstock of money is obtained by the federal government selling debt in the form of treasury bills/bonds to finance the spending and by the Federal Reserve buying bonds from banks and depositing the proceeds in the bank's reserve accounts creating excess reserves that the banks can loan.

Can we afford the Keynesian approach to stimulating the economy. While the Bush administration has been reviled as a profligate spendthrift, as a percentage of GDP, the annual federal deficit has been less than 3% annually on average, and less than the 5% average of the Clinton administration. Obama is now proposing annual budget deficits for the next several years approaching 10% of GDP. As you can see from the chart at the left, deficits of this magnitude have not been seen since WWII.

A critical assumption of the Keynesian theory is that the economy has the inherent means to satisfy consumer demand. Another way of stating this assumption is that the economy has sufficient manufacturing capacity to satisfy consumer demand and needs only to add jobs to increase output. Unfortunately, several factors mitigate against the success of Keynesian economics in the United states today. First, the process of globalization over the past several decades has shifted the basis of our economic growth to consumption rather than production. Businesses have moved factories overseas (China, Japan, Latin America) eliminating the capacity to add jobs in this economy. Second, this consumption has been fueled by consumer debt sending US dollars overseas. Third, savings rates in the US are near zero. Fourth, the largest holder of US debt and US currency reserves (our largest trading partner, China), has strong incentives not to invest its excess dollars here and to instead spend domestically to stimulate demand at home because the slowing of our consumer spending has caused a decline in its economic growth that could lead to regime instability.

Another factor that cannot be quantified is the willingness of foreign investors to continue to finance US debt by purchasing US Treasury bills and bonds. Presumably there is some risk aversion limit where US debt becomes so large and the expectation that that debt will be paid back becomes so small that absent huge interest rate increases, there will be no buyers. This will become especially critical as the baby boomer generation begins to draw social security and medicare.

Assuming that the stimulus package works initially as Keynesian theory predicts and more people have more money to spend, thus creating excess demand. First, how is that spending financed. By selling Treasury bills and bonds to foreign investors (a.k.a. China, Saudi Arabia, etc.). How is that excess consumer demand satisfied? By spending. On goods produced overseas. In China. So we send the stimulus dollars that we borrowed from China and Middle Eastern oil producing nations back to to China and Middle Eastern oil producing nations. How many new permanent jobs are created - not many. A few new low paying jobs selling consumer goods and pumping gas until the excess demand is satisfied. A few temporary construction jobs for infrastructure until the government spending stops. Then status quo ante.

Unfortunately, Mr. Quarter does not have much faith in the stimulus package at this point. The likely apparent outcome is that we will go deeply into debt as a nation and will not see any real improvement. Once again, politicians will stir up a great deal of dust and create the illusion of forward movement with no real progress realized. As a check on this analysis,one need merely review the improvement in the US economy during the Great Depression years when the Roosevelt administration began deficit spending in an attempt to put Keynesian theory into practice. The outcome was that the depression lasted until the war production began in the 1940's, creating real jobs through manufacturing.

______________________________

Post-script, January 23, 2009: Mr. Quarter's viewpoint expressed above on the consequences that there may be a point at which U.S. debt load becomes so large that foreign investors will refuse to buy U.S. Treasury Bills/bonds is articulated in detail here in this WSJ article by Peter Schiff.

The Deuce and the Dearly Departed

The economy is a train wreck, the coronation/anointing of B.O. is fast approaching, the governor of Illinois continues his very public "F you!" to just about everyone...and I'm having a real hard time caring. So, lets ignore the As The World Turns soap opera that is our national daily life and consider something else for a little while.

I keep a day planner on my living room coffee table. It's not that my life is so busy I actually need a day planner, I just use it to record the daily comings and goings of my life. It's kind of like a very abbreviated version of a journal. Most entries are mundane; went grocery shopping, paid the bills and balanced the checkbook, watched the game at a buddy's house, cooked ( fill in the blank ) for my dad's dinner. Some entries are more significant; daughter flew in for a weeks visit, son's band signed recording contract, quit job, got a new job, mother died today, took dad to the E.R. for the third time this year.

In my day planner I also record big news events, favorite TV shows for the year, favorite movies, all books read and also the deaths of famous people. I fancy that after my own departure from this Earthly dimension, my children and grandchildren will one day peruse my day planners and think, "Just think what it was like living in those times." It pleases me to imagine that my day to day life will be of some interest to my progeny, if no one else.

My list of famous people who died in 2008 contains 27 names ( somewhat less than the average over the last five years ). Not all famous people who depart make my list. Some are famous enough to merit being mentioned on the evening news, but yet are people I've never heard of, or are not famous enough to me to merit inclusion in my list. Those not included usually fall into two groups; business tycoons and members of the arts community ( which indicate my general lack of interest in the business and arts communities).

My list for 2008 starts with Sir Edmund Hillary, who died on January 10th, and ends with Ertha Kitt, who went to her reward on Christmas day. Sir Edmund made the list for being the first man ( first western man at least) to climb to the top of Mt. Everest. Or, if you're of the X, Y or Z generations, for being the namesake of Senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton ( even though it turns out that Sir Edmund's climb came after the birth of the lizard queen). Ertha was a member of the arts community, but I knew of her because of her singing career, especially her song Santa Baby, one of my favorite Christmas songs ( or maybe it's an anti-Christmas song, you be the judge).

My list for 2008 includes Bobby Fischer, the American chess genius who went to Iceland in 1972 and whupped up on the commie world champ Boris Spasky of the Soviet Union. Bobby was a flake then, and over the years devolved into a paranoid bigot, but for a few weeks in 1972 he brought chess to the forefront of American attention. The country was riveted, whether you were a chess aficionado or not.

The actor Roy Scheider is on the list. A fine actor with a long list of credits, he deserved to be on my list for no other reason than his portrayal of a small town chief of police out of his depth ( pun intended) trying to deal with a series of deadly shark attacks in the classic movie Jaws. "We need a bigger boat" is one of the great scenes in film.

The father of contemporary conservatism, William F. Buckley, is there. I fondly remember his TV show, reclining in his chair with his clipboard in his lap, espousing the great truths of political philosophy with his locked jaw, east coast dialect and the largest vocabulary of anyone in the 20th century.

Author Arthur C. Clark made the list in 2008. I never cared much for his fiction, but he looked so much like a mad scientist with his long gray hair and 19th century whiskers ( side burns ) he was impossible to ignore. Plus, he voluntarily chose to live in Sri Lanka. What westerner does that?

Dick Martin, half of the Rowen And Martin Laugh-In TV show of the '60s, gave up the ghost in '08. Martin played the punch line to Dan Rowen's straight man. Their show was a landmark in television history. There's never been a show of it's comedic and political influence since.

Comedian George Carlin is there. George went national when I was in high school. His Seven Words You Can't Say On TV was his break out comedy album. Me, by buddies and most of young America thought he was hilarious. Older generations were appalled. Sadly, in his later years, George became a raging cynic, describing with glee the descent of humanity and taking pleasure in the destruction of civilization.

Paul Newman left us last year. His role in Cool Hand Luke is a masterpiece of American cinema. And by all accounts, he was a great human being, raising millions of dollars for various charities throughout his life. That's rare in Hollywood these days.

Other notable passings include Harvey Korman, famous for his multiple comedic roles on The Carol Burnett Show; Jim McKay, who's career in sportscasting spanned decades of the Thrill of Victory and the Agony of Defeat; Issac Hayes, the singer songwriter who's Theme From Shaft may be one of the most iconic songs of the late 20th century; Studs Terkel, who recorded the life of the "working man" from Chicago; Michael Crichton, who's fertile imagination gave us Jurassic Park.

Of all of the names on my list for 2008, the most treasured is Charlton Heston. I love epic movies, and Heston is the king of epic movies. He starred in The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, El Cid, The Planet of the Apes, The Agony And The Ecstasy, The Greatest Show On Earth and Khartoum. He wasn't afraid to take artistic chances either, starring in Sci-Fi classics like Soylent Green and The Omega Man. Perhaps, like John Wayne, Heston can be criticized as only "playing himself". But damn, he was so good at it. In his later years Mr. Heston was the President of the National Rifle Association. As a life member of the NRA, I appreciated Heston's willingness to sacrifice what was left of his acting career for his belief in the whole Constitution and not just the 1st Amendment.

On a more personal level, three people I went to high school with passed away in '08. Their names would mean nothing to you, but I recall their faces and their voices. I may have played some ball with them, or been in the school play with them, or simply remember them for their beauty. I remember them in their youth and vigor and exuberance for life. And that makes me remember when I was like that. It's a good memory.

I used to chide my father for paying too much attention to the obituaries. It struck me as morbid for him to be so focused on death. Now I begin to understand. The deaths of our contemporaries, our beloved family members and our dear friends mark the passing of our own lives and the days when we were immortal and convinced that death would never touch us or the ones we loved.