Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Looking Backward
Ralph Bellamy wrote a book published in the 1890s about the year 2000. He foresaw people ordering items from a central store using pneumatic tubes to convey their orders. The store would then deliver right to your door. If only he'd known how close he came, huh?
Well, I'm not talking about 2100; I'm talking about 2008. A wonderful year all around. Since I want to make one last post this (that) year, here it is, my look at 2008 in review.
The year began early in January when people watched things explode and yelled out their encouragement. Away from Iraq we watched fireworks and oohed and aahed a lot. People were glad that this was going to be almost the last year where we say "two-thousand-and." One more to go, then it's "twenty-ten" and good for it!
By a little later in January we were all oohing and aahing at the political situation. Hillary was obviously going to win the nomination for the democrats. On the Republican side of things, it wasn't as clear. There was some guy that wasn't from Utah but polled well there, along with a couple of other guys, but most people knew that McCain, nice as it would be, was just too darned old to run. Most people can't be wrong, right?
The economy was slipping a bit early in the year, but it wasn't anything to worry about because the fundamentals of our economy were strong. Of course, the fundamentals of Pompeii were made of solid rock, but that's another story. Much like Pompeii, the nation was swamped with hot economic news later in the year. We're looking forward to drawing and quartering the executives at GM after they fail to repay our loans. Maybe we can repossess a local dealership while we're at it and turn it into a handball court or something.
On a personal note I became a staff writer for an online magazine, which of course shows how desperate some online magazines are for staff writers. They actually pay me for writing, which is a nice change from what happens to my fiction. I'd tell you what happens to my fiction, but there are no age controls on this site. Sorry.
By April or so it became apparent that Hillary wasn't going to win the nomination. Unlikely as it seems, a person who could never ever have stood a chance at mid-century actually became the front runner. That's right, an Hawaiian looked good to take it all. Not only that, but there's a rumor that his father might have been from Africa. Heavens! And on the other side of the contest, old John and his "Straight Talk Express" made it all the way to the convention, at which point the famous bus was pulled in for service and not seen again until after the election. That might have been okay except that he stood up Dave Letterman. Better you insult your mother if you're running for office. Katie Couric, of course, liked the interview a lot.
Of course the economy continued to make news over the summer as the price of gasoline rose to new heights. Highways emptied of oversize, unnecessary hardware, leaving drivers of ordinary sized cars somewhat dazed and confused. Meantime, as the price of oil rose, so did the price of everything else. In fact, by October, Everything Else was selling for record high prices, while the price of oil was dropping like a rock. The airlines, typically unaware that they might need to explain a price policy to someone wanting to, oh I don't know, fly on an airplane, redoubled their efforts to extract extra money out of passengers even as their expenses fell.
With all due respect to business schools everywhere, and that ain't much, I must confess that I am confused how somebody can work for a month overseeing a company's demise, and walk away with twenty-five million dollars! No kidding, there's been a lot of that sort of thing going on this year. It seems especially bad when you consider that I offered, publicly, to do the same job for only three million on my funny pages a few years ago. What ever happened to saving the stockholders' money? I tell you, ethics is just a word, huh? Well, I'll repeat the offer now, although inflation has upped the price to five million dollars. I will take your company in any condition and run it into the ground within two years. Half up front, half upon liquidation/acquisition. Call today before the twenty-teens are all booked up!
Tonight, in the first seconds of 2009, they're going to blow up the Strip again. They have lowered the launch points, which might make it interesting for those on the ground. It will also make it harder to see the show from anywhere but the strip. Downtown there will be a show on Fremont Street featuring tributes to performers from the last century who for the most part simply refuse to die. Well, this century is young. We've hardly had time to make any meaningful mistakes yet. One or two maybe, right George? Yeah.
So anyway, I hope you enjoy 2009 as much as you've enjoyed 2008, maybe even more. One thing, though, I am not asking if it can get any worse! Oh, it can, it can, and I don't want to be the one to spit in fate's eye. 2009 will be wonderful, just you wait and see!
Write you next year!
Steve
Well, I'm not talking about 2100; I'm talking about 2008. A wonderful year all around. Since I want to make one last post this (that) year, here it is, my look at 2008 in review.
The year began early in January when people watched things explode and yelled out their encouragement. Away from Iraq we watched fireworks and oohed and aahed a lot. People were glad that this was going to be almost the last year where we say "two-thousand-and." One more to go, then it's "twenty-ten" and good for it!
By a little later in January we were all oohing and aahing at the political situation. Hillary was obviously going to win the nomination for the democrats. On the Republican side of things, it wasn't as clear. There was some guy that wasn't from Utah but polled well there, along with a couple of other guys, but most people knew that McCain, nice as it would be, was just too darned old to run. Most people can't be wrong, right?
The economy was slipping a bit early in the year, but it wasn't anything to worry about because the fundamentals of our economy were strong. Of course, the fundamentals of Pompeii were made of solid rock, but that's another story. Much like Pompeii, the nation was swamped with hot economic news later in the year. We're looking forward to drawing and quartering the executives at GM after they fail to repay our loans. Maybe we can repossess a local dealership while we're at it and turn it into a handball court or something.
On a personal note I became a staff writer for an online magazine, which of course shows how desperate some online magazines are for staff writers. They actually pay me for writing, which is a nice change from what happens to my fiction. I'd tell you what happens to my fiction, but there are no age controls on this site. Sorry.
By April or so it became apparent that Hillary wasn't going to win the nomination. Unlikely as it seems, a person who could never ever have stood a chance at mid-century actually became the front runner. That's right, an Hawaiian looked good to take it all. Not only that, but there's a rumor that his father might have been from Africa. Heavens! And on the other side of the contest, old John and his "Straight Talk Express" made it all the way to the convention, at which point the famous bus was pulled in for service and not seen again until after the election. That might have been okay except that he stood up Dave Letterman. Better you insult your mother if you're running for office. Katie Couric, of course, liked the interview a lot.
Of course the economy continued to make news over the summer as the price of gasoline rose to new heights. Highways emptied of oversize, unnecessary hardware, leaving drivers of ordinary sized cars somewhat dazed and confused. Meantime, as the price of oil rose, so did the price of everything else. In fact, by October, Everything Else was selling for record high prices, while the price of oil was dropping like a rock. The airlines, typically unaware that they might need to explain a price policy to someone wanting to, oh I don't know, fly on an airplane, redoubled their efforts to extract extra money out of passengers even as their expenses fell.
With all due respect to business schools everywhere, and that ain't much, I must confess that I am confused how somebody can work for a month overseeing a company's demise, and walk away with twenty-five million dollars! No kidding, there's been a lot of that sort of thing going on this year. It seems especially bad when you consider that I offered, publicly, to do the same job for only three million on my funny pages a few years ago. What ever happened to saving the stockholders' money? I tell you, ethics is just a word, huh? Well, I'll repeat the offer now, although inflation has upped the price to five million dollars. I will take your company in any condition and run it into the ground within two years. Half up front, half upon liquidation/acquisition. Call today before the twenty-teens are all booked up!
Tonight, in the first seconds of 2009, they're going to blow up the Strip again. They have lowered the launch points, which might make it interesting for those on the ground. It will also make it harder to see the show from anywhere but the strip. Downtown there will be a show on Fremont Street featuring tributes to performers from the last century who for the most part simply refuse to die. Well, this century is young. We've hardly had time to make any meaningful mistakes yet. One or two maybe, right George? Yeah.
So anyway, I hope you enjoy 2009 as much as you've enjoyed 2008, maybe even more. One thing, though, I am not asking if it can get any worse! Oh, it can, it can, and I don't want to be the one to spit in fate's eye. 2009 will be wonderful, just you wait and see!
Write you next year!
Steve
Labels: Politics, Reviews, Social Commentary
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
I Told You So
Yes, I did correctly predict the outcome of this presidential election on June 18th. The link under the title of this post will take you to my unedited prediction. So, I really did tell you so. So there!
And now, as a service to those who just can't stand the thought of a President Obama, I offer the following. As in the late 1860s, when some people left the country for another country to the south, some of you may wish to do that yourselves. If so, here's a link to a Wikipedia article that you may find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico
Now, if you're serious, here's a link to actual information and resources to set the process in motion:
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/fqimig.html
Now, why would I be so snide? Well, it has to do with the casual way that some folks calling themselves "conservatives" have dismissed people like myself. Here are some sad facts, if that includes you.
Most of the country lives in cities. True, we don't know the difficulties of rural living, but then neither do most Americans. We have, for example, African-American citizens who we see, and work with, every day. Nothing in particular happens as a result. Know what else? We have people who primarily know a language other than English, and they're common as anything. In the really up-and-coming parts of the country, Latino people are not a minority. They're sometimes even a plurality, which is the most any ethnic group gets in our part of America these days. Yes, my country friends, there is no majority ethnicity where I live. We're stuck finding ways to get along with people no matter where they or their ancestors came from.
It is not normal to live in Alaska. At all. There are fewer people in Alaska than in the city of Las Vegas Nevada. And Las Vegas is only a bit over a quarter of the people in Clark County. Alaska is a beautiful place, but it isn't typical in any sense of the word. If it were, it wouldn't be special. They do take more tax money than they contribute on a Federal level, so of course they hate us urbanites who pay for their roads and bridges. Why shouldn't they? (Go ahead, I dare you to answer that one.)
The rising generation believes in working together for a common cause. That's not a boomer thing, but it's a sensible thing. Frankly, the boomer day was mercifully short. Clinton, then Bush. I'd have hated to slip any further, if you get my drift.
So, once again, I told you so!
Steve
And now, as a service to those who just can't stand the thought of a President Obama, I offer the following. As in the late 1860s, when some people left the country for another country to the south, some of you may wish to do that yourselves. If so, here's a link to a Wikipedia article that you may find useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Mexico
Now, if you're serious, here's a link to actual information and resources to set the process in motion:
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/fqimig.html
Now, why would I be so snide? Well, it has to do with the casual way that some folks calling themselves "conservatives" have dismissed people like myself. Here are some sad facts, if that includes you.
Most of the country lives in cities. True, we don't know the difficulties of rural living, but then neither do most Americans. We have, for example, African-American citizens who we see, and work with, every day. Nothing in particular happens as a result. Know what else? We have people who primarily know a language other than English, and they're common as anything. In the really up-and-coming parts of the country, Latino people are not a minority. They're sometimes even a plurality, which is the most any ethnic group gets in our part of America these days. Yes, my country friends, there is no majority ethnicity where I live. We're stuck finding ways to get along with people no matter where they or their ancestors came from.
It is not normal to live in Alaska. At all. There are fewer people in Alaska than in the city of Las Vegas Nevada. And Las Vegas is only a bit over a quarter of the people in Clark County. Alaska is a beautiful place, but it isn't typical in any sense of the word. If it were, it wouldn't be special. They do take more tax money than they contribute on a Federal level, so of course they hate us urbanites who pay for their roads and bridges. Why shouldn't they? (Go ahead, I dare you to answer that one.)
The rising generation believes in working together for a common cause. That's not a boomer thing, but it's a sensible thing. Frankly, the boomer day was mercifully short. Clinton, then Bush. I'd have hated to slip any further, if you get my drift.
So, once again, I told you so!
Steve
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Friday, October 31, 2008
Home Stretch
.
As noted much earlier, I gave up on trying to pick at the campaign ads. I'm just glad that they're almost over. I voted a couple of weeks ago, myself, the second day I could do so in Nevada. I didn't think it would work, but the political calls almost stopped after I voted. Apparently the various campaigns get a list of who isn't worth bothering any more. I did get a call from somebody today urging me to vote on Tuesday, but I told her that they wouldn't let me do it again.
So, thanks to some amazingly bad tactics by McCain, the worst of which has to be thinking that Governor Palin would attract Clinton supporters (Hillary not Bill,) and a smooth, glitch-free, genuine sounding two-years and more effort by Obama, I believe that my prediction from last summer is safe. Well, that's okay with me. I did my part. I've never been a party joiner by temperament, but the total volume of personal lies and misinformation coming from the red side of the campaigns in the past couple of decades finally choked me to the point where I couldn't continue. Great Googley Moogley, attacking Kerry's war record? Give me a break, please! Now Obama is a terrorist Muslim extremist bent on destroying America?
And there are people who believe that crap. If you don't like what Obama is saying, by all means don't vote for him, but please be aware that all the negative crap you hear about him is being pulled from the collective, er, ears of the Republican presidential campaign advising staff.
Frankly, the way they've let the party bullhorn be taken over by states rights (!) and religious nuts, the Republican party deserves to disintegrate so that it can be reborn in a more reasonable form.
The other day John Stewart had the Socialist candidate for president on as a guest. Yes, there is a candidate from the Socialist party. That man, the avowed socialist, called Obama just another capitalist, which is of course what he is.
As near as I can tell, since the days of Reagan, the Republican cause has been increasingly hijacked by a rough coalition of religious wackos, greed-head Libertarian wannabes, and left overs from what used to be the Dixicrat contingent of the Democratic party. The only way such a rag-tag collection can appear coherent is to lie. Not just to the public, but to themselves. They've lied so much that they are convinced that they're right.
I've met a few Muslims in America. Oddly, they have jobs, or businesses, they're students in school (most of the girls wear the scarves where I teach,) and they would do just about anything for America, because, like any sane capitalist, they love this country. Not the picture painted by that idiot Palin, I know, but my version has the virtue of being true.
Once more, here's a quick guide to whether somebody is trying to flim-flam you with a bad argument.
If the explanation they offer is simple and easy to understand, and it feels good to believe that it's true, it almost certainly is wrong.
Think of how many times in the past few decades the Republican argument has been simple and easy to understand, and it felt good to believe that it was true. That, in a nutshell, is why I voted for the other guy.
Not that I trust the Democrats. See, I figure they are going to win, and probably win big, and they, just like the Republicans did, will start to think that they own the truth. They will, over the next ten to twenty years, begin to flim-flam themselves with explanations that are simple and easy to understand, and that feel good to believe are true. Happens every time.
But, just now, it's time to clean out the old idiots and install some new ones. It's what we do every so often, and every time the republic survives. It'll survive this. I promise.
Steve
As noted much earlier, I gave up on trying to pick at the campaign ads. I'm just glad that they're almost over. I voted a couple of weeks ago, myself, the second day I could do so in Nevada. I didn't think it would work, but the political calls almost stopped after I voted. Apparently the various campaigns get a list of who isn't worth bothering any more. I did get a call from somebody today urging me to vote on Tuesday, but I told her that they wouldn't let me do it again.
So, thanks to some amazingly bad tactics by McCain, the worst of which has to be thinking that Governor Palin would attract Clinton supporters (Hillary not Bill,) and a smooth, glitch-free, genuine sounding two-years and more effort by Obama, I believe that my prediction from last summer is safe. Well, that's okay with me. I did my part. I've never been a party joiner by temperament, but the total volume of personal lies and misinformation coming from the red side of the campaigns in the past couple of decades finally choked me to the point where I couldn't continue. Great Googley Moogley, attacking Kerry's war record? Give me a break, please! Now Obama is a terrorist Muslim extremist bent on destroying America?
And there are people who believe that crap. If you don't like what Obama is saying, by all means don't vote for him, but please be aware that all the negative crap you hear about him is being pulled from the collective, er, ears of the Republican presidential campaign advising staff.
Frankly, the way they've let the party bullhorn be taken over by states rights (!) and religious nuts, the Republican party deserves to disintegrate so that it can be reborn in a more reasonable form.
The other day John Stewart had the Socialist candidate for president on as a guest. Yes, there is a candidate from the Socialist party. That man, the avowed socialist, called Obama just another capitalist, which is of course what he is.
As near as I can tell, since the days of Reagan, the Republican cause has been increasingly hijacked by a rough coalition of religious wackos, greed-head Libertarian wannabes, and left overs from what used to be the Dixicrat contingent of the Democratic party. The only way such a rag-tag collection can appear coherent is to lie. Not just to the public, but to themselves. They've lied so much that they are convinced that they're right.
I've met a few Muslims in America. Oddly, they have jobs, or businesses, they're students in school (most of the girls wear the scarves where I teach,) and they would do just about anything for America, because, like any sane capitalist, they love this country. Not the picture painted by that idiot Palin, I know, but my version has the virtue of being true.
Once more, here's a quick guide to whether somebody is trying to flim-flam you with a bad argument.
If the explanation they offer is simple and easy to understand, and it feels good to believe that it's true, it almost certainly is wrong.
Think of how many times in the past few decades the Republican argument has been simple and easy to understand, and it felt good to believe that it was true. That, in a nutshell, is why I voted for the other guy.
Not that I trust the Democrats. See, I figure they are going to win, and probably win big, and they, just like the Republicans did, will start to think that they own the truth. They will, over the next ten to twenty years, begin to flim-flam themselves with explanations that are simple and easy to understand, and that feel good to believe are true. Happens every time.
But, just now, it's time to clean out the old idiots and install some new ones. It's what we do every so often, and every time the republic survives. It'll survive this. I promise.
Steve
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Et tu, Brute?
Last evening I was at the final performance of the fall season of the Shakespearean festival in Cedar City (Utah.) It was a production of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, set in the 1960s. I read Brutus in the eighth grade, so I was anxious to see the play produced, which I never had before.
In the play, as in history, a group of conspirators beguiles Brutus, who is a friend of Caesar, into helping them assassinate Caesar lest he be made king. Brutus did it for Rome, his country, and in the end Shakespeare has Marc Antony refer to Brutus as "The noblest Roman of them all" because his motives were pure. The result of the assassination was, in real history, a bloody civil war and the end of the Roman republic. Brutus's involvement ended up completely reversing what he had set out to do.
Caesar, for his part, had been undoing some of the damage done when rich landowners took over the fields owned by soldiers out fighting for their country. He had been giving the land back to the soldiers. The rich landowners, as you might expect, didn't much like that, and they comprised the core of the conspiracy that murdered Caesar.
In the play there are funerary speeches by Brutus and Marc Antony. Antony's is the more famous, as it is the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech that almost everyone in the English speaking world has heard at least once or twice. The core of Brutus's speech, which Shakespeare wrote in prose instead of his usual poetry, follows (for the whole speech, click on the title of this post.)
Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended.
Substitute "American" for "Roman" as you read that excerpt and see if it looks familiar. It sounds similar to the recent words of an idiot congresswoman from Minnesota, as echoed by an idiot governor from Alaska. (I would never badmouth another state's officials, but she put herself forth as more than that, so she's fair game.) In the case of "the noble Brutus," those words helped end the republic. In this case, they're just idiocy masquerading as political speech, but they still piss me off something terrible.
Someone is less patriotic because they don't follow our American leaders without complaint? Really? And why, again, did we overthrow His Majesty King George III? It's unpatriotic to live in a blue state? When did that start? Blue states contribute the bulk of the federal budget, including the handouts that go to Alaska, amongst others. It's unpatriotic to give you guys money? Okay, then, let us have it so we can do evil things with it like fund day care and health insurance. Better yet, how about all the red states secede and we let you this time? You have no money, no significant industry, and you depend on handouts from those of us who would be free to ignore you forever more. Sounds like a plan to me.
Or wait, wouldn't secession be unpatriotic? If you're not sure, ask Alaska's "first dude." I'm sure he has some words of wisdom on the subject.
In the play, as in history, a group of conspirators beguiles Brutus, who is a friend of Caesar, into helping them assassinate Caesar lest he be made king. Brutus did it for Rome, his country, and in the end Shakespeare has Marc Antony refer to Brutus as "The noblest Roman of them all" because his motives were pure. The result of the assassination was, in real history, a bloody civil war and the end of the Roman republic. Brutus's involvement ended up completely reversing what he had set out to do.
Caesar, for his part, had been undoing some of the damage done when rich landowners took over the fields owned by soldiers out fighting for their country. He had been giving the land back to the soldiers. The rich landowners, as you might expect, didn't much like that, and they comprised the core of the conspiracy that murdered Caesar.
In the play there are funerary speeches by Brutus and Marc Antony. Antony's is the more famous, as it is the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech that almost everyone in the English speaking world has heard at least once or twice. The core of Brutus's speech, which Shakespeare wrote in prose instead of his usual poetry, follows (for the whole speech, click on the title of this post.)
Who is here so base that would be a
bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.
Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If
any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so
vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;
for him have I offended.
Substitute "American" for "Roman" as you read that excerpt and see if it looks familiar. It sounds similar to the recent words of an idiot congresswoman from Minnesota, as echoed by an idiot governor from Alaska. (I would never badmouth another state's officials, but she put herself forth as more than that, so she's fair game.) In the case of "the noble Brutus," those words helped end the republic. In this case, they're just idiocy masquerading as political speech, but they still piss me off something terrible.
Someone is less patriotic because they don't follow our American leaders without complaint? Really? And why, again, did we overthrow His Majesty King George III? It's unpatriotic to live in a blue state? When did that start? Blue states contribute the bulk of the federal budget, including the handouts that go to Alaska, amongst others. It's unpatriotic to give you guys money? Okay, then, let us have it so we can do evil things with it like fund day care and health insurance. Better yet, how about all the red states secede and we let you this time? You have no money, no significant industry, and you depend on handouts from those of us who would be free to ignore you forever more. Sounds like a plan to me.
Or wait, wouldn't secession be unpatriotic? If you're not sure, ask Alaska's "first dude." I'm sure he has some words of wisdom on the subject.
Labels: Politics
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Debate on Dehook
My strongest impression of this evening's debate between McCain and Obama was that I was watching Nixon vs Kennedy all over again. (Yes, I did watch the first time, I'm old, get used to it.) What I mean is that the issues and all may have been a tie. Actually, both candidates just kept on saying what they've been saying, which seems odd in McCain's case, except that maybe he really is sincere. The issues may have been a tie, but the debate went to Obama. Why? Because McCain looked like hell, is why.
I've always sort of liked John McCain, so frankly I feel sorry for the man. He looked stiff, unable to sit, almost frozen in his posture, and he didn't walk around very well either. It reminds me of the way TV commercials sometimes project a completely different message when you watch them with the sound off.
But, as an educator, I know something that many do not. We remember a whole lot more of what we see than what we hear. A whole lot, like 50 percent to 14 percent, something like that. (I haven't looked that up in a while, but the ratio is in that neighborhood.) So, since the speech was pretty much forgettable, heck I could have written it for them, the visuals are bound to be what sways people. And visually, Obama looked relaxed, at ease with himself, in control, and McCain looked stiff, pained, and a bit inept. Too bad, but it does make my initial prognostication look better than ever. Thanks, guys!
Steve
I've always sort of liked John McCain, so frankly I feel sorry for the man. He looked stiff, unable to sit, almost frozen in his posture, and he didn't walk around very well either. It reminds me of the way TV commercials sometimes project a completely different message when you watch them with the sound off.
But, as an educator, I know something that many do not. We remember a whole lot more of what we see than what we hear. A whole lot, like 50 percent to 14 percent, something like that. (I haven't looked that up in a while, but the ratio is in that neighborhood.) So, since the speech was pretty much forgettable, heck I could have written it for them, the visuals are bound to be what sways people. And visually, Obama looked relaxed, at ease with himself, in control, and McCain looked stiff, pained, and a bit inept. Too bad, but it does make my initial prognostication look better than ever. Thanks, guys!
Steve
Labels: Politics
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Securities Analysis
Economics in college starts with a course numbered 101. Since apparently those in charge of some of our largest financial institutions never had that course, I offer herewith a short overview of the topic. And no, economics isn't really dismal at all. It's fairly simple. I give you Economics 001.
The link under the title of this post takes you to the Amazon listing for the newest edition of the famous book Securities Analysis, by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd. There was no field called "Securities Analysis" before this book appeared. That there now is speaks volumes for how influential this volume has been. (Amazon has special re-issues of older editions for collectors, by the way.)
The book includes a long-term analysis of real value increase for various types of investment, tracked over a period of seventy-five years. This is real increase in value, not simply stuff that costs more dollars to buy.
Hey, you'll say, real estate, right? No, sorry. Real Estate, long term, appreciates a teensy-tiny bit, but not very much.
Oh, then bonds and other debt, right? No, actually, over the long term, if you want to lose money, then debt is the way to go. Not giving other people loans directly, like a bank, but investing in debt securities, like Wall Street has been doing so much of the recent decades. In a word, neither debt securities or real estate will do much for you long term.
Real estate will preserve value, but not increase it. Debt won't even do that.
What has been going on during this wonderful "Ownership" decade? Speculation in real estate and debt! Wowie! Can there be a connection between that fact and our current economic problems? Maybe? Could be? The book Securities Analysis came out in 1940. Maybe the war took people's mind off of the simple facts it presents. I couldn't say, but obviously the business schools aren't using this volume for anything more serious than a doorstop these days.
I'm not entirely kidding when I say we should consider shutting down Harvard and Yale and other prominent business colleges. Just look at the damage they do!
But, back to the topic at hand, you might ask, "What does appreciate in terms of real value over the long term?" The answer is productive industries. That is, factories that make things that people want to buy. Automobiles, for instance, or steel, or lines notebook paper, or corn chips or any thing that someone is willing to pay for. How much do stocks in manufacturing appreciate? Over seventy-five years the total gain in value was twenty-five percent. Put another way, over three-quarters of a century, making things people want to buy returned 125% of the investment it took to start the enterprise in the first place.
[That may sound like a small amount, but remember that over those decades many, many people made a good living producing the manufactured goods.]
So, if you want to make money and keep on making money, the thing to do is to produce something that people want to buy and keep selling it to them. Great googley-moogley, General Motors can't even seem to figure out how to make an automobile that people want to buy! How in heck can we expect to make money off of General Motor's debt? We can't, that's how. There's no way, no how, nada to be gotten from a company that has forgotten how to make items of value.
Oh, they can sell them. The automakers convinced Americans to buy SUVs because the SUVs are cheaper to make (fewer regulations for safety and fuel economy) and more profitable. Unfortunately, compared to most foreign automotive products, the average US-made SUV is like a poor cousin that looks like a car, but is so poorly put together that, sooner or later, and these days it's sooner, people are going to quit buying them. Still, the success of marketing SUVs and other products of, really, questionable value, led GM and others to put money into marketing and promotion that should have gone into making the product better and better. That, in short, is why GM is in trouble, and why Toyota sells so many pickup trucks these days.
GM's troubles are a part of the larger problem of not sticking to the fundamentals of a sound economy. Those fundamentals are, according to the guys who literally wrote the book, producing things of value and selling them for more than it cost you to produce them. All the slick marketing in the world won't overcome a cheaply made truck. And, all the wishful thinking in the world won't turn a debt security into a good investment.
Got all that? Okay, then.
Class dismissed!
The link under the title of this post takes you to the Amazon listing for the newest edition of the famous book Securities Analysis, by Benjamin Graham and David Dodd. There was no field called "Securities Analysis" before this book appeared. That there now is speaks volumes for how influential this volume has been. (Amazon has special re-issues of older editions for collectors, by the way.)
The book includes a long-term analysis of real value increase for various types of investment, tracked over a period of seventy-five years. This is real increase in value, not simply stuff that costs more dollars to buy.
Hey, you'll say, real estate, right? No, sorry. Real Estate, long term, appreciates a teensy-tiny bit, but not very much.
Oh, then bonds and other debt, right? No, actually, over the long term, if you want to lose money, then debt is the way to go. Not giving other people loans directly, like a bank, but investing in debt securities, like Wall Street has been doing so much of the recent decades. In a word, neither debt securities or real estate will do much for you long term.
Real estate will preserve value, but not increase it. Debt won't even do that.
What has been going on during this wonderful "Ownership" decade? Speculation in real estate and debt! Wowie! Can there be a connection between that fact and our current economic problems? Maybe? Could be? The book Securities Analysis came out in 1940. Maybe the war took people's mind off of the simple facts it presents. I couldn't say, but obviously the business schools aren't using this volume for anything more serious than a doorstop these days.
I'm not entirely kidding when I say we should consider shutting down Harvard and Yale and other prominent business colleges. Just look at the damage they do!
But, back to the topic at hand, you might ask, "What does appreciate in terms of real value over the long term?" The answer is productive industries. That is, factories that make things that people want to buy. Automobiles, for instance, or steel, or lines notebook paper, or corn chips or any thing that someone is willing to pay for. How much do stocks in manufacturing appreciate? Over seventy-five years the total gain in value was twenty-five percent. Put another way, over three-quarters of a century, making things people want to buy returned 125% of the investment it took to start the enterprise in the first place.
[That may sound like a small amount, but remember that over those decades many, many people made a good living producing the manufactured goods.]
So, if you want to make money and keep on making money, the thing to do is to produce something that people want to buy and keep selling it to them. Great googley-moogley, General Motors can't even seem to figure out how to make an automobile that people want to buy! How in heck can we expect to make money off of General Motor's debt? We can't, that's how. There's no way, no how, nada to be gotten from a company that has forgotten how to make items of value.
Oh, they can sell them. The automakers convinced Americans to buy SUVs because the SUVs are cheaper to make (fewer regulations for safety and fuel economy) and more profitable. Unfortunately, compared to most foreign automotive products, the average US-made SUV is like a poor cousin that looks like a car, but is so poorly put together that, sooner or later, and these days it's sooner, people are going to quit buying them. Still, the success of marketing SUVs and other products of, really, questionable value, led GM and others to put money into marketing and promotion that should have gone into making the product better and better. That, in short, is why GM is in trouble, and why Toyota sells so many pickup trucks these days.
GM's troubles are a part of the larger problem of not sticking to the fundamentals of a sound economy. Those fundamentals are, according to the guys who literally wrote the book, producing things of value and selling them for more than it cost you to produce them. All the slick marketing in the world won't overcome a cheaply made truck. And, all the wishful thinking in the world won't turn a debt security into a good investment.
Got all that? Okay, then.
Class dismissed!
Labels: Politics, Reviews, Social Commentary
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Sexist Attacks on Palin Must End!
I'd love to do this rant myself, but instead, just click here and read a better writer's take on this issue.
S.
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Tina Fey Does Sarah Palin
Believe it or not, I'm not Tina Fey's biggest fan. We might even be related for all I know, but there are comedians I like better. However, I did watch her portrayal of Sarah Palin on SNL, and I was amazed at how well she channeled the appearance and mannerisms of the Governor.
As for the commentary from both sides, screw 'em. It's really funny, and for the record it hits Hillary just as hard. "I didn't want a woman to be president, I wanted me to be president!"
The link in the title is a Google search. There are many places to view this video. Pick one. You'll be glad you did.
Steve
As for the commentary from both sides, screw 'em. It's really funny, and for the record it hits Hillary just as hard. "I didn't want a woman to be president, I wanted me to be president!"
The link in the title is a Google search. There are many places to view this video. Pick one. You'll be glad you did.
Steve
Put an Economy in Your Tank?
The US economy is a pretty hot topic right now. Recent events have given a boost to Obama and caused McCain to scramble. Well, that's all well and good for the game they're playing, but it doesn't get at any solutions.
The reason that government can't get at the solution is that government isn't the root of the problem, whatever "I fight Republicans" McCain might say. The enemy, as a famous cartoonist once liked to say, is us.
Economics is all voodoo, really. If everybody thinks things are going well, then things are going well. If money is circulating freely, then it's easy to think things are going well. When the flow of money gets interrupted, it gets harder to believe in prosperity. Money, in case you didn't know, has to move around to be of any use, which is a tenet of Economics 101. What happened recently was that there was a bubble in real estate prices, caused, as are all bubbles, by unbridled enthusiasm causing undue speculation. The government can hardly be expected to tell people how to feel, so getting a bubble under control is a problem. In fact, bubbles, like the dot com bubble in the nineties, and like the real estate bubble in the, what are these years, two-thousands maybe, tend to expand until they burst. Then sometimes the government is called in to clean up the mess.
In the current case, you'll note that the agencies set up to help people buy houses, which had worked well for decades, suddenly found themselves overburdened. Prior to those agencies being created, it was almost impossible for a would-be homeowner to get a mortgage, and if you did it had a huge balloon payment after five or ten years. Essentially, you had five to ten years to pay off the place, or you were out the door. How much better it has been for everyone after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created during the Great Depression. Home ownership has become the norm, and quite a few people, as I read today, actually pay off their mortgages and own their homes outright. Over thirty percent, according to an article in today's paper. That's fantastic, compared to the way things used to be.
Unfortunately, the people, always a dicey group when it comes to common sense, managed to find a way to abuse the system set up to help people buy homes. When it worked for a few the ideas on how to do it spread until too many people were abusing the system, buying things they really never would be able to pay off. Lately we've seen the results.
My point, then, is that McCain and Obama are having a good time saying nasty things about each other over the credit crisis. ("Worst financial crisis since the Depression!") But that's all it is, just two guys who for some pathological reason want the world's worst job, sniping at each other. The truth, while less glamorous, is that we all caused the current financial mess, and we'll all have to fix it. That is the case no matter who wins this upcoming election.
I guess that moving seven-hundred billion dollars all of a sudden should have some sort of effect, huh?
S.
The reason that government can't get at the solution is that government isn't the root of the problem, whatever "I fight Republicans" McCain might say. The enemy, as a famous cartoonist once liked to say, is us.
Economics is all voodoo, really. If everybody thinks things are going well, then things are going well. If money is circulating freely, then it's easy to think things are going well. When the flow of money gets interrupted, it gets harder to believe in prosperity. Money, in case you didn't know, has to move around to be of any use, which is a tenet of Economics 101. What happened recently was that there was a bubble in real estate prices, caused, as are all bubbles, by unbridled enthusiasm causing undue speculation. The government can hardly be expected to tell people how to feel, so getting a bubble under control is a problem. In fact, bubbles, like the dot com bubble in the nineties, and like the real estate bubble in the, what are these years, two-thousands maybe, tend to expand until they burst. Then sometimes the government is called in to clean up the mess.
In the current case, you'll note that the agencies set up to help people buy houses, which had worked well for decades, suddenly found themselves overburdened. Prior to those agencies being created, it was almost impossible for a would-be homeowner to get a mortgage, and if you did it had a huge balloon payment after five or ten years. Essentially, you had five to ten years to pay off the place, or you were out the door. How much better it has been for everyone after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created during the Great Depression. Home ownership has become the norm, and quite a few people, as I read today, actually pay off their mortgages and own their homes outright. Over thirty percent, according to an article in today's paper. That's fantastic, compared to the way things used to be.
Unfortunately, the people, always a dicey group when it comes to common sense, managed to find a way to abuse the system set up to help people buy homes. When it worked for a few the ideas on how to do it spread until too many people were abusing the system, buying things they really never would be able to pay off. Lately we've seen the results.
My point, then, is that McCain and Obama are having a good time saying nasty things about each other over the credit crisis. ("Worst financial crisis since the Depression!") But that's all it is, just two guys who for some pathological reason want the world's worst job, sniping at each other. The truth, while less glamorous, is that we all caused the current financial mess, and we'll all have to fix it. That is the case no matter who wins this upcoming election.
I guess that moving seven-hundred billion dollars all of a sudden should have some sort of effect, huh?
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Something About Nevada
I mean something about the local races in my area. We have two Senators, neither of which is up for re-election this year. Good for them. One of them is Harry Reid. In case you think he's Satan in a suit, he's got at least four more years. Sorry about that.
But there is one race of interest. My district is represented by John Porter. He's been doing that for a while now. The Democratic challenger is Dina Titus, who we last saw almost beating the embarrassment that is our governor two years ago. She runs a good race, but objectively she has one or two things working against her. She has a southern accent, and she's a Democrat. I don't mind either of those things, but a lot of people do. Still, it's apparently a close race.
I say that because Porter has attack ads running demonstrating that Titus is "out for herself," as opposed as being for "us," and Titus of course is answering with her own version of the truth. Some of what they say is true, some is borderline, some is pulled out of somebody's, um, ear. But my point is that it is a close enough race to engender that sort of thing, which is a novelty for Southern Nevada. Apparently, around Clark County we are becoming more liberal, which must be consternating to our friends up in Elko County, to say the least. (I'll worry more about that when they reject our tax contributions, but that's another story.)
In any event, I really don't think Porter has done a bad job at all, but he has some real competition. This is the lady who almost beat out the Republican for governor, and there are those, mostly those who don't like to see Nevada laughed at, who now wish that she had. Porter, who I'd have thought had his district sewed up pretty well, is fighting for his job.
Just goes to show, you never know.
S.
But there is one race of interest. My district is represented by John Porter. He's been doing that for a while now. The Democratic challenger is Dina Titus, who we last saw almost beating the embarrassment that is our governor two years ago. She runs a good race, but objectively she has one or two things working against her. She has a southern accent, and she's a Democrat. I don't mind either of those things, but a lot of people do. Still, it's apparently a close race.
I say that because Porter has attack ads running demonstrating that Titus is "out for herself," as opposed as being for "us," and Titus of course is answering with her own version of the truth. Some of what they say is true, some is borderline, some is pulled out of somebody's, um, ear. But my point is that it is a close enough race to engender that sort of thing, which is a novelty for Southern Nevada. Apparently, around Clark County we are becoming more liberal, which must be consternating to our friends up in Elko County, to say the least. (I'll worry more about that when they reject our tax contributions, but that's another story.)
In any event, I really don't think Porter has done a bad job at all, but he has some real competition. This is the lady who almost beat out the Republican for governor, and there are those, mostly those who don't like to see Nevada laughed at, who now wish that she had. Porter, who I'd have thought had his district sewed up pretty well, is fighting for his job.
Just goes to show, you never know.
S.
Labels: Politics
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Pork Barrel Spending, Earmarks, and the President
One of the issues McCain has been raising is the one about Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending. His running mate, in particular, has been making hay with that "Bridge to Nowhere" issue. They both are, of course, blowing smoke all over the place.
That is because the United States Senate is composed of one-hundred people who each represent a State, not the interests of the United States, and not the interests of any particular district. It's a great thing when your state gets that new army base, highway, research institute, testing ground, or bridge. I don't fault Palin at all for seeking and accepting Federal money for Alaska. That's what the Governor ought to do, and when one of her Senators was working to do just that, everything was working as designed. I do wonder why she's denying what was, after all, simply doing her job.
Okay, no I don't. McCain is trying to say that he'll cut out such earmarked spending. Horse Hockey! He will do no such thing. As the Senator from Arizona he's been working on behalf of Arizona for years, and doing a decent job of it. As President he has absolutely no power to stop the Senate from doing a single thing that the Senate wants to do. The House of Representatives, maybe, can slow down Senatorial proceedings, if they get organized enough. The President, though, hasn't got a snowball's chance.
So, McCain, quitcher lyin' about that, willya?
But, while we're on the subject, here's a link to check out. It's from the Tax Foundation. It's a chart showing Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005. Alaska is right up near the top, so it is easy to see that in 2005, the last year reported, that State collected $1.84 in Federal aid for every dollar it paid in. That puts it at the third-highest reimbursed State in the nation. Just because it's handy, I can report that Alabama, another famously "Red" state that hates the Federal Government (Heart of Dixie and all that) received $1.66 for every dollar it paid in that same year. Alabama was #7.
I had to check my state. We received $0.49 for every dollar we paid, which makes us #49 in the nation for receiving earmarked spending. Just wanted you to know that I know whereof I speak.
To pull a few more out of my ear, South Dakota ranked #8, Montana #11, Maine #13. Amongst "Blue" states where those dangerous Liberals hold sway, California ranked #43 ($.78 per dollar), Massachusetts was #40, ($.82 per dollar), and New York #42 ($.79 per dollar.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current people calling themselves "conservatives" should be ashamed of themselves. Whiny and spoiled children is more like it. All that, and they put us into the deepest financial hole that the country's been in in many decades. And that after that damned, horrid, evil, anti-christian, how can I come up with a bad enough adjective, Bill Clinton saddled us with not only eight years of peace and prosperity, but a budgetary surplus to boot! No wonder the Conservative base is upset: They think that their livelihood of sucking at the public teat is endangered by an Obama candidacy!
And as for Nevada. #49? Harry Reid, what have you been up to?
Steve
That is because the United States Senate is composed of one-hundred people who each represent a State, not the interests of the United States, and not the interests of any particular district. It's a great thing when your state gets that new army base, highway, research institute, testing ground, or bridge. I don't fault Palin at all for seeking and accepting Federal money for Alaska. That's what the Governor ought to do, and when one of her Senators was working to do just that, everything was working as designed. I do wonder why she's denying what was, after all, simply doing her job.
Okay, no I don't. McCain is trying to say that he'll cut out such earmarked spending. Horse Hockey! He will do no such thing. As the Senator from Arizona he's been working on behalf of Arizona for years, and doing a decent job of it. As President he has absolutely no power to stop the Senate from doing a single thing that the Senate wants to do. The House of Representatives, maybe, can slow down Senatorial proceedings, if they get organized enough. The President, though, hasn't got a snowball's chance.
So, McCain, quitcher lyin' about that, willya?
But, while we're on the subject, here's a link to check out. It's from the Tax Foundation. It's a chart showing Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005. Alaska is right up near the top, so it is easy to see that in 2005, the last year reported, that State collected $1.84 in Federal aid for every dollar it paid in. That puts it at the third-highest reimbursed State in the nation. Just because it's handy, I can report that Alabama, another famously "Red" state that hates the Federal Government (Heart of Dixie and all that) received $1.66 for every dollar it paid in that same year. Alabama was #7.
I had to check my state. We received $0.49 for every dollar we paid, which makes us #49 in the nation for receiving earmarked spending. Just wanted you to know that I know whereof I speak.
To pull a few more out of my ear, South Dakota ranked #8, Montana #11, Maine #13. Amongst "Blue" states where those dangerous Liberals hold sway, California ranked #43 ($.78 per dollar), Massachusetts was #40, ($.82 per dollar), and New York #42 ($.79 per dollar.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the current people calling themselves "conservatives" should be ashamed of themselves. Whiny and spoiled children is more like it. All that, and they put us into the deepest financial hole that the country's been in in many decades. And that after that damned, horrid, evil, anti-christian, how can I come up with a bad enough adjective, Bill Clinton saddled us with not only eight years of peace and prosperity, but a budgetary surplus to boot! No wonder the Conservative base is upset: They think that their livelihood of sucking at the public teat is endangered by an Obama candidacy!
And as for Nevada. #49? Harry Reid, what have you been up to?
Steve
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Saturday, September 06, 2008
The Front Fell Off
I just got a copy of this video from my brother in Ohio. Besides getting the brunt of the brutal campaign ads this year, Ohio is fighting a nasty economic downturn, so anyone living there can use some entertainment. Click the title of this post, or this link, to see an Australian politician talking about an oil tanker. One of which "the front fell off." It was towed . . . oh, well, just click the link and you'll see. It's a funny one, for sure!
Labels: Info, Politics, Reviews, Social Commentary
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Abstinence Only Strikes Again
Mostly I agree with Obama that family isn't a part of politics. And I don't think any more or less about Governor Palin because her daughter is pregnant, either. Her business. But it does illustrate the problem with an inflexible approach to a complex problem. Telling a teenager to "just not have sex" is like telling them "just don't eat anything at all." It may make you feel better, but it won't stop them. I don't imagine that a social conservative ever really told her children how sex works, because, well, it may make them want to try it out. Trouble is, sex is an instinct, not exactly a choice, although some people claim to have chosen against doing it. Teenagers are squirrely, at the best of times, though, and expecting one to behave just because you taught "abstinence" is pretty damned silly.
The only way to get them to control their behavior is to be straight about the consequences, and to tell them how to go about it without ruining their futures. Maybe Palin's daughter wanted to marry that guy, maybe she would've anyway, but I'm thinking that is unlikely. Now she's stuck with the results of a lapse of what little reason she had as a teenager, sort of condemned by her own ignorance.
And, sorry, Obama, but that isn't the sort of thinking I want going on in a high-ranking official. Maybe McCain should've put some more thought into his choice. Or not. His campaign, his problem.
S.
The only way to get them to control their behavior is to be straight about the consequences, and to tell them how to go about it without ruining their futures. Maybe Palin's daughter wanted to marry that guy, maybe she would've anyway, but I'm thinking that is unlikely. Now she's stuck with the results of a lapse of what little reason she had as a teenager, sort of condemned by her own ignorance.
And, sorry, Obama, but that isn't the sort of thinking I want going on in a high-ranking official. Maybe McCain should've put some more thought into his choice. Or not. His campaign, his problem.
S.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, August 17, 2008
The Campaign So Far
Well, okay then, I had intended, and tried a few times, to critique individual efforts as seen on TeeVee in Nevada. I can't do it like that. It's just too much.
First, both candidates are talking about the other candidate. No better way to lower yourself than to talk about your competition. Remember those funny Pepsi ads where the Coke delivery guy sneaked a Pepsi? Sure. Did they make you buy Pepsi? Didn't think so. Pepsi has more problems than simply making a joke about Coke could possibly cure.
(Coke and Pepsi are trademarked by their manufacturers. And don't you hate reading this legal BS?)
In my opinion, Obama's chief recommendation is that he's not a boomer. He's not an idealist at all, so far as I can tell, so that's one thing. One thing.
The problem I have with McCain is all that "leadership" hoo-hah. I mean, a lot of people flew missions over Vietnam and managed not to get shot down and imprisoned. Who would you rather have been following in 'Nam? The guy who got you imprisoned in a hell-hole for years or the guy who landed back at the base outside of Saigon? Leadership? Anybody can lead, I suppose. Hell, Bush led us quite decisively until everyone finally caught on to his lack of anything approaching the brains of a rutabaga. Was that a good thing? McCain led right to a North Vietnamese prison. He behaved wonderfully while there, but a leader?
On the other hand, what can Obama lead? Well, we don't know, and that's a problem.
So, instead of talking about anything substantive, these two quite honorable and likable guys are sniping at each other. Well, what can you do? The plan to get us out of this economic mess is apparently fairly simple, since Bill Clinton figured it out sixteen years ago. Maybe we should elect him again. There are worse things than eight years of peace and prosperity, as it turns out. Failing that, I haven't heard anything but hot air from either candidate concerning what should be done. Besides, as the recipient of criticism of Presidential policy always points out, Congress passes the laws in the first place.
The worst negatives about both candidates? McCain is too easy to tie to Bush, plain as that. And Obama? Well, crimony, folks, he's a black guy. PC or not, that's still a drawback on the public stage.
Well, I still think the black guy's gonna win over the old white dude. Conventions start directly. Stay tuned for the show.
Steve
First, both candidates are talking about the other candidate. No better way to lower yourself than to talk about your competition. Remember those funny Pepsi ads where the Coke delivery guy sneaked a Pepsi? Sure. Did they make you buy Pepsi? Didn't think so. Pepsi has more problems than simply making a joke about Coke could possibly cure.
(Coke and Pepsi are trademarked by their manufacturers. And don't you hate reading this legal BS?)
In my opinion, Obama's chief recommendation is that he's not a boomer. He's not an idealist at all, so far as I can tell, so that's one thing. One thing.
The problem I have with McCain is all that "leadership" hoo-hah. I mean, a lot of people flew missions over Vietnam and managed not to get shot down and imprisoned. Who would you rather have been following in 'Nam? The guy who got you imprisoned in a hell-hole for years or the guy who landed back at the base outside of Saigon? Leadership? Anybody can lead, I suppose. Hell, Bush led us quite decisively until everyone finally caught on to his lack of anything approaching the brains of a rutabaga. Was that a good thing? McCain led right to a North Vietnamese prison. He behaved wonderfully while there, but a leader?
On the other hand, what can Obama lead? Well, we don't know, and that's a problem.
So, instead of talking about anything substantive, these two quite honorable and likable guys are sniping at each other. Well, what can you do? The plan to get us out of this economic mess is apparently fairly simple, since Bill Clinton figured it out sixteen years ago. Maybe we should elect him again. There are worse things than eight years of peace and prosperity, as it turns out. Failing that, I haven't heard anything but hot air from either candidate concerning what should be done. Besides, as the recipient of criticism of Presidential policy always points out, Congress passes the laws in the first place.
The worst negatives about both candidates? McCain is too easy to tie to Bush, plain as that. And Obama? Well, crimony, folks, he's a black guy. PC or not, that's still a drawback on the public stage.
Well, I still think the black guy's gonna win over the old white dude. Conventions start directly. Stay tuned for the show.
Steve
Labels: Politics
Thursday, August 14, 2008
And Another One Aimed at Obama
There is a problem with this one in that I can't find it on the Internet. If I do, I'll come back and add a link here. Otherwise, this ad ran during the Olympics, so maybe you saw it. It ends with a feminine voice saying that "Obama will protect our families."
I mean, gag me with a spoon! From what? And how, for heaven's sake? The way we're protected from illegal drugs? The way being humiliated in airports keeps us safe from people using airplanes to blow up buildings? How?
Barak, give me a break, okay?
Steve
I mean, gag me with a spoon! From what? And how, for heaven's sake? The way we're protected from illegal drugs? The way being humiliated in airports keeps us safe from people using airplanes to blow up buildings? How?
Barak, give me a break, okay?
Steve
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Yo, Jesse!
The thing about Jesse Jackson and his big mouth getting caught dissing Barak Obama is that it really doesn't matter much to the current situation. What I mean is, Obama doesn't need endorsed by Jackson, and the litany of apoligies from Jesse is sort of funny.
Jesse is old school in terms of race. He cut his teeth, so to speak, during the era of Martin Luther King, Junior. Doctor King walked the walk right into a national holiday (sick joke there) but Jesse was just a titch too late for that. Still, he did what he thought was right, which is more than a lot of people do. But, the mere fact that Barak Obama is doing what he is doing suggests that the world in which Jesse Jackson developed his view of Black and White relations is no longer operating, at least not full-tilt and everywhere like it was in 1964. I know, there are idiots out there who want to kill Obama to save the purity of "White, Christian America," but on the other hand, pundits are favoring Obama to win in November. Last I checked, Barak Obama was, technically at least, a black man. Too bad for the racist crowd, but there it is.
While Jesse is probably sincere, he's also representative of the same old era that, well, Bush represents. In everything from the price of motor fuel to the response to terrorist threats, I read and hear people who are reacting as they would have in 1955, and then I also hear people who think maybe they can think up a better way to confront current realities. Jesse is one of the former. Barak Obama claims to speak for the latter. Since the latter are politicised in a way no one has been since before the Boomers took over, and since the Liberals amongst us won't vote for McCain if he gets an endorsement from God, I have one more reason to join other prognosticators in once again saying that I think Barak is gonna win. Tum-te-tum.
Jesse is stuck in a mindset from the middle of the previous century. To him what the young politically active are saying makes no sense. Maybe it makes no sense to you, either, which makes sense to me. Really, every generation grows up in a world different from the one its parents grew up in. And every group of parents screws up somehow. They have to, because that's what parents do. Then the old fossils don't see the world that the youngsters are living in, and it bothers the old ones. Well, that's life. Unfortunately for the old dudes and dudettes, every year there are fewer of them and more of those darned kids! (Which explains why the old guys never, ultimately, get away with it. Right, Raggy?)
My point in this rambling is that Jesse may be sincere and maybe did a lot to advance the cause of racial justice in the past. Now, though, I'll bet a lot of younger voters wish he would just dry up.
Steve
Jesse is old school in terms of race. He cut his teeth, so to speak, during the era of Martin Luther King, Junior. Doctor King walked the walk right into a national holiday (sick joke there) but Jesse was just a titch too late for that. Still, he did what he thought was right, which is more than a lot of people do. But, the mere fact that Barak Obama is doing what he is doing suggests that the world in which Jesse Jackson developed his view of Black and White relations is no longer operating, at least not full-tilt and everywhere like it was in 1964. I know, there are idiots out there who want to kill Obama to save the purity of "White, Christian America," but on the other hand, pundits are favoring Obama to win in November. Last I checked, Barak Obama was, technically at least, a black man. Too bad for the racist crowd, but there it is.
While Jesse is probably sincere, he's also representative of the same old era that, well, Bush represents. In everything from the price of motor fuel to the response to terrorist threats, I read and hear people who are reacting as they would have in 1955, and then I also hear people who think maybe they can think up a better way to confront current realities. Jesse is one of the former. Barak Obama claims to speak for the latter. Since the latter are politicised in a way no one has been since before the Boomers took over, and since the Liberals amongst us won't vote for McCain if he gets an endorsement from God, I have one more reason to join other prognosticators in once again saying that I think Barak is gonna win. Tum-te-tum.
Jesse is stuck in a mindset from the middle of the previous century. To him what the young politically active are saying makes no sense. Maybe it makes no sense to you, either, which makes sense to me. Really, every generation grows up in a world different from the one its parents grew up in. And every group of parents screws up somehow. They have to, because that's what parents do. Then the old fossils don't see the world that the youngsters are living in, and it bothers the old ones. Well, that's life. Unfortunately for the old dudes and dudettes, every year there are fewer of them and more of those darned kids! (Which explains why the old guys never, ultimately, get away with it. Right, Raggy?)
My point in this rambling is that Jesse may be sincere and maybe did a lot to advance the cause of racial justice in the past. Now, though, I'll bet a lot of younger voters wish he would just dry up.
Steve
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
First of a Series -- Obama's "Dignity"
[Click the title of this post to view the video about which I write.]
Campaign videos make me tired. Advertising for products is bad enough (do you really think that new truck makes you less of a wimp?) But political ads achieve new heights of misinformation and tedium. So, I'm going to alternate between McCain and Obama ads and give my fully biased opinion of the claims and content. 'Kay?
First, the Barack Obama ad from June 30th. It is nationwide. I do not see the regional ads for regions in which I do not live. Sorry. I'll try to find some on the web, and probably succeed, but for now I'm going to concentrate on ads with national distribution.
The link, by the way, goes to Huffington Post. She's a born-again Liberal, and so likes Obama. My intent is to give you a way to see the ad if you don't have a television, not to endorse Ariana. (She was pretty funny on Bill Maher's show about twelve years ago, though.)
Now, to the ad. I shall quote, and respond in places. Quoted lines start with ">".
Campaign videos make me tired. Advertising for products is bad enough (do you really think that new truck makes you less of a wimp?) But political ads achieve new heights of misinformation and tedium. So, I'm going to alternate between McCain and Obama ads and give my fully biased opinion of the claims and content. 'Kay?
First, the Barack Obama ad from June 30th. It is nationwide. I do not see the regional ads for regions in which I do not live. Sorry. I'll try to find some on the web, and probably succeed, but for now I'm going to concentrate on ads with national distribution.
The link, by the way, goes to Huffington Post. She's a born-again Liberal, and so likes Obama. My intent is to give you a way to see the ad if you don't have a television, not to endorse Ariana. (She was pretty funny on Bill Maher's show about twelve years ago, though.)
Now, to the ad. I shall quote, and respond in places. Quoted lines start with ">".
> SCRIPT - "Dignity"
> OBAMA: I'm Barack Obama, and I approve this message.
> Announcer: He worked his way through college and Harvard Law.
> Turned down big money offers, and helped lift neighborhoods stung by job loss. Fought for workers' rights.
Up to here, it's just hyperbole. Anyone can do that. Check out Apple Computer.> He passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by eighty percent. Passed tax cuts for workers; health care for kids.
What? Excuse me? How did he pass a law all by himself? Was he king of some place? Did he threaten to blow up the Statehouse, or whatever. And where was this law supposedly passed in the first place. He passed tax cuts? Wowzers, what a guy! Same with the health care for kids.
> As president, he'll end tax breaks for companies that export jobs, reward those that create jobs in America.
All by himself again, I suppose?
> And never forget the dignity that comes from work.
That line reminds me that people who don't work much always come up with glowing praise for people who do. Not much in the way of salary, but plenty of glowing praise.
Okay, that's my first critique of a campaign ad. I picked on Obama because I gave McCain some grief last week about how being a POW doesn't qualify you for the presidency. I'll come back to him and his latest ad that's showing nationwide anon. Until then, thanks for your attention.
Labels: Politics
Sunday, July 06, 2008
In Defense of General Clark
Sometimes things just tick me off. For example, when General Clark said that being held prisoner of war doesn't qualify somebody to be the President, he was simply stating a fact. All sorts of people have been prisoners of war, some of them probably borderline idiots, some of them geniuses. Either way, having been shot down and held prisoner does not in any way involve any skills or activities that you need to be the President. That is nothing against Mr. McCain, either. He's not disqualified because of that experience either. It simply has nothing to do with whether he'd be a good President. It shows that he can take a tough situation and come out smiling, which is good, but hardly sufficient for running the country.
Well, that isn't what ticks me off. What ticks me off was the media reaction, as if it was terribly politically incorrect to suggest such a thing, followed by Barak Obama repudiating Clark. Why? Obama didn't say it in the first place, and besides, it's true. If you're really a new voice, Mr. Obama, how about sticking to the facts as they are and not tending to the spin so much?
That sounds flip, but consider if you will, Al Gore. If you've seen him at all since he lost to that other guy in 2000, you'll have noticed that he seems different now that he's not running for office. He looks happier, for one thing (an Oscar and a Nobel Prize will do that, I suppose.) And also he seems personable, funny, and at ease with himself. Imagine if, in his campaign, he had ditched his spin-loving advisers and just spoken the way he speaks in his appearances today. Why, we'd know for sure what would have happened if Gore had been President on 9/11. Either total disaster, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place, according to the fringes. But my point is, Mr. Gore would have been elected, and the past seven years would have unfolded differently.
So, if you're listening Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain too for that matter, if you want my vote, ditch those fools telling you how to manipulate the press and speak plainly and honestly, the way Americans are supposed to talk. That would be a breath of fresh air, no matter what your politics might be.
Well, that isn't what ticks me off. What ticks me off was the media reaction, as if it was terribly politically incorrect to suggest such a thing, followed by Barak Obama repudiating Clark. Why? Obama didn't say it in the first place, and besides, it's true. If you're really a new voice, Mr. Obama, how about sticking to the facts as they are and not tending to the spin so much?
That sounds flip, but consider if you will, Al Gore. If you've seen him at all since he lost to that other guy in 2000, you'll have noticed that he seems different now that he's not running for office. He looks happier, for one thing (an Oscar and a Nobel Prize will do that, I suppose.) And also he seems personable, funny, and at ease with himself. Imagine if, in his campaign, he had ditched his spin-loving advisers and just spoken the way he speaks in his appearances today. Why, we'd know for sure what would have happened if Gore had been President on 9/11. Either total disaster, or it wouldn't have happened in the first place, according to the fringes. But my point is, Mr. Gore would have been elected, and the past seven years would have unfolded differently.
So, if you're listening Mr. Obama, and Mr. McCain too for that matter, if you want my vote, ditch those fools telling you how to manipulate the press and speak plainly and honestly, the way Americans are supposed to talk. That would be a breath of fresh air, no matter what your politics might be.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I'm Going to Predict, Now
I said I wouldn't go into politics until after the conventions, but the ad from McCain I just saw sewed it up for me. It's a good ad, don't get me wrong. Not the one about how his grandfather came home from the war and died the next day (what a bite, huh?) I mean the one that says, and I think I'm quoting here, at least it's close: "John McCain opposed Bush and sounded the alarm on global warming. Five years ago." So far as I know, that's true, and I put it to McCain's credit.
However, Bush has enough supporters left (thirty percent is a lot of Americans) and many of them plain don't believe in that global warming stuff, as they might say. McCain just alienated enough supporters that I figure Obama is going to have to get caught with an intern to lose. Or maybe not even then, as Bubba Clinton's ratings stayed surprisingly strong throughout his adventures.
And that got me thinking about generational politics. I've said before that Obama is not a boomer, which I consider a plus. Well, McCain shares that plus because he's not a boomer either. Unfortunately, McCain is a member of the "silent generation," a generation that never did much of anything except invent rock and roll, protest the war in Vietnam, push for and support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, little nothings like that for which they get zero credit. Invent rock and roll and still get called "silent?" It boggles the mind. But, as a member of that generation, McCain is not going to be taken as seriously as he ought to be by boomers, who are a large and influential voting bloc. Add that bit of weakness to the Obama charismatic appeal to the young, and poof, we have another President from Illinois.
So I'm going away out on a shaky limb and saying that Barak Obama is going to win in November. Remember, you read it here first.
However, Bush has enough supporters left (thirty percent is a lot of Americans) and many of them plain don't believe in that global warming stuff, as they might say. McCain just alienated enough supporters that I figure Obama is going to have to get caught with an intern to lose. Or maybe not even then, as Bubba Clinton's ratings stayed surprisingly strong throughout his adventures.
And that got me thinking about generational politics. I've said before that Obama is not a boomer, which I consider a plus. Well, McCain shares that plus because he's not a boomer either. Unfortunately, McCain is a member of the "silent generation," a generation that never did much of anything except invent rock and roll, protest the war in Vietnam, push for and support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, little nothings like that for which they get zero credit. Invent rock and roll and still get called "silent?" It boggles the mind. But, as a member of that generation, McCain is not going to be taken as seriously as he ought to be by boomers, who are a large and influential voting bloc. Add that bit of weakness to the Obama charismatic appeal to the young, and poof, we have another President from Illinois.
So I'm going away out on a shaky limb and saying that Barak Obama is going to win in November. Remember, you read it here first.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
My Every Prognostication Comes True
Sure it does, and you know it. That is, they settled it before the convention and Obama won. See, I told you.
Truth is, I'm a bit surprised, but popular sentiment sometimes turns into a flood and there you are.
So the lines are drawn for fall, sort of. Of course, there's the issue of who Obama will get as a running mate. Hillary on the ticket would create a juggernaut. Then we'd see, wouldn't we, who would and would not move to Canada.
Of course, this is all due to a vast left-wing conspiracy. The one that arose in response to the vast right-wing conspiracy that was complaining about Mr. Bill and the Intern. Yowsah!
So, now we have a major party nominee who is a black man (wink wink, eh?) Anyway, for what it's worth, here we are and the fun is about to start. After the conventions I'll do some more prognosticating. Until then, I'm tired of politics for now. Back to chasing kids off of my lawn . . .
Truth is, I'm a bit surprised, but popular sentiment sometimes turns into a flood and there you are.
So the lines are drawn for fall, sort of. Of course, there's the issue of who Obama will get as a running mate. Hillary on the ticket would create a juggernaut. Then we'd see, wouldn't we, who would and would not move to Canada.
Of course, this is all due to a vast left-wing conspiracy. The one that arose in response to the vast right-wing conspiracy that was complaining about Mr. Bill and the Intern. Yowsah!
So, now we have a major party nominee who is a black man (wink wink, eh?) Anyway, for what it's worth, here we are and the fun is about to start. After the conventions I'll do some more prognosticating. Until then, I'm tired of politics for now. Back to chasing kids off of my lawn . . .
Labels: Politics
Sunday, June 01, 2008
The Weekly World News Is Alive!
And writing legal briefs from Carson City, apparently. My wife sent this to me. She's an appellate lawyer in Las Vegas, so she sees these things more easily than most of us. First, some quick background.
We have a die-hard, I won't raise taxes, family values are important, white bread governor in Jim Gibbons. Jim filed for divorce from his wife about six weeks ago, and vowed to keep the proceedings private. His wife, Dawn, has other ideas. She hired an attorney who just loves publicity, and he filed this motion, posted by Las Vegas Sun reporter John Ralston. It is the most over-the-top bit of prose I've read since the W. W. News went away. If there were aliens in it, it would be perfect. Do check it out. My wife, on her blog, discusses the appropriateness of the document as a legal instrument. That's fine for the lawyers, but for writers, this is almost as entertaining as that "Dark and Stormy Night" contest.
No adjective is too outrageous! No verb is too over-the-top! No noun is safe! And, the governor better watch his chitlins, too, is all I can say after reading this juicy bit.
I expect I'll be seeing it in line in the grocery store by next week. But for now, you can click the title of this post if you wish, and check it out for yourself.
Oh, okay, here's a short excerpt:
Mrs. Gibbons is entitled to her day in Court, in an open court, not in a secret proceeding, but a public one that will provide her with a forum in which to be publicly exonerated, and in which she can fix blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the woman who the has, for years, stalked the man who could give her the public persona and prestige, that, apparently, she craves, and, for which she is willing to, concurrently, abandon her husband.
That's one sentence from page six. Now do you believe me?
We have a die-hard, I won't raise taxes, family values are important, white bread governor in Jim Gibbons. Jim filed for divorce from his wife about six weeks ago, and vowed to keep the proceedings private. His wife, Dawn, has other ideas. She hired an attorney who just loves publicity, and he filed this motion, posted by Las Vegas Sun reporter John Ralston. It is the most over-the-top bit of prose I've read since the W. W. News went away. If there were aliens in it, it would be perfect. Do check it out. My wife, on her blog, discusses the appropriateness of the document as a legal instrument. That's fine for the lawyers, but for writers, this is almost as entertaining as that "Dark and Stormy Night" contest.
No adjective is too outrageous! No verb is too over-the-top! No noun is safe! And, the governor better watch his chitlins, too, is all I can say after reading this juicy bit.
I expect I'll be seeing it in line in the grocery store by next week. But for now, you can click the title of this post if you wish, and check it out for yourself.
Oh, okay, here's a short excerpt:
Mrs. Gibbons is entitled to her day in Court, in an open court, not in a secret proceeding, but a public one that will provide her with a forum in which to be publicly exonerated, and in which she can fix blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of the woman who the has, for years, stalked the man who could give her the public persona and prestige, that, apparently, she craves, and, for which she is willing to, concurrently, abandon her husband.
That's one sentence from page six. Now do you believe me?
Saturday, May 31, 2008
The Hil and Obama Show
Okay, just to keep up with what's been going on, here for the record is my prediction for the balance of the Democratic campaign for candidacy.
First, if they settle things before the convention, as many say they must, I do believe that Obama has a chance. Maybe a good chance. Things have been blowing his way, so to speak, and he might just convince enough Democratic elected officials (the "superdelegates" from around the country) to support him to get the nomination. Or he may not. I favor Obama about 3 - 2 if the nomination is settled prior to the convention.
On the other hand, if it goes to the convention, then I stick with my original assertion, which is that Denver is situated at an altitude that causes uncomfortable stress in those not acclimated to it. It takes three or four days to six weeks to get acclimated. Therefore, many delegates, not all certainly, but enough, will be stressed by the lower air pressure of the mile-high city. When you are not feeling well, you tend to go with a known quantity. That, of course, favors Hillary over Barak. So, if the nomination goes to the convention, I favor Hillary, let's say 2 - 1, to be nominated.
I don't know the likelihood of them getting a nominee before August. They will not have one from the three remaining primaries, but after that I really have no idea. So, I can't really pick a winner. If it's 50-50 that it will go to the convention, then Hillary is my favorite. If not, well, you call it because I can't.
For the fall, Hillary or Obama will most likely win. You can like that or not, but the emotion of the country is in favor of a Democrat to be elected, and that sort of emotional logic is what always rules the day. Like I wrote once before, for those of you who just can't stand it, Canada is just to the south of Detroit. Eh?
;-)
First, if they settle things before the convention, as many say they must, I do believe that Obama has a chance. Maybe a good chance. Things have been blowing his way, so to speak, and he might just convince enough Democratic elected officials (the "superdelegates" from around the country) to support him to get the nomination. Or he may not. I favor Obama about 3 - 2 if the nomination is settled prior to the convention.
On the other hand, if it goes to the convention, then I stick with my original assertion, which is that Denver is situated at an altitude that causes uncomfortable stress in those not acclimated to it. It takes three or four days to six weeks to get acclimated. Therefore, many delegates, not all certainly, but enough, will be stressed by the lower air pressure of the mile-high city. When you are not feeling well, you tend to go with a known quantity. That, of course, favors Hillary over Barak. So, if the nomination goes to the convention, I favor Hillary, let's say 2 - 1, to be nominated.
I don't know the likelihood of them getting a nominee before August. They will not have one from the three remaining primaries, but after that I really have no idea. So, I can't really pick a winner. If it's 50-50 that it will go to the convention, then Hillary is my favorite. If not, well, you call it because I can't.
For the fall, Hillary or Obama will most likely win. You can like that or not, but the emotion of the country is in favor of a Democrat to be elected, and that sort of emotional logic is what always rules the day. Like I wrote once before, for those of you who just can't stand it, Canada is just to the south of Detroit. Eh?
;-)
Labels: Politics
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Term Limits
This isn't a philosophical discussion of term limits. I've always thought they were a bad idea, but my argument is taken from real life. Ripped from the headlines, so to speak.
The ring road around Las Vegas is officially known as the Bruce Woodbury Beltway. Bruce Woodbury is a Clark County Commissioner. In spite of being an elected official in Nevada, Mr. Woodbury has never attracted a hint of scandal, and his promotion of the beltway as a necessary step in building our transportation system is hailed even by the sometimes goofy editorial staff at the local paper. In short, he is the sort of elected official you wish you could have more of, and if you can't have that, you wish he could stay in office forever.
Unfortunately, a few years ago Nevada passed a strict term-limiting measure that almost without exception forces elected officials out of office. Now, I hear on the news and read in the paper that even some die-hard term limits supporters are pushing to have an exception made for Mr. Woodbury. That would be nice, that that isn't how the law works. Unfortunately, the honest, hard-working, public-minded electee is dumped along with everybody else, and whomever is elected to his seat is unlikely to do as much good for the county as has Mr. Woodbury. Not for nothing did they name a highway after him.
So you see my point. The reason term limits is a dumb idea is that the officials you'd like to keep in office forever are thrown out right along with the scoundrels. We have term limits on the national level, of course. Every two years a congressman has to stand for re-election. If you don't like him, work against him and throw him out. Every six years the same thing happens to senators. And the president, who really is term-limited, for no good reason that I've ever heard other than that Roosevelt was a Democrat (I honestly don't know Woodbury's political affiliation; nobody seems to care,) actually can be thrown out after only one term, as was, most recently, President Bush, and before him President Carter. There is no reason to artificially limit how long someone may serve, and there is a big down side if you get a good one who has to leave just when you need him the most.
That's an Initiative, for you. Great stuff, as usual.
The ring road around Las Vegas is officially known as the Bruce Woodbury Beltway. Bruce Woodbury is a Clark County Commissioner. In spite of being an elected official in Nevada, Mr. Woodbury has never attracted a hint of scandal, and his promotion of the beltway as a necessary step in building our transportation system is hailed even by the sometimes goofy editorial staff at the local paper. In short, he is the sort of elected official you wish you could have more of, and if you can't have that, you wish he could stay in office forever.
Unfortunately, a few years ago Nevada passed a strict term-limiting measure that almost without exception forces elected officials out of office. Now, I hear on the news and read in the paper that even some die-hard term limits supporters are pushing to have an exception made for Mr. Woodbury. That would be nice, that that isn't how the law works. Unfortunately, the honest, hard-working, public-minded electee is dumped along with everybody else, and whomever is elected to his seat is unlikely to do as much good for the county as has Mr. Woodbury. Not for nothing did they name a highway after him.
So you see my point. The reason term limits is a dumb idea is that the officials you'd like to keep in office forever are thrown out right along with the scoundrels. We have term limits on the national level, of course. Every two years a congressman has to stand for re-election. If you don't like him, work against him and throw him out. Every six years the same thing happens to senators. And the president, who really is term-limited, for no good reason that I've ever heard other than that Roosevelt was a Democrat (I honestly don't know Woodbury's political affiliation; nobody seems to care,) actually can be thrown out after only one term, as was, most recently, President Bush, and before him President Carter. There is no reason to artificially limit how long someone may serve, and there is a big down side if you get a good one who has to leave just when you need him the most.
That's an Initiative, for you. Great stuff, as usual.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Thank You Again
To: Barak and Hillary
Thank you so very much for making my assets look less like they need covered in the latest set of primary contests. I really do appreciate your efforts to bring it all down to the convention in Denver, which is coming right up as I write.
Now, don't forget who I predicted as the eventual winner as well, okay?
Thanks again,
Steve
PS -- The right David won Idol.
Thank you so very much for making my assets look less like they need covered in the latest set of primary contests. I really do appreciate your efforts to bring it all down to the convention in Denver, which is coming right up as I write.
Now, don't forget who I predicted as the eventual winner as well, okay?
Thanks again,
Steve
PS -- The right David won Idol.
Labels: Politics
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Sex, Anyone?
Okay, two posts in two days. Going for a record here. But I read this story and I just had to say something about it . . .
I just read a story from Reuters that casts doubt on the "Technical Virginity"
theory that teenagers are engaging in oral and anal sex in order to remain "technically" virgins.
In short, the article says that while teenagers are doing those things, they’re having plain old sex too. This does not surprise me. For one thing I teach high school and see the students, most of whom appear to be healthy humans. Healthy humans above the age of thirteen, sometimes younger, engage in some sort of sex. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be healthy. For another thing, the wave of "abstinence only" sex education we’ve been indulging in since Reagan, in some cases longer, is the biggest crock of un-useful scam on the youth of America since the war on drugs.
I really was abstinent in high school. Want to know why? Because I was a cowardly mama’s boy, that’s why. I’d have been hitting on anything remotely like a girl if I’d had more nerve. I knew almost nothing about how things really worked, so the odds are that I’d have made some girl very unhappy, made myself very unhappy, maybe both, or plain old ruined a couple of lives if I’d had sex. If I’d known what was what in terms of sexuality I might well have still been celibate, but for good reasons. (Cowardice is no good reason for anything.) If I hadn’t been celibate I’d have been careful not to cause any harm. If, that is, I’d know what was what with sexuality.
So how is one to know? Certainly not by listening to stupid lectures about how abstinence is the only way to go. They lie, those people, by saying that condoms are not reliable (they are) and by overstating any emotional damage that might accrue from sex as a teenager. I’ve had a lot of friends who were sexually active before I was, and they have been at least as well adjusted as I am. Maybe more, since they weren’t obsessed with their lack of sexual experience during a crucial time of life. One might know by getting the actual facts about sex and sexuality. As a matter of fact, if you know the facts, abstinence until you’re ready to marry whomever you have sex with is a reasonable thing to choose. You don’t have to, but with all the dangers inherent in having sex as a child, you might just decide to. Let’s face it, there are some really nasty sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) out there, a couple of which will surely kill their victim. And there’s the emotional toll that comes with sex.
Emotional? Sure, emotional. Sex is really about how we feel about ourselves, and sometimes the way we feel afterwards if more important than the way we felt before. What I mean is that sex, like any meaningful activity, involves your whole self, and should not, therefore, be entered into lightly. I’ll confess here that I’ve tried casual sex, and it was okay, but no better than what I could get on my own, if you get my drift. There is, for me at least, no point in pursuing a casual sexual relationship. But, with a woman I really care about, sex is a wonderful way to make things even better. I learned all this though trial and error, over a lifetime. A couple of religious groups have a program that they call Our Whole Life (OWL), which is a lifetime learning program about sexuality and relationships. The groups are the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ. Okay, they’re to the left of the evangelicals, but as I said up at the beginning, the "abstinence only" approach many evangelicals advocate is just plain stupid. (To me, it’s an example of a situation in which idealism makes people do stupid things.) The OWL program is tremendously successful in a couple of crucial areas: preventing teen pregnancy and preventing teens from getting STDs. I seriously doubt that it stops teens from having sex, but when they do, the consequences aren’t dire.
I guess it depends on what you want: idealistic abstinence pledges, STDs and pregnancies; or teenagers who are healthy and not pregnant. I know what the idealists choose. Care to guess my choice?
I just read a story from Reuters that casts doubt on the "Technical Virginity"
theory that teenagers are engaging in oral and anal sex in order to remain "technically" virgins.
In short, the article says that while teenagers are doing those things, they’re having plain old sex too. This does not surprise me. For one thing I teach high school and see the students, most of whom appear to be healthy humans. Healthy humans above the age of thirteen, sometimes younger, engage in some sort of sex. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be healthy. For another thing, the wave of "abstinence only" sex education we’ve been indulging in since Reagan, in some cases longer, is the biggest crock of un-useful scam on the youth of America since the war on drugs.
I really was abstinent in high school. Want to know why? Because I was a cowardly mama’s boy, that’s why. I’d have been hitting on anything remotely like a girl if I’d had more nerve. I knew almost nothing about how things really worked, so the odds are that I’d have made some girl very unhappy, made myself very unhappy, maybe both, or plain old ruined a couple of lives if I’d had sex. If I’d known what was what in terms of sexuality I might well have still been celibate, but for good reasons. (Cowardice is no good reason for anything.) If I hadn’t been celibate I’d have been careful not to cause any harm. If, that is, I’d know what was what with sexuality.
So how is one to know? Certainly not by listening to stupid lectures about how abstinence is the only way to go. They lie, those people, by saying that condoms are not reliable (they are) and by overstating any emotional damage that might accrue from sex as a teenager. I’ve had a lot of friends who were sexually active before I was, and they have been at least as well adjusted as I am. Maybe more, since they weren’t obsessed with their lack of sexual experience during a crucial time of life. One might know by getting the actual facts about sex and sexuality. As a matter of fact, if you know the facts, abstinence until you’re ready to marry whomever you have sex with is a reasonable thing to choose. You don’t have to, but with all the dangers inherent in having sex as a child, you might just decide to. Let’s face it, there are some really nasty sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) out there, a couple of which will surely kill their victim. And there’s the emotional toll that comes with sex.
Emotional? Sure, emotional. Sex is really about how we feel about ourselves, and sometimes the way we feel afterwards if more important than the way we felt before. What I mean is that sex, like any meaningful activity, involves your whole self, and should not, therefore, be entered into lightly. I’ll confess here that I’ve tried casual sex, and it was okay, but no better than what I could get on my own, if you get my drift. There is, for me at least, no point in pursuing a casual sexual relationship. But, with a woman I really care about, sex is a wonderful way to make things even better. I learned all this though trial and error, over a lifetime. A couple of religious groups have a program that they call Our Whole Life (OWL), which is a lifetime learning program about sexuality and relationships. The groups are the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ. Okay, they’re to the left of the evangelicals, but as I said up at the beginning, the "abstinence only" approach many evangelicals advocate is just plain stupid. (To me, it’s an example of a situation in which idealism makes people do stupid things.) The OWL program is tremendously successful in a couple of crucial areas: preventing teen pregnancy and preventing teens from getting STDs. I seriously doubt that it stops teens from having sex, but when they do, the consequences aren’t dire.
I guess it depends on what you want: idealistic abstinence pledges, STDs and pregnancies; or teenagers who are healthy and not pregnant. I know what the idealists choose. Care to guess my choice?
Labels: Politics, Religion, Social Commentary
Monday, May 19, 2008
The Democ Rats
Well, okay, there is a possibility that I could be wrong about who will win the Democratic nomination. Just a possibility, but still, one must cover one’s assets, right?
So the thing is that everyone has written Ms. Clinton off. I suppose for those who really, really hated Bubba this is a good thing, as the worst case scenario just eased up a bit. I mean, like I said earlier, it isn’t like Barak Obama is a black guy, after all.
Still, I wouldn’t write the Senator from New York off. For one thing, she got to be the Senator from New York about six weeks after she moved to the State. Not a bad trick, that. For another, there is no law that says the delegates have to vote for anyone in particular at the convention. Ethics, yes, but then this is politics, and in particular the superdelegates are free to wander at will. And then there’s . . .
Well, Barak could call Hillary up (maybe at 3AM) and make her an offer. That would mean Vice-President, I mean. That isn’t as bad as President for the Bill haters out there, but it’s close. Still, if that happens, it’s curtains for McCain and that’s the truth. Not that I care that much for his chances at this early date. On the other hand, like Big Brown at the Belmont, neither Barak or Hillary is really tested in the long run, so we’ll see what we shall see. Shall’n’t we? (I made up that “shall’n’t” thing.)
So the thing is that everyone has written Ms. Clinton off. I suppose for those who really, really hated Bubba this is a good thing, as the worst case scenario just eased up a bit. I mean, like I said earlier, it isn’t like Barak Obama is a black guy, after all.
Still, I wouldn’t write the Senator from New York off. For one thing, she got to be the Senator from New York about six weeks after she moved to the State. Not a bad trick, that. For another, there is no law that says the delegates have to vote for anyone in particular at the convention. Ethics, yes, but then this is politics, and in particular the superdelegates are free to wander at will. And then there’s . . .
Well, Barak could call Hillary up (maybe at 3AM) and make her an offer. That would mean Vice-President, I mean. That isn’t as bad as President for the Bill haters out there, but it’s close. Still, if that happens, it’s curtains for McCain and that’s the truth. Not that I care that much for his chances at this early date. On the other hand, like Big Brown at the Belmont, neither Barak or Hillary is really tested in the long run, so we’ll see what we shall see. Shall’n’t we? (I made up that “shall’n’t” thing.)
Labels: Politics
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Freedom!
I watched a show on Showtime last night called “This American Life.” It is produced by Ira Glass, from National Public Radio (NPR.) On it he featured a young Iraqi guy, who was an English major and speaks idiomatic American, sitting at a booth with a sign that read “Talk to an Iraqi.” He got a lot of lectures, naturally. Several of them were about freedom, because that’s what we’re there for, of course, to give the Iraqis freedom. When he asked what that meant the only responses he got were along the lines of how you could “go out and say whatever you want.” I won’t tell you his comeback to that, but it did get me thinking about what it means to be free. I think it’s more than being able to say what you want.
[This is aside from the issue of whether I can really “say what I want” without fear, by the way.]
The fact is that nobody is free in the sense that he can do anything he wants to do. That seems to be a common notion about what freedom means, but that would only be true if you were the only person alive. If it ever comes down to it, the last human alive will be perfectly free to take any action whatsoever without fear of recrimination. Failing that, we all have to answer, really, to our fellow human beings. Here in the Wild West there’s a lot of sentiment calling itself “Libertarian” that seems to think that individual will is the best judge of what should be done. That not only flies in the face of social reality, as I said above, but is mathematically untrue according to John Nash, the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind. He won a Nobel Prize for his work in game theory in which he demonstrated that there comes a point in any competition where the only way for anyone to gain anything is for all parties to stop competing and start working together. That’s the start of a whole other post, but for now it will suffice to show that the “Libertarian” position of some Westerners just isn’t tenable. You listening, Review-Journal Editorial Board?
But that still begs the question of what it means to be free. The best explanation I’ve ever heard came from an Irish musician living in Denver. He wrote in an article in one of the Sunday papers there that being free means that you get to choose how you are going to contribute to society. I think that’s actually about it. You don’t have the option of not contributing, because society helps you every day in a great many ways. You can not walk down the street except that society has built the street. You can not pick up a letter except that society operates a postal service. In the West our forefathers were granted land, mineral rights, grazing rights and transportation by society, in the form of the (gasp) Federal government. I’ve posted earlier about the real nature of money. Well, it’s good will, of course, and therefore without good will you have no money. If you need money you need to do something for somebody else to get it. That’s what I mean by contributing, and if you are free, you can pick and choose any means you wish to deliver whatever it is you choose to deliver to the rest of us. You don’t have to be what your father was, or what your teachers say you should be, or what your preacher thinks you should be. You can be a butcher, candlestick maker, software designer, apple-pie baker, whatever you think will earn you a living. That, it seems to me, is what freedom is all about.
As for doing whatever you want whenever you want to do it, you’ll just have to ask us all if we think it’s okay. Sorry about that.
[This is aside from the issue of whether I can really “say what I want” without fear, by the way.]
The fact is that nobody is free in the sense that he can do anything he wants to do. That seems to be a common notion about what freedom means, but that would only be true if you were the only person alive. If it ever comes down to it, the last human alive will be perfectly free to take any action whatsoever without fear of recrimination. Failing that, we all have to answer, really, to our fellow human beings. Here in the Wild West there’s a lot of sentiment calling itself “Libertarian” that seems to think that individual will is the best judge of what should be done. That not only flies in the face of social reality, as I said above, but is mathematically untrue according to John Nash, the subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind. He won a Nobel Prize for his work in game theory in which he demonstrated that there comes a point in any competition where the only way for anyone to gain anything is for all parties to stop competing and start working together. That’s the start of a whole other post, but for now it will suffice to show that the “Libertarian” position of some Westerners just isn’t tenable. You listening, Review-Journal Editorial Board?
But that still begs the question of what it means to be free. The best explanation I’ve ever heard came from an Irish musician living in Denver. He wrote in an article in one of the Sunday papers there that being free means that you get to choose how you are going to contribute to society. I think that’s actually about it. You don’t have the option of not contributing, because society helps you every day in a great many ways. You can not walk down the street except that society has built the street. You can not pick up a letter except that society operates a postal service. In the West our forefathers were granted land, mineral rights, grazing rights and transportation by society, in the form of the (gasp) Federal government. I’ve posted earlier about the real nature of money. Well, it’s good will, of course, and therefore without good will you have no money. If you need money you need to do something for somebody else to get it. That’s what I mean by contributing, and if you are free, you can pick and choose any means you wish to deliver whatever it is you choose to deliver to the rest of us. You don’t have to be what your father was, or what your teachers say you should be, or what your preacher thinks you should be. You can be a butcher, candlestick maker, software designer, apple-pie baker, whatever you think will earn you a living. That, it seems to me, is what freedom is all about.
As for doing whatever you want whenever you want to do it, you’ll just have to ask us all if we think it’s okay. Sorry about that.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Way I Sees It
Inspired, I suppose, by Barak Obama, the media now say that it is time for a national dialogue on race, amongst other things. That would be fine except that it involves "the people." "The people," used in that sense, is an idiot, same as "everyone." If we need Fox news and CNN to help us dialogue, then we're in deep doo doo for sure. I can have a dialogue about race, or anything for that matter, with any one person. In fact, if you'd like to, post a comment, and we'll do it. The thing is that a "dialogue," by definition, is two people talking. Chalk up another gross misuse of language to the media outlets of America. And I'm not being pedantic, because, doggone it, dialogue literally translates into "two people talking." Look it up if you don't believe me. So we can not, in any sense, have a "national dialogue" about anything.
That said, let me point out that nothing prevents me from posting my opinions on any thing at all, so I'm going to put in this very spot, right now, my opinions on a few things.
First, Barak Obama. In the first place, Mr. Obama is an upper middle class white guy with a very dark complexion. If you worry about voting for a black man, don't bother, because that isn't Barak Obama. He's no blacker than I am, whoever his preacher may have been. He walks like a white duck, quacks like a white duck, so it stands to reason that he is a white duck. Here we have a golden opportunity to elect a white dude to the Presidency and have the entire world praise us for our progressive racial attitudes. That, plus the fact that he isn't a boomer, are the two biggest advantages to an Obama presidency.
As for race, if you think it doesn't matter in America any more, you obviously don't live here. Or you're fooling yourself, which might be worse. It's a heck of a lot better than it used to be, though. According to the book Microtrends, forty percent (40%) of American black male teenagers today come from good homes, have good grades, and plan to go on to college and a career. The author does not mention the percentage of similarly situated white male teenagers, but it's worth remembering that not all white kids are squeaky clean. A lot of them grow up to be criminals, or even congressmen. So the stereotype black gang banger teen aged boy is out of sync with reality. Still, there are a lot of people who unconsciously discriminate without knowing it, or meaning to (I guess.) The comment Barbara Bush made after Katrina about "those people" being better off is a prime example. Racism goes deep in America, and it isn't really related to slavery per se. Way back in Jamestown there was a servant revolt one time that almost brought down the colony. The response from the burghesses was to make it okay for a "christian servant" to keep his or her shirt on while being whipped, while "non-christian" servants could be whipped bare backed. Thus poor white trash, the concept, was born. When I was in school I knew several kids who would say, and I'm not making this up, "I may be poor white trash but at least I ain't no damned nigger!" Those kids are, most likely still alive. They have the same right to vote as I do. Do the math. Racism exists, and it still matters. I don't think we need another "movement" to make it all better, but it would be good if anyone who doesn't think that way made an extra effort to be sure they don't act that way. You'll notice that the primary effect of "poor white trash" is to help the oppressors because you're not quite as oppressed as those guys. That ruse goes back to the beginnings of history. How about we drop it?
Hillary's next on my list. Not that I care about her all that much. Heck, we had some pretty good years under her husband, maybe she knows the secret. I doubt that she's as big a bitch as she's portrayed, either. On the other hand, she seems to have a memory with a few holes in it. And, like Obama, she seems determined to let us all know how damned religious she is. Sure you are, Hil, you go girl. I'll see you in church, you bet. I will say that if she is elected, there will have been worse presidents. You know, like the incumbent. I don't care which of the three viable candidates we still have wins in the end; we will have a better president. At least one that can say "nuclear."
McCain, finally. I used to like him better, but he's so damned stiff all the time he's starting to give me the willies. On the other hand, he seems honest, which is refreshing. Of course, his state, Arizona, gave us Barry Goldwater, who the Neoconservatives love to hate, so maybe that's a recommendation. Arizona also gave us the current sheriff of Maricopa County (where Phoenix is,) which speaks against the place in a big way. McCain does not talk much about his religion, which, since I actually have read the bible, I know is the way Jesus said was proper to act. Or at least that's what the book says Jesus said. Don't really know, of course. Unlike so many, I never presume to speak for God. But good luck to him (God) anyway. The most unfair thing people say about McCain is that he's old. Well, so was Reagan, and they didn't seem to mind him. (I did, but not for that reason.) But what the heck, let's see how this all plays out, shall we?
I do think, to prognosticate a bit again, that it is much too early in the process to worry about what the democrats may be doing to themselves in the extended primary race. In October we'll see who's got legs for sure. Until then, pick your horse and watch the show.
That said, let me point out that nothing prevents me from posting my opinions on any thing at all, so I'm going to put in this very spot, right now, my opinions on a few things.
First, Barak Obama. In the first place, Mr. Obama is an upper middle class white guy with a very dark complexion. If you worry about voting for a black man, don't bother, because that isn't Barak Obama. He's no blacker than I am, whoever his preacher may have been. He walks like a white duck, quacks like a white duck, so it stands to reason that he is a white duck. Here we have a golden opportunity to elect a white dude to the Presidency and have the entire world praise us for our progressive racial attitudes. That, plus the fact that he isn't a boomer, are the two biggest advantages to an Obama presidency.
As for race, if you think it doesn't matter in America any more, you obviously don't live here. Or you're fooling yourself, which might be worse. It's a heck of a lot better than it used to be, though. According to the book Microtrends, forty percent (40%) of American black male teenagers today come from good homes, have good grades, and plan to go on to college and a career. The author does not mention the percentage of similarly situated white male teenagers, but it's worth remembering that not all white kids are squeaky clean. A lot of them grow up to be criminals, or even congressmen. So the stereotype black gang banger teen aged boy is out of sync with reality. Still, there are a lot of people who unconsciously discriminate without knowing it, or meaning to (I guess.) The comment Barbara Bush made after Katrina about "those people" being better off is a prime example. Racism goes deep in America, and it isn't really related to slavery per se. Way back in Jamestown there was a servant revolt one time that almost brought down the colony. The response from the burghesses was to make it okay for a "christian servant" to keep his or her shirt on while being whipped, while "non-christian" servants could be whipped bare backed. Thus poor white trash, the concept, was born. When I was in school I knew several kids who would say, and I'm not making this up, "I may be poor white trash but at least I ain't no damned nigger!" Those kids are, most likely still alive. They have the same right to vote as I do. Do the math. Racism exists, and it still matters. I don't think we need another "movement" to make it all better, but it would be good if anyone who doesn't think that way made an extra effort to be sure they don't act that way. You'll notice that the primary effect of "poor white trash" is to help the oppressors because you're not quite as oppressed as those guys. That ruse goes back to the beginnings of history. How about we drop it?
Hillary's next on my list. Not that I care about her all that much. Heck, we had some pretty good years under her husband, maybe she knows the secret. I doubt that she's as big a bitch as she's portrayed, either. On the other hand, she seems to have a memory with a few holes in it. And, like Obama, she seems determined to let us all know how damned religious she is. Sure you are, Hil, you go girl. I'll see you in church, you bet. I will say that if she is elected, there will have been worse presidents. You know, like the incumbent. I don't care which of the three viable candidates we still have wins in the end; we will have a better president. At least one that can say "nuclear."
McCain, finally. I used to like him better, but he's so damned stiff all the time he's starting to give me the willies. On the other hand, he seems honest, which is refreshing. Of course, his state, Arizona, gave us Barry Goldwater, who the Neoconservatives love to hate, so maybe that's a recommendation. Arizona also gave us the current sheriff of Maricopa County (where Phoenix is,) which speaks against the place in a big way. McCain does not talk much about his religion, which, since I actually have read the bible, I know is the way Jesus said was proper to act. Or at least that's what the book says Jesus said. Don't really know, of course. Unlike so many, I never presume to speak for God. But good luck to him (God) anyway. The most unfair thing people say about McCain is that he's old. Well, so was Reagan, and they didn't seem to mind him. (I did, but not for that reason.) But what the heck, let's see how this all plays out, shall we?
I do think, to prognosticate a bit again, that it is much too early in the process to worry about what the democrats may be doing to themselves in the extended primary race. In October we'll see who's got legs for sure. Until then, pick your horse and watch the show.
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Thank You, Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton
Senators (Senatori?), I am very pleased that you reinforced my stated prejudices with your performance in the Pennsylvania primary. In truth, I did predict, some time ago, that yours would be a very close race right up to the convention. After that, sorry Mr. Obama, but I further have predicted Senator Clinton as the eventual winner, for reasons you can read about in some earler post.
In any event, this is my official thank-you to the Democratic candidates for keeping my prognostications looking good.
Way to go, kids!
New? Nah, nothing new. Maybe after Denver.
In any event, this is my official thank-you to the Democratic candidates for keeping my prognostications looking good.
Way to go, kids!
New? Nah, nothing new. Maybe after Denver.
Labels: Politics
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Should I Thank Mr. Obama?
What I mean is that Mr. Obama has made it more likely that my prediction about Hillary taking the nomination will come to pass. In fact, he even gave John McCain the opportunity to take his first real dig at a (presumed) Democratic opponent.
The things Obama said about people in small towns are really inexcusable, if common. Lots of people of various persuasions make that sort of mistake all the time. And the trouble isn't what he said in particular. Heck, for all I know people do cling to guns and religion in times of uncertainty, but that's not why it was a stupid thing to say. Rather, in general, that sort of thing is stupid, and insulting, because it tells people what they are feeling and why they feel that way. No one, not even a politician, can speak for another. The sin of Obama in this case is presuming to know what others feel and what motivates them.
Actually, it's pretty simple, in general. Every one of us wants to eat well, have a roof over our head, and be well thought of. I imagine that I could say the same about the average house cat without much danger of being wrong. If you stick to those things, then you're on pretty solid ground. Assigning complex reasons for behavior that might simply boil down to growing up with firearms and liking them, and enjoying the company of your friends and neighbors in church, is treading on thin ice.
Not only can't anyone speak for another, no politician, even the President of the United States, should presume to speak for the "American People." There are at least three-hundred million opinions in the United States, one of which is the one spoken by the President when he gives a speech. Frankly, a person seeking office who wants my vote would do well to avoid any reference to what "The American People," or "People in Small Towns" want.
Honestly, I'd be bitter if I lived in a small Midwestern town, because those places aren't to my taste. That doesn't make them bad, and in fact a great many people love them dearly. So, it's none of my business to impose my Western urban values on those folks, and I thank them for returning the courtesy. That is why you can't speak for "The American People." There are just too many of us living in too many different places.
So, getting back to the candidate, Barak Obama should first apologize for presuming to know what small town people feel and want, and second stick to what he knows and avoid sticking his foot in it.
'Course, it did make my prediction look better, dinnit?
The things Obama said about people in small towns are really inexcusable, if common. Lots of people of various persuasions make that sort of mistake all the time. And the trouble isn't what he said in particular. Heck, for all I know people do cling to guns and religion in times of uncertainty, but that's not why it was a stupid thing to say. Rather, in general, that sort of thing is stupid, and insulting, because it tells people what they are feeling and why they feel that way. No one, not even a politician, can speak for another. The sin of Obama in this case is presuming to know what others feel and what motivates them.
Actually, it's pretty simple, in general. Every one of us wants to eat well, have a roof over our head, and be well thought of. I imagine that I could say the same about the average house cat without much danger of being wrong. If you stick to those things, then you're on pretty solid ground. Assigning complex reasons for behavior that might simply boil down to growing up with firearms and liking them, and enjoying the company of your friends and neighbors in church, is treading on thin ice.
Not only can't anyone speak for another, no politician, even the President of the United States, should presume to speak for the "American People." There are at least three-hundred million opinions in the United States, one of which is the one spoken by the President when he gives a speech. Frankly, a person seeking office who wants my vote would do well to avoid any reference to what "The American People," or "People in Small Towns" want.
Honestly, I'd be bitter if I lived in a small Midwestern town, because those places aren't to my taste. That doesn't make them bad, and in fact a great many people love them dearly. So, it's none of my business to impose my Western urban values on those folks, and I thank them for returning the courtesy. That is why you can't speak for "The American People." There are just too many of us living in too many different places.
So, getting back to the candidate, Barak Obama should first apologize for presuming to know what small town people feel and want, and second stick to what he knows and avoid sticking his foot in it.
'Course, it did make my prediction look better, dinnit?
Labels: Politics, Social Commentary
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Clark County Democrats Take Two
Since I mentioned the debacle that was the Clark County Democratic Convention in this space, I guess I should post a bit about the follow-up, repeated, convention, held yesterday at the Thomas and Mack Center at UNLV.
Well, there isn't much to mention. Hillary has a few hundred more delegates from Clark County going to the state convention next month than does Obama. The process was orderly, well planned, and well run. In fact, we're not at all sure that it was, in fact, the Democrats running it. (joke there)
So now that's behind us. Thing is, there were still some weirdos out there, such as the people claiming that Hillary was importing "non-Democrats" to vote. How she did that is a mystery to most sane people, but the accusation was put out there, anyway.
So that's it. Who will get the nod from the Nevada delegation to Denver will depend on which group is right: the Clinton backers who claim victory here, or the Obama backers who do the same. Heck, one group will be wrong, huh?
Tami's going to Carson City, by the way. Just can't keep away from the fun, I guess.
Well, there isn't much to mention. Hillary has a few hundred more delegates from Clark County going to the state convention next month than does Obama. The process was orderly, well planned, and well run. In fact, we're not at all sure that it was, in fact, the Democrats running it. (joke there)
So now that's behind us. Thing is, there were still some weirdos out there, such as the people claiming that Hillary was importing "non-Democrats" to vote. How she did that is a mystery to most sane people, but the accusation was put out there, anyway.
So that's it. Who will get the nod from the Nevada delegation to Denver will depend on which group is right: the Clinton backers who claim victory here, or the Obama backers who do the same. Heck, one group will be wrong, huh?
Tami's going to Carson City, by the way. Just can't keep away from the fun, I guess.
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
And, the Results So Far . . .
Well, isn't this fun, though? McCain is the candidate to be the "American President America Has Been Waiting For." Well, all Presidents are American, aren't they, like them or not. So, anyway.
Over on the disorganized side of the aisle, Everyone, in the sense in which I hate that word, has decided that Barak Obama will be the winner. I'm going out on a limb here and predicting Hillary will be the nominee. Now, some have said there will be a Gore/Obama ticket. That assumes old Al could be persuaded to run. Then there's the "Gore will be Secretary of State" camp. Again, assuming he wants the job in the first place. Let's see, he quits politics, wins an Oscar, then wins a Nobel prize. And he's coming back for what, exactly?
Well, I'm saying there will be a Clinton/Somebody ticket. If she's smart she'll go for Bill Richardson, who is both Latino and Southwestern. Granted, New Mexico is the least populous of the Southwestern states, but the rest of us out here still admire New Mexico for simply being Southwestern, which would likely turn a lot of those who would otherwise go for McCain to the Democratic ticket. As for Mr. Obama, in eight more years (I'm being an optimist on behalf of whoever wins this time) he'll have overcome most of the current objections to his qualifications.
Is Hillary the best choice? Well, ask the Democrats. Maybe two can agree on the answer. Is she better for the country than McCain? Well, that depends. The next president will be choosing a couple of Supreme Court Justices. Who would you rather have do that? No advice from this quarter at this time, but consider the possibilities. McCain has said he'll appoint more like the ones W. Bush has appointed, for what that's worth. If you think Hillary will do whatever Bill wants, you've never been married. Who she would appoint is a matter of interesting debate.
Stay tuned. It should be a heck of a convention this summer. And in Denver, no less. Breathe deep, folks!
Over on the disorganized side of the aisle, Everyone, in the sense in which I hate that word, has decided that Barak Obama will be the winner. I'm going out on a limb here and predicting Hillary will be the nominee. Now, some have said there will be a Gore/Obama ticket. That assumes old Al could be persuaded to run. Then there's the "Gore will be Secretary of State" camp. Again, assuming he wants the job in the first place. Let's see, he quits politics, wins an Oscar, then wins a Nobel prize. And he's coming back for what, exactly?
Well, I'm saying there will be a Clinton/Somebody ticket. If she's smart she'll go for Bill Richardson, who is both Latino and Southwestern. Granted, New Mexico is the least populous of the Southwestern states, but the rest of us out here still admire New Mexico for simply being Southwestern, which would likely turn a lot of those who would otherwise go for McCain to the Democratic ticket. As for Mr. Obama, in eight more years (I'm being an optimist on behalf of whoever wins this time) he'll have overcome most of the current objections to his qualifications.
Is Hillary the best choice? Well, ask the Democrats. Maybe two can agree on the answer. Is she better for the country than McCain? Well, that depends. The next president will be choosing a couple of Supreme Court Justices. Who would you rather have do that? No advice from this quarter at this time, but consider the possibilities. McCain has said he'll appoint more like the ones W. Bush has appointed, for what that's worth. If you think Hillary will do whatever Bill wants, you've never been married. Who she would appoint is a matter of interesting debate.
Stay tuned. It should be a heck of a convention this summer. And in Denver, no less. Breathe deep, folks!
Labels: Politics
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Warming Up to It?
Now that I've said a few dozen words about critical thinking, I'd like to apply them to a current hot topic. No pun intended, because I mean the "global warming" or "climate change" thing.
I posted about the topic once before, but only to say that I thought that the downside of thinking it was a problem and being wrong about that is a lot less than the downside of thinking it isn't a problem and being wrong.
The thing is, the planet has been getting warmer for several hundred years, on average. The truth is that I heard about that fact in the late sixties. The opponents of the idea would stand a better chance of convincing me that the threat is overrated if they hadn't started their argument with a two-year or more tirade about how it wasn't happening. That is simply not true. This planet is getting warmer, on average. And, as it warms, some unpleasant (seemingly) things will happen.
For instance, the ocean levels will rise. In fact, the ocean is deeper than it was fifty years ago, by maybe a foot (I think, but don't quote me on the exact amount.) In any event, this is bad for places like Venice, where they now have portable inflatable items to walk over during the ever more frequent floods. If the average temperature continues to rise, then all of the places Al Gore says will be under water will, in fact, be under water. That is all simple facts.
Now, the hyperbole comes in. The warmth of the planet is tied up with something called the carbon cycle. That is true. The carbon cycle involves carbon being locked up by plants, stored at times deep in the earth in the form of fossil fuel, and also liberated by almost all living things in the form of carbon dioxide gas, which then is used by plants to build more plants, thus locking it up again. We're still on true ground here.
Also true is the fact that we have discovered how to remove the stored carbon from the ground and liberate it as carbon dioxide in a hurry. A motorcar turns a lot of locked-up carbon into carbon dioxide all at once. The fact that more and more people all over the world are using more and more motorcars is not just driving up the cost of locked-up carbon (oil, that is,) it's also producing a lot of extra carbon dioxide. This is true to the extent that present carbon levels in the atmosphere are many times what they have been in the past several million years at least. That's still a fact, Jack.
Here's the uncritical part. In an emotional and Oscar-winning appeal, the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" puts forth the proposition that humans have so much skewed the carbon cycle that we are pretty much screwed, temperature wise. This may be true. As I wrote before, pretending that it is will generate a lot of new jobs and new sources of income as new industries develop to deal with the ramifications. But, in fact, are we screwed because of what we've done to the planet? The critical reading of the situation is, and this is from a scientist, friends, "there is insufficient data to answer that question." Or so a computer in an old, bad Sci-Fi movie might say. We really can't say for sure. That's the truth.
Now, on the other side I read about the "trillions of dollars in cost" taken from "fixed resources" that we don't have in order to basically destroy our civilization and save us from this climate change problem that either doesn't exist or that "we can't do anything about, anyway." There's more emotional baggage in that argument than in Al Gore's movie.
Money is not a "limited resource." Anyone who says it is, is selling something. Money is an abstraction of good will and nothing more. It is always possible to generate more good will. You do a favor for somebody and you generate more good will. That's why economists say that money must keep moving to be effective. Money stuffed in a mattress doesn't pass good will along. In fact, since inflation is a constant companion of any currency, the good will you stuff in the mattress will eventually, so to speak, leak out and disappear. I'm not saying not to save for emergencies, but I am saying that spending money is what keeps the good feelings circulating. That's what FDR meant by his famous line about having to fear nothing but "fear itself." He meant the fear that keeps you locked up at home and not spending money, because that fear stops the economy dead in its tracks.
So, since we can generate more money simply by doing productive things, there is no reason to fear for the "trillions" of dollars it will cost to, as the common phrase has it, "go green." The Federal budget for 2009 is about $2.6 billion US. That's trillions of dollars right there, and that's what they spend. Since even the harshest tax critic will admit that we get to keep more of our money than we give to the IRS, which means that individually Americans spend trillions of dollars a year outside of taxes! So the emotional tirade about all that money is nothing but a smoke screen for somebody who, for whatever reason, resists the idea that we could or should do som
I posted about the topic once before, but only to say that I thought that the downside of thinking it was a problem and being wrong about that is a lot less than the downside of thinking it isn't a problem and being wrong.
The thing is, the planet has been getting warmer for several hundred years, on average. The truth is that I heard about that fact in the late sixties. The opponents of the idea would stand a better chance of convincing me that the threat is overrated if they hadn't started their argument with a two-year or more tirade about how it wasn't happening. That is simply not true. This planet is getting warmer, on average. And, as it warms, some unpleasant (seemingly) things will happen.
For instance, the ocean levels will rise. In fact, the ocean is deeper than it was fifty years ago, by maybe a foot (I think, but don't quote me on the exact amount.) In any event, this is bad for places like Venice, where they now have portable inflatable items to walk over during the ever more frequent floods. If the average temperature continues to rise, then all of the places Al Gore says will be under water will, in fact, be under water. That is all simple facts.
Now, the hyperbole comes in. The warmth of the planet is tied up with something called the carbon cycle. That is true. The carbon cycle involves carbon being locked up by plants, stored at times deep in the earth in the form of fossil fuel, and also liberated by almost all living things in the form of carbon dioxide gas, which then is used by plants to build more plants, thus locking it up again. We're still on true ground here.
Also true is the fact that we have discovered how to remove the stored carbon from the ground and liberate it as carbon dioxide in a hurry. A motorcar turns a lot of locked-up carbon into carbon dioxide all at once. The fact that more and more people all over the world are using more and more motorcars is not just driving up the cost of locked-up carbon (oil, that is,) it's also producing a lot of extra carbon dioxide. This is true to the extent that present carbon levels in the atmosphere are many times what they have been in the past several million years at least. That's still a fact, Jack.
Here's the uncritical part. In an emotional and Oscar-winning appeal, the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" puts forth the proposition that humans have so much skewed the carbon cycle that we are pretty much screwed, temperature wise. This may be true. As I wrote before, pretending that it is will generate a lot of new jobs and new sources of income as new industries develop to deal with the ramifications. But, in fact, are we screwed because of what we've done to the planet? The critical reading of the situation is, and this is from a scientist, friends, "there is insufficient data to answer that question." Or so a computer in an old, bad Sci-Fi movie might say. We really can't say for sure. That's the truth.
Now, on the other side I read about the "trillions of dollars in cost" taken from "fixed resources" that we don't have in order to basically destroy our civilization and save us from this climate change problem that either doesn't exist or that "we can't do anything about, anyway." There's more emotional baggage in that argument than in Al Gore's movie.
Money is not a "limited resource." Anyone who says it is, is selling something. Money is an abstraction of good will and nothing more. It is always possible to generate more good will. You do a favor for somebody and you generate more good will. That's why economists say that money must keep moving to be effective. Money stuffed in a mattress doesn't pass good will along. In fact, since inflation is a constant companion of any currency, the good will you stuff in the mattress will eventually, so to speak, leak out and disappear. I'm not saying not to save for emergencies, but I am saying that spending money is what keeps the good feelings circulating. That's what FDR meant by his famous line about having to fear nothing but "fear itself." He meant the fear that keeps you locked up at home and not spending money, because that fear stops the economy dead in its tracks.
So, since we can generate more money simply by doing productive things, there is no reason to fear for the "trillions" of dollars it will cost to, as the common phrase has it, "go green." The Federal budget for 2009 is about $2.6 billion US. That's trillions of dollars right there, and that's what they spend. Since even the harshest tax critic will admit that we get to keep more of our money than we give to the IRS, which means that individually Americans spend trillions of dollars a year outside of taxes! So the emotional tirade about all that money is nothing but a smoke screen for somebody who, for whatever reason, resists the idea that we could or should do som