Palin Pulls the Chute

Last fall, a friend who works in television told me, “I supported John McCain until he put Sarah Palin on the ticket – that woman is a deal-breaker!” Now, this pal of mine didn’t know the first thing about Palin’s politics, but she had made up her mind, and she was mad about it, to boot. As American philosopher William James stated, “Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

Now that Palin, the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, has announced her intention to step down as governor of Alaska with sixteen months remaining in her single term, she is once again in the spotlight (as if she ever left it). Some admirers tout Palin as a presidential candidate in her own right, but what is most striking about the Palin phenomenon is the viscerally negative reaction she engenders.

I was in the hall at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota when Palin delivered her famous “pit bull” speech, and the atmosphere was extraordinary. But almost as soon as that night was over, Palin’s performance on the campaign trail, and her poll numbers, slumped.

National media interviews exposed gaps in her knowledge and perhaps this was for the best. After all, if you can’t handle Katie Couric, how will you cope with Vladimir Putin? To that point, I wish Barack Obama had been subject to at least half the scrutiny Palin got. I don’t mean the personal attacks and cracks about her children, I mean the pointed questioning she received from Couric, Charlie Gibson and others. Left-wing media are a refining fire for conservative candidates. Liberals and Democrats have no such advantage. If more reporters had asked frankly of Candidate Obama, “Do you understand the basics?” he might have been better prepared when he attained America’s highest office.

But Palin-hatred did not begin when she booted Gibson’s nebulous question about the “Bush Doctrine.” Rather, as with my TV friend, some folks just detested her from the jump. Whether it’s because of her pro-life views and the threat she poses to modern feminism, as some have suggested, I do not know, but it is a peculiar and ugly thing. In response, comedian Dennis Miller summarized why he likes Palin: “Too many people I don’t respect hate her.”

The unhinged hatred of Palin and idol worship of Obama are inverse symptoms of the same mass psychosis. As I have written before, if a commentator makes even the slightest criticism of Obama, he or she will hear at once from angry, glazed-over nutcakes, issuing pronouncements like, “Obama is building a new world for us all!” To those people I say, softly and with concern, you very badly need to get a life.

And to those who’ve shown hatred toward Palin, I say you’re better than that. Do you really want to be part of a mob that goes after a woman’s teenage daughters and questions the parentage of her infant son in vicious terms? There are excellent reasons to oppose Sarah Palin becoming president of the United States, but many of her harshest detractors couldn’t tell you what they are.

Ideas, not personalities; facts, not caricatures, should prevail in our public discussion. That may seem unrealistic and simple-minded, but the same can be said of politics.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

The President's Parade of Horribles

Former French President Charles de Gaulle observed, “To govern is always to choose among disadvantages.” This wisdom was amplified by Canadian rock super-group Rush, who advised, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” Both axioms are applicable to the set of foreign policy challenges facing U.S. President Barack Obama.

The president of the United States has a unique job description. On any major global issue, he must take a position and, regardless of what stance he adopts, there will be consequences. At times, a leader may want to reserve judgment on a tricky situation of international importance, and that’s okay – if that leader is the prime minister of Burkina Faso. The American president, however, has no such luxury.

Most prominent among the parade of horribles presented to President Obama are the imbroglios in Iran and North Korea.

In the former case, a corrupt theocracy rigged the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then cracked down viciously on the civilian protests that followed. Obama’s response options included detached equivocation, which was his original tack, and stern condemnation of the Iranian regime, to which he correctly switched.

Even if one disagrees with the wisdom of the president’s initial reluctance to antagonize Persian rulers, one can see the logic that visible American support might have undermined the protesters’ credibility in the Middle East. And anyway, for all the grief Obama got for referring to Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini as “the Supreme Leader,” perhaps the president was merely speaking of himself in the third person.

North Korea, meanwhile, presents a more immediate problem. Its dictator, Kim Jong Il, has contemplated launching a nuclear missile toward Hawaii on or around the Fourth of July. In this case, President Obama must choose among strong diplomacy, deploying missile defence, and intercepting or boarding North Korean ships.

Obama has no ideal options in dealing with Iran and North Korea and, whatever choices the president makes, the consequences may not become clear for some time. But choose he must for, as the Romans would say, “Qui tacet consentit” (He who is silent consents).

Commentator Dick Morris has written that prior to World War II, Germany and Italy were emboldened by the West’s acquiescence to the Japanese occupation of Manchuria during the 1930s. When you are president, the world is watching – and that doesn’t just mean Newsweek, Mr. Obama. Harsher observers with unpleasant intentions are sizing you up and figuring what they can get away with.

America’s true strength is not born of its military or its missiles – although this power is nothing to sneeze at – but of its concept and practice of freedom. As another Frenchman, Victor Hugo, put forth, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.” When Ronald Reagan stood at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate and urged Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” those words were more effective than tanks or bombs could have been.

No sensible person suggests the United States should go to war over who is president of Iran, or to depose the maniacal gremlin who rules North Korea. Obama’s great strength is his oratory, or so we are told. Let him deploy it, then, in defence of liberty.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Killer and the Hall of Fame

Last summer, shortly after the Hockey Hall of Fame announced its inductees for 2008, I wrote a column decrying the omission of former Toronto Maple Leafs’ captain Doug Gilmour. Like most opinions published in a newspaper, mine engendered both positive and negative reactions; and, since the topic was hockey, Canadian passions ran high on both sides.

As always, I am thankful to those who took my side and I admire their perspicacity. Among those who disagreed with me, however, objections fit into two major categories: Some supposed that my complaint was born of a Toronto-centric view of Canada’s national winter sport, as though any captain of the Leafs should, ipso facto, be granted entry to the Hall in his dotage (I don’t believe this, actually, although the annual snubbing of Wendel Clark, as well as Gilmour, remains a travesty). Others, meanwhile, wondered about my credentials to opine on hockey matters (I am, after all, an investment advisor), and this latter point is my detractors’ strongest.

In short, I am no more qualified than any of the millions of other Canadian ankle-burners who, as the advertisement says, “have driven an hour for 19 minutes of ice time.” That said, having braved decades of early winter mornings for the sake of a few shifts, I am no less qualified than they are, either.

But as to Gilmour and his claims to fame, I note that no critic took issue with the substance of my case. To wit, this man scored a point a game over 20 NHL seasons with seven different teams. As I wrote last summer: “For a year or so during the 1993-94 season, he was touted in many quarters as the best hockey player in the world. Was there one day, or even a single game, when the same was said of Anderson or Larionov [two players admitted to the Hall in 2008]? Moreover, Gilmour's career included captaincies of two Original Six teams (Toronto and Chicago), a Stanley Cup, a Canada Cup and the Selke Trophy as the NHL's best defensive forward.”

Speaking of that Stanley Cup, Gilmour was the only player to score a Cup-winning goal against the Canadiens in the Montreal Forum, leading the Calgary Flames to victory in 1989 (anything Toronto-centric about that?).

As the Hockey Hall of Fame prepares to vote on its inductees for 2009, it looks to be a bottleneck, with only four spots available and such superstars as Steve Yzerman, Brett Hull, Luc Robitaille, Alexander Mogilny and Brian Leetch eligible for the first time. The funny thing is, with the exception of Yzerman, Gilmour outscored every one of them.

Yes, that is correct: Doug Gilmour scored more career points than Brett Hull, one of the deadliest snipers in hockey history, or Alexander Mogilny, one of only eight players to score over 70 goals in a season (quick – name the others), and he did so while setting the gold standard for a back-checking forward. Granted, Leetch was a defenceman who managed to rack up over 1,000 points on the blue line while winning a Conn Smythe Trophy as playoff MVP with the 1994 New York Rangers, but the point is not to run down these astounding players, it is to highlight Gilmour’s overlooked greatness.

With that in mind, as the Hall of Fame’s Selection Committee convenes on June 23, they should allocate this year’s four available spots to Yzerman, Gilmour, Leetch and Hull. If it seems unreasonable that superstars like Robitaille and Mogilny should be passed over in their first year of eligibility, along with perennial outsiders like Clark, Kirk Muller and Claude Lemieux, that’s because it is. But fame, like hockey, is a tough game.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

In Praise of the Quiet Professional

In a dangerous world, there is a need for the quiet professional. Gen. Victor E. “Gene” Renuart, who heads up both the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), is a loquacious fellow on a personal basis, but he is all business and no bluster when it comes to his job.

Over the course of a week, I was part of a privileged group who accompanied Gen. Renuart on a tour of his operations throughout the United States. Despite its name, USNORTHCOM includes components in the South and East of the country, and our journey took us from the Colorado headquarters to Florida, Virginia, Maryland, and New York. On each stop, we were introduced to personnel in every branch of the military, and given demonstrations on how they guard against threats ranging from cyber attacks to nuclear detonations. These dangers may be extraordinary but, fortunately, so are the folks standing against them.

In his capacity as head of NORAD, Gen. Renuart is equally responsible to Canada’s Defence Minister and Prime Minister as he is to the American Secretary of Defense and President. The foyer of the General’s headquarters features official photos of Stephen Harper and Barack Obama, displayed with equal prominence, eyeing each other from opposite walls. Whatever political or cultural quarrels may exist between the two countries, the working relationship between Canadian and American personnel is seamless – they are all part of the same team.

The issues dealt with by Gen. Renuart and his staff are eclectic and ongoing, involving diplomatic, military and political leaders of both countries. For example, Operation Podium is the mission to protect the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. While overall responsibility for security at the 2010 Olympics resides with the RCMP, NORAD will monitor airspace, backed up by USNORTHCOM aircraft. In this way, U.S. forces normally reserved for protection of that nation’s homeland will help to protect the Canadian skies. This sort of thing requires a tremendous amount of negotiation, consultation and trust.

Consider that in the U.S., all domestic air traffic, whether it is military, commercial or private, is monitored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In Canada, meanwhile, two separate entities direct military and other aircraft. If, for example, a rogue airplane being chased by American fighters were to fly into Canadian airspace, would the U.S. have to abandon the chase, forcing the Canadian military to pick it up? Remember that in this plausible circumstance, we would have two national governments, three traffic control bodies, at least one renegade aircraft and any number of military planes carrying missiles. It is with good reason that the NORAD and USNORTHCOM folks are planning ahead.

Indeed, during a stopover in Washington, D.C., Gen. Renuart had to break off for a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on just this topic, since the diplomatic implications of such a scenario are huge. He reported back that he was very pleased with the substance of their discussion and the progress being made.

The North American missile defence shield may have moved off the front pages since Prime Minister Paul Martin opted to withhold Canada’s official participation in 2005, but protecting the continent from nuclear attack remains part of Gen. Renuart’s day-to-day. He points out that the shield was designed to guard against an isolated launch from North Korea, rather than a massive onslaught from China or Russia, and he adds unequivocally, “It works.” North Korean targeting systems are notoriously unreliable and, that being the case, any missile headed toward Canada’s populated southern portion could reasonably be considered a threat to the American homeland and would be taken out: “That’s just what would happen.” Oftentimes, political and practical realities diverge. When it comes to missile defence, although Canada’s official policy has not been reversed under Prime Minister Harper, the nation still benefits from the system’s aegis.

The most chilling words one hears at NORAD are, “Operation Noble Eagle.” This is the mission by which wayward aircraft are identified, approached, communicated with, warned and – if ultimately necessary – shot down. This includes hijacked passenger planes that threaten to crash into buildings or populated areas. Comfortingly, this scenario includes multiple layers of contingency and consultation and is drilled repeatedly in order to find alternatives.

For a job like this, in which vigilance is required and crucial decisions must sometimes be made, Gen. Renuart’s staff – Canadians and Americans, military and civilian – are precisely the sort of folks you would want. The General himself possesses the rare ability to see things from other people’s point of view, and he is slow to pass judgment on those with whom he disagrees. He is well-suited to his Canada-U.S. portfolio, pointing out, “I’m three-quarters Canadian,” since three of his grandparents were from above the 49th parallel.

Despite the stars on his uniform and the weight of his command, Gen. Renuart issues no sputtering declarations of his own necessity and the nature of war, in the manner of George C. Scott's "Patton" or Jack Nicholson's Col. Nathan Jessop ("You want me on that wall – you NEED me on that wall"). Instead, he understands that in high stakes situations, panic is contagious, but so is calm. That kind of thinking can save lives.

And that is the purpose of this sprawling enterprise – saving lives. Every branch of the military and Coast Guard in two countries works in concert to protect the people of this continent. This is a tough job, and it is being done by remarkable individuals. This is why it is called military “service.” For all the power on display at NORAD and USNORTHCOM, one hears very little about killing or force – rather, these folks have devoted themselves to serving others.

theo@theocaldwell.com



Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in Canada and the United States.

A Bush by Any Other Name

When catastrophe comes along, it opens a market for solutions. For the Republican Party, which has been shellacked in the last two American elections, this means every conservative with a platform is selling some prescription for a comeback.

From David Frum to Rush Limbaugh to Newt Gingrich and beyond, there is no shortage of alchemists who claim they can convert the GOP’s recent lead-balloon performances into electoral gold. History will judge whether some, none, or all of these people were correct, but there is one advocate to whom Republicans pay particular attention: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.

As the son and brother of former American Presidents, Jeb Bush is a person of unique prominence and privilege. He is also anomalous among his Republican colleagues inasmuch as he has maintained some measure of personal popularity, while the party itself has fallen out of favour.

Recently, at the Greenville, South Carolina, home of former U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins (who was appointed by the governor’s brother, President George W. Bush), Jeb Bush laid out his four-point plan for a Republican rebound.

First, Gov. Bush advises that Republicans must recruit new, exciting candidates for the 2010 Congressional elections, while supporting deserving incumbents. Prosaic as this may seem, it is easier said than done. The GOP is in the minority and the tone in Washington, D.C, is as dyspeptic as ever, so it will take some doing to coax quality folks into the contest.

As for supporting Republican incumbents, which ones are deserving and which should go? With the Democrats already within one Senate seat of a filibuster-proof majority, such decisions could mean the difference between a Republican comeback and irrelevance.

Next, Gov. Bush insists the GOP must, “Advocate ideas.” He points out that both Republicans and Democrats have lost Congressional majorities in recent decades because they failed to express their core beliefs, articulately and consistently, between elections. “You can’t just think that people are going to support you because you’re in power,” he observes, adding that his chastened party can, “Regain power by humility.”

Third, he urges the GOP to be forward-looking and eschew nostalgia: “As much as I love Ronald Reagan...the world has radically changed. The world is moving at warp speed and our politics is moving like a tortoise.” By focusing on today’s challenges, rather than the glory days, Republicans can reclaim their relevance to voters, Jeb avers.

Finally, the GOP must, “Get better at the game.” Bush notes that his brother’s victorious 2004 campaign was the last 20th century-style election, with mailers and phone calls and traditional tactics. In 2008, the contest went viral, with Internet-based fundraising and organizing ruling the day. But as the game changed, the GOP did not, and the results speak for themselves. To regain power, Republicans must adopt modern methods.

Jeb Bush’s plan, compact and cogent, is delivered with the calm objectivity of an accomplished fellow who is not running for anything in particular. No longer looking for votes, he is asking folks for nothing more than a few moments of their attention.

But what gives Jeb Bush special resonance among Republicans? Some might suggest that he would never have been governor of Florida in the first place, were it not for his family name, and that’s fair enough. Even so, it was not his surname that achieved high approval ratings for two terms as he contended with hurricanes, health care and education reform, nor was it the Bush moniker that made him the only Republican governor to be re-elected in the Sunshine State.

And it is not as though the Bush brand has been wildly popular in recent years. But just as his host in South Carolina, Ambassador Wilkins, was consistently more popular in Canada than the president who appointed him, so Jeb Bush has crafted a political identity that is distinct from those who share his name.

In fact, if Jeb’s surname were anything but Bush, as the popular two-term chief executive of America’s most important swing state, he very likely would have appeared on the Republican presidential ticket in 2008.

Folks reflexively ask if Jeb Bush will ever run for president. The answer is a definite maybe. At 56 years of age, he could toss his hat into the ring anytime during the next four or more presidential election cycles. Even if he were to wait until 2024, Jeb would still be younger than the 2008 GOP nominee, Sen. John McCain, was on Election Day.

More important than the chronology is Jeb Bush’s sense of service. The governor plainly believes in working for the good of his nation, but he seems genuinely undecided as to if and when he will ever do so again in public office. Such thinking is consistent with the tenets of conservatism and citizen government, whereby individuals put forward the better angels of their nature as an onus of citizenship, not a function of getting elected.

At the moment, the governor comments on those policy issues that mean the most to him, especially education, and he campaigns only for those Republican candidates in whom he truly believes. He receives many invitations to speak on behalf of the party, but he notes that as a private citizen, “I get to pick and choose.” Together with his son, Jeb Jr., the governor has founded Jeb Bush and Associates, LLC, which is involved in a variety of business projects, including infrastructure and consultancy.

Through his years as governor and since rejoining the private sector in 2007, Jeb Bush has shown himself to be less a political family scion than a candid and clear policy advocate. Whether or not he holds office again, he remains a person of consequence.

theo@theocaldwell.com



Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset
Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.

The Future of the CBC

As our national broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation strives to offer original programming in both French and English but, when it comes to accepting taxpayers’ money, the CBC cannot say “no” in either official language. Each year, the enterprise receives over one billion dollars from the federal government. Now that difficult economic times have encompassed even the so-called “Mother Corp.,” the CBC has asked for an additional $60 million to make up an advertising revenue shortfall. Thus far, these requests have been rebuffed, but present circumstances occasion a reassessment of the status quo.

For all the things that make up the CBC – radio, Internet, other properties – it is the television component that is most problematic, in terms of cost and content. Therein lays the quandary – should taxpayers be financing this one broadcaster, even as it competes with private networks like Global and CTV?

As it accepts public funding, does the CBC offer content that could not be provided by private entities and, if so, does that content reflect the Canadian mainstream, or the worldview of the oligarchy that runs the network? Much has been made of the left-leaning nature of the CBC’s news coverage. As I wrote last year, “this is the network that marked the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a special investigation into whether the terrorist attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government (CBC gave ‘both sides’ of the story – note to our national broadcaster: both sides of bollocks is still bollocks).” But liberal media bias is not peculiar to public news outlets, or even to Canada. What sets the CBC apart is the nature and funding of its other TV programming, including comedy and drama.

Experienced viewers of television in this country can detect the bacon-y scent of Canadian production values almost at once. Sets and lighting are odd, wardrobes appear to have been selected in pitch darkness, and casts are made up of the same handful of actors who – when they are not manning picket lines to demand yet more handouts and guaranteed airtime – are mugging unmercifully on the taxpayers' dime. Bad television may not be a crime, but why should innocent folks have to pay for it?

Why, for example, should taxpayers foot the bill for CBC's Little Mosque on the Prairie, an unwatchable politically correct harangue? Adding insult to injury, when 3.7 million people saw the debut episode of this monstrosity – presumably because they had passed out or were trapped under something heavy, rendering them unable to change channels – the aberration got banner reportage throughout the CBC’s 2006-7 Annual Report. That is, just over ten percent of the country tuned in to a production for which one hundred percent of the country was obliged to pay, and this success rate was sufficiently anomalous to be trumpeted to the skies.

In its 2007-8 Annual Report, the CBC acknowledges that Canadian television production is not profitable and avers that private broadcasters receive more money in tax concessions and “other indirect government support” than CBC Television receives in government funding. For the sake of argument, let’s say that’s true. Would this not suggest that the private broadcaster model is a better one? If CBC Television is so hell-bent on producing shows that are “distinctly Canadian” (a phrase repeated so often in CBC publications that it cries out for a drinking game), then wouldn’t this task be made easier by opting for the more lucrative, tax-advantaged route of its private sector competitors, rather than consuming over a billion dollars in direct subsidies every year?

The CBC contends that 80 percent of its television programming consists of Canadian content – notwithstanding the network’s ubiquitous imports like The Simpsons, Coronation Street, Wheel of Fortune, Jeopardy! and myriad American movies – but this misses the point. If there is a need and appetite for the Canadian television the CBC provides, then it should be able to find viewers and private sponsors. If, however, there is an insufficient audience for their product, then the CBC is simply indulging in sanctimony at taxpayers’ expense.

At a time when economic turmoil is forcing governments and individual citizens to make cutbacks, cringe-inducing television is a good place to start. Moreover, if a private model provides greater funding for production, as the CBC suggests, perhaps a change would be in everyone’s interest. There is a place for public broadcasting, but in its current form – accepting billions of taxpayer dollars while bidding against private counterparts for U.S. programming and major events like the Olympics – the CBC does not fill it.

By all means, if the network wishes to take on a truly public role, it would be serving a need. Otherwise, the CBC should let us keep our billion bucks and compete for programming, audiences and advertising dollars as private networks are compelled to do.



theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in Canada and the United States.

It's Not About You

“It’s not about you.”

These are the opening words of the Rev. Rick Warren’s best-selling book, “The Purpose Driven Life,” and the sentiment may be comforting to everyone affected by this unhappy economy.

To wit, we are all in this together. As much as folks who have lost their jobs or seen their incomes and retirement funds shrink may feel alone in the storm, in fact every one of us is touched in some way.

Of course, this is somewhat distinct from Warren’s intention of the words – he advocates a life of service to others with a higher meaning in mind – but the interconnected nature of our travails is worth a look.

In Canada, manufacturers and exporters were having a difficult time even before the current downturn began, owing in part to an inflated currency that made our goods more expensive. But now that our international trading partners, including and especially the United States, find themselves in financial turmoil and unable to buy what we are selling, times get even tougher. This translates to share price declines and massive job losses – 129,000 in January 2009 alone – which means that whether you are an investor, a worker, or both, you got hit.

On Parliament Hill, opposition parties have pledged to force an election if Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty do not turn around the country’s economic fortunes by June. This is Olympic-calibre silliness. One hopes, certainly, that Canada’s economy rebounds in the next three months, but many of the factors affecting that outcome are beyond the powers of any Prime Minister or his cabinet. International trade and the global nature of our economy dictate that recovery or recession depend in large measure on the health of our trading partners. If other countries do not have the demand for our commodities and manufactured exports, the rest is just so much chin music.

As for the United States, the markets have rendered their verdict on the high tax, spending and borrowing prescriptions of a new president and Congress, and it is not good. Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed 20% of its value in the six weeks after Barack Obama became Commander-in-Chief and began to re-centralize the American economy.

Markets don't take things personally. The market has no politics, per se. What you see in the Dow and other indices is an objective assessment government policy and where it could lead. This is distinct from a poll or a vote in that investors’ assets are at stake, not their ideas. Opinions on abortion or government-funded television do not steer the markets; that is the task of steely-eyed pecuniary interest. So when a president announces higher taxes and unprecedented borrowing, market downturns occur as night follows day.

The good news is that this can be remedied, and whether you are in government, invested in the markets, or just working day-to-day, there are reasons for hope and steps you can take.

For example, companies that emerge from this period intact will be leaner and healthier than they were before this started. Bad news and cutbacks are announced and effected during such times, so when companies start to generate income again, it goes straight to the bottom line.

The task for investors, then, is to find the best companies in the best industries and buy with discipline and careful planning. For managers and workers, be brave and alert, ready and willing to adapt to new realities, in the form of concessions and improvements. Lastly, if you are in government, by all means spend and regulate where you must in order to get us out of this fix in the short-term, but then get out of the way and let people’s innovation and initiative lead on. One hopes that somewhere in this list of prescriptions, readers will recognize themselves.

It may seem like cold comfort to be reminded that the global downturn is not something that is happening to you, personally, but it is nonetheless true. More important, bleak as things may seem and despite the blame-laying on all sides, bear in mind that we as a society, a system, and a family of nations will get out of this mess the same way we got into it – together.

theo@theocaldwell.com

Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc., is an investment advisor in the United States and Canada.