While a waterfowl hunter and sympathetic to hunter's rights, conservation, and habit protection for wildlife, I have always been perplexed by some of deer hunting practices I see each season. I just have a few questions to pose to some in the deer hunting population, who give the rest of us who hunt a bad name:
When hunting in a ditch beside a state road, who has the right of way if a deer presents itself on the other side of the road? In other words, does a passing car have to yield to your shot?
When driving during hunting season, is it best to keep the shot gun fully loaded or with just one chambered shell in case you see a deer on the side of the road?
What is the optimal number of beers to consume before legal shooting time?
Is it possible to hunt deer without a CB radio?
When trespassing on some one's land, does a bag limit apply? Since you really aren't there legally in the first place, do all the rules fly out the window?
What in the world is a "sound shot"?
Again, when trespassing and confronted by the land owner, are you ever concerned about ceding thought leadership for your hunting practices to your dog? When informed that a deer hunter is hunting posted land, the most common answer is "my dog can't read your signs". Well, your dog can't open its own bag of dog food either, but does he decide where you are going our for dinner on Saturday nights?
How many pickup trucks rushing to the spot of a sighted deer broadcast over the CB radio does in take to constitute a demolition derby?
Do earplugs help when shooting from the cab of your pickup?
Does a deer killed spotlighting at night count against your season limit?
I know most deer hunters are good and ethical hunters who respect the outdoors and follow the rules. I know many such deer hunters. However, the small minority of hunters who road hunt, who travel with their loaded shotguns in the rack in case they see a deer, and who rarely hunt without beer really make it tough on the rest of us. If the animal rights and suburbanites who think a goose is born with a bow around its neck ever outlaw hunting, we will know who we have to thank.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Whaddaya Think?
When George Bush declared the economy "pretty good", democrat Chuck Schumer made sure he came out with the retort that the president is out of touch with real people. If the sitting president were a democrat and made the same statement about the economy, would Chuckles have made the same comment?
How long will it be before every college and high school student has an iPhone or similar device?
Is there any doubt that our republic would be better off with term limits - for everyone, congress, state legislatures, local councils? Two terms for the House, one term for the Senate.
As we stand today, does anyone have any doubt that all members of congress have this priority list 1) Get re-elected 2) Support the party line, if it does not get in the way of getting re-elected 3) Get federal money for the district/state so they can get re-elected?
Since Iran has supposedly shut down its nuclear enrichment program, how long will it take before George Bush gets the media "high-five" for stopping this dangerous activity?
Two years ago the press was aghast about the lack of affordable housing. Now the housing market is correcting and home prices in many places have fallen. Guess what the press is? Aghast.
How long will it be before every college and high school student has an iPhone or similar device?
Is there any doubt that our republic would be better off with term limits - for everyone, congress, state legislatures, local councils? Two terms for the House, one term for the Senate.
As we stand today, does anyone have any doubt that all members of congress have this priority list 1) Get re-elected 2) Support the party line, if it does not get in the way of getting re-elected 3) Get federal money for the district/state so they can get re-elected?
Since Iran has supposedly shut down its nuclear enrichment program, how long will it take before George Bush gets the media "high-five" for stopping this dangerous activity?
Two years ago the press was aghast about the lack of affordable housing. Now the housing market is correcting and home prices in many places have fallen. Guess what the press is? Aghast.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Okay, I admit it...I watch"The Hills"
So let's get the cat out of the bag early...MTV was pretty new when I was in college. I know there are many walking the planet today who cannot imagine life before MTV, but such was the reality once upon a time, and shockingly we muddled through. I started watching MTV in college, and like a lot of things in college, like drinking too much once in a while, it just sort of stuck. I am not sure there are too many people my age that still watch MTV, but I do on occasion. I realize from the advertisements on MTV that I am far removed from the target audience. I don't need acne medicine, I don't use TAG body spray, and thankfully it has been many years since I have had to wear a condom.
As I learned many years ago, nothing is ever totally worthless, because it can always serve as a bad example. Watching "The Hills" the past couple of years, like the slow motion train wreck that grabs your attention and won't let go, I have learned several things and recognized that bad examples abound on popular culture. I know that just because you are good looking doesn't mean you have anything of substance to offer anyone or to society at large. This applies to both males and females. I have learned that males on "The Hills", and possibly many males in LA, have a limited command of the English language. They rarely speak in complete sentences with subjects and predicates and they rarely convey thoughts beyond single word answers to posed questions. They also wear wool stocking caps in Southern California during the day time. Isn't part of the allure of Southern California the fact that you can leave your woolly caps in the closet year round? Maybe sweating heads is a fashion statement, maybe they simply forgot that they are wearing wool caps in 85 degree weather, or they forgot to take them off their heads 5 years ago when they arrived in LA from Northern New England. I have concluded that the male characters on "The Hills" must be dumber than the average dolphin...not intending to slight the intelligence of dolphins.
Therefore it is a complete mystery to me, why the girls on "The Hills" spend time with these guys. Okay some of the relationships I can figure out. For those who saw Forrest Gump...Stupid is and Stupid does. If there is any doubt that I can haul the mail with respect to my acumen of "The Hills" I am getting ready to blow that out of the water. I can understand why Audrina dates guys like Justin Bobby...any questions there? Justin, the fake hard-ass who probably couldn't throw a football past his shadow and likely has no clue what hand his baseball glove goes on as a righthander. Let's just make this clear, the only person I have seen on television dumber than Audrina is Justin. At first I liked Audrina, I thought she was good to Lauren after the Heidi debacle. However the way she let herself be completely manipulated by someone as obtuse as Justin is beyond comprehension. The most creative deflection he could think of when he got busted making out with the redhead in front of his pseudo girlfriend was "you just see what you want to see". What is he talking about? Uhhh, okay Justin, what is your plan-B to get out of this jam. Thankfully Audrina sent him packing back to the hair salon where he works. Next up? Jason. Why would someone cute, seemingly bright, and as genuine as one can be on "The Hills" waste their time chasing Jason? Lauren seems to have a lot going for her. She is an intern who drives a $ 60K car, so something must be going right for her. She wasted how many years chasing Jason, who mastered his lines of "Huh?" and "I don't know" better than anyone in television history. Does this make any sense? I thought Heidi was going to be a good character and seemed to be a good friend to Lauren, until she met Spencer, whereupon she dumped her entire life for a guy who wants to fill his dining room with arcade games. I am not sure Spencer is smart enough to play the arcade games however, since they sat unused in the dining room the entire season. He could have had his friends over to play them, or show them how they worked, but he has no friends....but he does have a beach house...or mommy and daddy have a beach house. Remember when Heidi stabbed her friend in the back to get promoted and then asked her to transfer all the contacts from her old cell phone to her new one? That was great. Oh, and didn't she quit on the next episode? The train wreck really was in slow motion then because most people would have quit on the spot. I do like Whitney, I think she is the best of the bunch. She seems very well grounded has never been played by the morons parading around as the male characters on the show. I think she is bright and is lone admirable character on the show.
So I am totally embarrassed that I watch this show. I thought the season finale was a dud. Couldn't Heidi have started balling for us instead of standing there with a quivering lip when Spencer walked out? I have also learned that I do not want my daughters to emulate anyone on the show (okay maybe Whitney) and if they bring home a doofuss like Justin, Jason, or Spencer expect him to sit outside by himself in the cold when we have dinner together. He will finally get to make use of his woolly stocking cap that way.
As I learned many years ago, nothing is ever totally worthless, because it can always serve as a bad example. Watching "The Hills" the past couple of years, like the slow motion train wreck that grabs your attention and won't let go, I have learned several things and recognized that bad examples abound on popular culture. I know that just because you are good looking doesn't mean you have anything of substance to offer anyone or to society at large. This applies to both males and females. I have learned that males on "The Hills", and possibly many males in LA, have a limited command of the English language. They rarely speak in complete sentences with subjects and predicates and they rarely convey thoughts beyond single word answers to posed questions. They also wear wool stocking caps in Southern California during the day time. Isn't part of the allure of Southern California the fact that you can leave your woolly caps in the closet year round? Maybe sweating heads is a fashion statement, maybe they simply forgot that they are wearing wool caps in 85 degree weather, or they forgot to take them off their heads 5 years ago when they arrived in LA from Northern New England. I have concluded that the male characters on "The Hills" must be dumber than the average dolphin...not intending to slight the intelligence of dolphins.
Therefore it is a complete mystery to me, why the girls on "The Hills" spend time with these guys. Okay some of the relationships I can figure out. For those who saw Forrest Gump...Stupid is and Stupid does. If there is any doubt that I can haul the mail with respect to my acumen of "The Hills" I am getting ready to blow that out of the water. I can understand why Audrina dates guys like Justin Bobby...any questions there? Justin, the fake hard-ass who probably couldn't throw a football past his shadow and likely has no clue what hand his baseball glove goes on as a righthander. Let's just make this clear, the only person I have seen on television dumber than Audrina is Justin. At first I liked Audrina, I thought she was good to Lauren after the Heidi debacle. However the way she let herself be completely manipulated by someone as obtuse as Justin is beyond comprehension. The most creative deflection he could think of when he got busted making out with the redhead in front of his pseudo girlfriend was "you just see what you want to see". What is he talking about? Uhhh, okay Justin, what is your plan-B to get out of this jam. Thankfully Audrina sent him packing back to the hair salon where he works. Next up? Jason. Why would someone cute, seemingly bright, and as genuine as one can be on "The Hills" waste their time chasing Jason? Lauren seems to have a lot going for her. She is an intern who drives a $ 60K car, so something must be going right for her. She wasted how many years chasing Jason, who mastered his lines of "Huh?" and "I don't know" better than anyone in television history. Does this make any sense? I thought Heidi was going to be a good character and seemed to be a good friend to Lauren, until she met Spencer, whereupon she dumped her entire life for a guy who wants to fill his dining room with arcade games. I am not sure Spencer is smart enough to play the arcade games however, since they sat unused in the dining room the entire season. He could have had his friends over to play them, or show them how they worked, but he has no friends....but he does have a beach house...or mommy and daddy have a beach house. Remember when Heidi stabbed her friend in the back to get promoted and then asked her to transfer all the contacts from her old cell phone to her new one? That was great. Oh, and didn't she quit on the next episode? The train wreck really was in slow motion then because most people would have quit on the spot. I do like Whitney, I think she is the best of the bunch. She seems very well grounded has never been played by the morons parading around as the male characters on the show. I think she is bright and is lone admirable character on the show.
So I am totally embarrassed that I watch this show. I thought the season finale was a dud. Couldn't Heidi have started balling for us instead of standing there with a quivering lip when Spencer walked out? I have also learned that I do not want my daughters to emulate anyone on the show (okay maybe Whitney) and if they bring home a doofuss like Justin, Jason, or Spencer expect him to sit outside by himself in the cold when we have dinner together. He will finally get to make use of his woolly stocking cap that way.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
I Think it Comes Down to Trust, or Lack of it
I am not sure why the Dems are so enamored with raising taxes. They hope to get new taxes enacted ASAP by hoisting the populist message that their new taxes are only on "the rich".
There are several problems with this however for all of us. First, what is the hard definition of the mushy term "the rich"? Is this based on net worth? Is this based on W-2 earnings? What level is determined to be "rich" and who gets to decide? There have been proposed tax schemes in the past where rich has been defined as a household earning more than $ 200,000 per year, or $ 100,000 per year, or $ 78,000/ per year. Get the picture? Rich is a term that bends to meet the need of the argument for the specific tax increase. I can tell you that when raising a family of 3 kids, $ 100,000 and even $ 200,000 is not rich. It is a good foundation to support your family and gives you some options in education and lifestyle, but rich? Hardly.
The next problem is this; when has there been a tax, once enacted that went away, or shrank without tremendous angst and taxes hikes elsewhere so any reduction is revenue neutral? Answer, somewhere between never and rarely. The problems with increased taxes are obvious, the question I have is why, when the economic risks are so great, are the Dems willing to take these risks to increase the federal coffers?
I think it is because the Dems do not trust people and markets. They cannot fathom that the market, the aggregate of millions of people making independent decisions on a daily basis that will determine their daily state if not the long term outcome of their lives, can arrive at a state through the invisible hand that can be better than the heavy hand of government intervention. The Dems want a minimum of guaranteed success for everyone, no matter the individuals role in their own outcome. They do not trust democratic process nor capitalist free markets. Therefore, like a nosey mother who cannot cut the apron strings with her children, the Dems have to micro manage decisions for everyone, no matter how little people may want government meddling.
The Democrats have been called arrogant and elitist in their notion that they know better than the citizenry how to spend their assets produced through a lifetime of work. I think there may be an element of truth to this, but I think the larger driver is that they just do not trust the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient and just manner. This is where the democrats have left the building that our founding fathers created for all of us. They just don't trust markets and by extension they do not trust you and me and the decisions we make. The truth is that markets are "smarter" and more effective than any individual or group of leaders. If they could just learn to trust markets and trust those who exist in those markets, they might fare better at the ballot box and also leave a little more cash in the private sector...where it belongs.
There are several problems with this however for all of us. First, what is the hard definition of the mushy term "the rich"? Is this based on net worth? Is this based on W-2 earnings? What level is determined to be "rich" and who gets to decide? There have been proposed tax schemes in the past where rich has been defined as a household earning more than $ 200,000 per year, or $ 100,000 per year, or $ 78,000/ per year. Get the picture? Rich is a term that bends to meet the need of the argument for the specific tax increase. I can tell you that when raising a family of 3 kids, $ 100,000 and even $ 200,000 is not rich. It is a good foundation to support your family and gives you some options in education and lifestyle, but rich? Hardly.
The next problem is this; when has there been a tax, once enacted that went away, or shrank without tremendous angst and taxes hikes elsewhere so any reduction is revenue neutral? Answer, somewhere between never and rarely. The problems with increased taxes are obvious, the question I have is why, when the economic risks are so great, are the Dems willing to take these risks to increase the federal coffers?
I think it is because the Dems do not trust people and markets. They cannot fathom that the market, the aggregate of millions of people making independent decisions on a daily basis that will determine their daily state if not the long term outcome of their lives, can arrive at a state through the invisible hand that can be better than the heavy hand of government intervention. The Dems want a minimum of guaranteed success for everyone, no matter the individuals role in their own outcome. They do not trust democratic process nor capitalist free markets. Therefore, like a nosey mother who cannot cut the apron strings with her children, the Dems have to micro manage decisions for everyone, no matter how little people may want government meddling.
The Democrats have been called arrogant and elitist in their notion that they know better than the citizenry how to spend their assets produced through a lifetime of work. I think there may be an element of truth to this, but I think the larger driver is that they just do not trust the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient and just manner. This is where the democrats have left the building that our founding fathers created for all of us. They just don't trust markets and by extension they do not trust you and me and the decisions we make. The truth is that markets are "smarter" and more effective than any individual or group of leaders. If they could just learn to trust markets and trust those who exist in those markets, they might fare better at the ballot box and also leave a little more cash in the private sector...where it belongs.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Try this on for size....
Senator Clinton, it has become apparent that there are multiple instances when your campaign has planted questions in town hall forums. Based on the facts surrounding this situation including statements from those approached to ask the planted questions, there is not alot of doubt that this occurred over the past two months. We would like to know your thoughts on this matter.
"This is my campaign and I am ultimately responsible for the actions and the practices of those in my campaign. Planting questions in a public question & answer forum is not an acceptable practice under any circumstance. As I stated, this is my campaign and I accept the responsibility for this campaign miscue. I have taken actions necessary to ensure that this practice will not be repeated. I have made it abundantly clear to everyone in my campaign from my senior leadership to the local volunteers in the electoral districts that I will not tolerate this practice moving forward and that this is not the way we want to win this nomination. I have full and unwavering confidence in my leadership team and I look forward to putting these incidents behind us. I am eager to asnwer all the questions voters have about my candidacy, my qualificaitons to lead this country, and my positions on the issues that are important to our future. You have my personal commitment that my campaign will be the most ethical and above board organizatoin in this election. Thank you for your time and thank you for your support."
What would have been so hard about that? If this was that response that Senator Clinton put out in the political arena two things likely would have happened. First, the electorate would have thought "how refreshing to see a leader stand up and take responsibility for the actions of their organization....like the rest us do every day." Second, the political fallout from this gaffe would likely be nearing its nadir instead of its zenith. Clinton's chosen response to this revelation of "It is news to me" coming on the heels of her obfuscation of driver's licenses for illegals issue was probably the worst possible response. Even if it was news to her (hard not to chuckle writing that) the better response would have been to step up and take the heat as the leader of her organization - the buck stops here. Opportunity missed by Mrs. Clinton....big time. Maybe just once, be up front and honest with us...try that on for size, you will be surprized how the truth plays with the ordinary people of America. Here is a great peice of advice I give to my team when any fuzzy issues arise. If you tell the truth, you only have to keep up with one story...it makes life a lot easier.
"This is my campaign and I am ultimately responsible for the actions and the practices of those in my campaign. Planting questions in a public question & answer forum is not an acceptable practice under any circumstance. As I stated, this is my campaign and I accept the responsibility for this campaign miscue. I have taken actions necessary to ensure that this practice will not be repeated. I have made it abundantly clear to everyone in my campaign from my senior leadership to the local volunteers in the electoral districts that I will not tolerate this practice moving forward and that this is not the way we want to win this nomination. I have full and unwavering confidence in my leadership team and I look forward to putting these incidents behind us. I am eager to asnwer all the questions voters have about my candidacy, my qualificaitons to lead this country, and my positions on the issues that are important to our future. You have my personal commitment that my campaign will be the most ethical and above board organizatoin in this election. Thank you for your time and thank you for your support."
What would have been so hard about that? If this was that response that Senator Clinton put out in the political arena two things likely would have happened. First, the electorate would have thought "how refreshing to see a leader stand up and take responsibility for the actions of their organization....like the rest us do every day." Second, the political fallout from this gaffe would likely be nearing its nadir instead of its zenith. Clinton's chosen response to this revelation of "It is news to me" coming on the heels of her obfuscation of driver's licenses for illegals issue was probably the worst possible response. Even if it was news to her (hard not to chuckle writing that) the better response would have been to step up and take the heat as the leader of her organization - the buck stops here. Opportunity missed by Mrs. Clinton....big time. Maybe just once, be up front and honest with us...try that on for size, you will be surprized how the truth plays with the ordinary people of America. Here is a great peice of advice I give to my team when any fuzzy issues arise. If you tell the truth, you only have to keep up with one story...it makes life a lot easier.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Two Posers
If someone bought an expensive house with little to no money as a down payment, took out an interest only loan with a teser rate that is now coming due, if that person now has to move, aren't we really talking about someone who just rented a house they probably couldn't afford in the first place? The banks who made this loan knew what they were getting in the first place with this type of investment risk, they are not entitled to any kind of bailout. The more unpopular position however is that the "home owner" or really the renter also knew the rules going into the game as well. As a person who really didn't own a home because they had no equity in the property, but was just renting it over the term of the teaser rate, they are no more entitled than the bank to a government bailout. They were a renter. Renters move all the time. This is not the government's business for crying out loud. Let the market sort this out. The only thing government intervention will do is screw up the process and cost us all a lot of money. Anyone want to take that deal?
A unit if energy is a commodity, just like a sack of potatoes. It really does not matter to the consumer the souce a calorie of energy. The market has determined that the most cost effective source of energy is fossil fuel. We can choose to like this reality or not, but at this point in our technoogical development, fossil fuel is still the cheapest, most efficient, and most abundant energy supply for the world's economic and societal needs. When the cost of fossil fuel begins to rise...as the supply starts to dwindle many years into the future or if hyper demand far out paces supply, then an alternative will appear in the market. Until that time, it would be foolish to spend some factor greater than the market cost of energy for our needs. As stated before, energy is a commodity. Paying more for non-fossil fuel would be like paying Five bucks for a Two dollar sack of potatoes. Why would anyone do that?
A unit if energy is a commodity, just like a sack of potatoes. It really does not matter to the consumer the souce a calorie of energy. The market has determined that the most cost effective source of energy is fossil fuel. We can choose to like this reality or not, but at this point in our technoogical development, fossil fuel is still the cheapest, most efficient, and most abundant energy supply for the world's economic and societal needs. When the cost of fossil fuel begins to rise...as the supply starts to dwindle many years into the future or if hyper demand far out paces supply, then an alternative will appear in the market. Until that time, it would be foolish to spend some factor greater than the market cost of energy for our needs. As stated before, energy is a commodity. Paying more for non-fossil fuel would be like paying Five bucks for a Two dollar sack of potatoes. Why would anyone do that?
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Only in America
You know what is both ubiqutous throughout the world and at the same time uniquely American? I think the asnwer to this riddle is human stupidity. Don't buy it? Just look at some of the videos on You Tube. In fact human stupidity has become so pervasive that people make idoits of themsleves, inflict injury on themselves, or take crazy risks just to have something to post on the Internet. One could argue that at least a few years ago people got paid to be morons and it made a little more sense. At least making a movie like "Jackass" provided the....well...jackasses with a little income. Now there are hours of jackass-like video clips posted everday on You Tube just for giggles. These posts come to you from every corner of the Earth, so this idea of human stupidity is truly pervasive.
What is truly American about human stupidity, is that we have legions of people who get to make a living off the stupidity of others, they are called trial lawyers, or more specifically personal injury attorneys. Let's just say that the power mower has yet to be invented. We are going to be economists for a while here and make a series of assumptions, so the power lawn mower does not exist. Let's assume that one day by a stroke of sheer brilliance or complete dumb luck my buddies and I stumble across the idea of a 2-cycle engine driving a whirling blade encased in a container with 4 wheels, a throttle, and a starter. Voila - we now have a power mower. Let's also say that my friends and I are smart enough to know that while very useful and meeting a significant need in the market, we understand that our product can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Therefore, we sell this product with every reasonable warning and direction we can imagine. Do not operate on steep hills, do not operate while intoxicated, do not fill with gas while the engine is hot, keep all body parts away from the blade while running, etc. etc. We have given the world a very useful product that will save untold hours and created a better life for millions.
Let's go back to point number One, human stupidity is everywhere. Even though every human on the planet knows that this is a dumb idea, I bet you anything that there will be some loony-tune out there who will try something stupid with our newly invented lawn mower. Some powered-by-beer fraternity genius will try to do something like cut his hair with the power mower. The result will be predictable...srerious injury to the "user" of our product. Here is where the unique American twist to ubiquitous human stupidity comes in...someone (personal injury attorney) will get to make a living off of druken frat-boy's stupidity. Under strict prodcut's liability, we, as the inventors of the lawn mower, should have had the clarevoyance to see that somewhere, someday, a frat-boy would think that cutting his hair with a power mower was a good idea and we are liable for the serious injury resulted. We will be sued for some one else' moronic behavior. That is where the Americanization of human stupidity kicks in. We allow others to make a wonderful living off the pure unadulterated stupidity of irrational consumers. The personal injury attorney will take us to the cleaners, or will try to take us to the cleaners, because his client is an idiot, we have money based on the value of our invention in the market, and there is no downside risk for him to sue us.
So while there is no corner in the market in human stupidity, there is an American corner on the market letting trial lawyers get rich bacuase of it. Guess what many of our politicians did before they became politicians? Guess what presidential hopeful John Edwards did for a living before entering the world of national politics? Hint: He didn't invent lawn mowers or anything else of value. See the problem now?
What is truly American about human stupidity, is that we have legions of people who get to make a living off the stupidity of others, they are called trial lawyers, or more specifically personal injury attorneys. Let's just say that the power mower has yet to be invented. We are going to be economists for a while here and make a series of assumptions, so the power lawn mower does not exist. Let's assume that one day by a stroke of sheer brilliance or complete dumb luck my buddies and I stumble across the idea of a 2-cycle engine driving a whirling blade encased in a container with 4 wheels, a throttle, and a starter. Voila - we now have a power mower. Let's also say that my friends and I are smart enough to know that while very useful and meeting a significant need in the market, we understand that our product can be dangerous if used inappropriately. Therefore, we sell this product with every reasonable warning and direction we can imagine. Do not operate on steep hills, do not operate while intoxicated, do not fill with gas while the engine is hot, keep all body parts away from the blade while running, etc. etc. We have given the world a very useful product that will save untold hours and created a better life for millions.
Let's go back to point number One, human stupidity is everywhere. Even though every human on the planet knows that this is a dumb idea, I bet you anything that there will be some loony-tune out there who will try something stupid with our newly invented lawn mower. Some powered-by-beer fraternity genius will try to do something like cut his hair with the power mower. The result will be predictable...srerious injury to the "user" of our product. Here is where the unique American twist to ubiquitous human stupidity comes in...someone (personal injury attorney) will get to make a living off of druken frat-boy's stupidity. Under strict prodcut's liability, we, as the inventors of the lawn mower, should have had the clarevoyance to see that somewhere, someday, a frat-boy would think that cutting his hair with a power mower was a good idea and we are liable for the serious injury resulted. We will be sued for some one else' moronic behavior. That is where the Americanization of human stupidity kicks in. We allow others to make a wonderful living off the pure unadulterated stupidity of irrational consumers. The personal injury attorney will take us to the cleaners, or will try to take us to the cleaners, because his client is an idiot, we have money based on the value of our invention in the market, and there is no downside risk for him to sue us.
So while there is no corner in the market in human stupidity, there is an American corner on the market letting trial lawyers get rich bacuase of it. Guess what many of our politicians did before they became politicians? Guess what presidential hopeful John Edwards did for a living before entering the world of national politics? Hint: He didn't invent lawn mowers or anything else of value. See the problem now?
Stupid is as Stupid Does - Politics in 2007
I know that most politicians understand the inverse relationship bewteen tax rates and tax revenues. It has been the case multiple times throughout the past 50 years that when tax rates are cut, the economy surges, and tax revenue swell to record levels. This was the case in the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration, and in the "W" administration.
While this is a semi-counter intuitive reality, it is not outside the grasp of all the "smarties" currently in or running for political office. I know that democrats understand this as well as the reverse to this reality which is that higher taxes tank the economy and therefore reduce tax reveues. So if everyone understands this, why are the dems hell-bent on increasing taxes? Why do they want to soak the tax payers who are paying the vast majority of US taxes? Is it punative? Is it that the leading dems truly are socialists?
There are a few other realities that the tax-happy dems should understand before they reach further into the pockets of the "producers" in this country:
1) Most of "the rich" that they laoth (though the dems in congress ironically are all very rich) are all smart emough to find ways around any tax increase plan. The smartest politician cannot outsmart the high end tax payer...who is a likely a high-ender becuase they are smart, motivated problem solvers who understandably want to keep the money they earn. That is how the system works. I have talent/skill, I work hard, I do a very good job, and get the prize. There is no better system in the world. Most high-enders pay a ton of taxes. I think most high-enders know that they earn a lot and will pay a lot. But they are currently taxed to the brink, and if they are saddled with more unfair, redistributionist taxes, they will find ways to avoid them. I am so happy for them in this endeavor.
2) No matter how hard the government wants everyone to be "okay" and to have a middle class standard of living, there are those who will spit the bit. Congress cannot force every American to show up to work on time, to work hard, to save for a rainy day, to go the extra mile on the job. Congress cannot force people to not have children out of wedlock, to stay married when they decide to get married, and to finish high school. This is the simple recepie for a modicum of success in the US. It is not a hard plan to follow, but there are many who will not.
The best intended programs will not lead to "no hardship for anyone". The tax burden imposed by unecessary and overreaching government programs will throttle the economy and kill the golden goose of United States free-market capitalism. The irony in the democratic tax and spend plan is that the folks who the dems allegedly want to help are the first ones to get kicked in the shins during a tax hike induced economic recession. The rich that the dems want to take down several pegs can weather a pretty rough economic ride. How does the paycheck-to-paycheck clerk make it when the recession forces their employers to cut their job.
3) the best thing any politician can do in managing the economy is stay out of the way. The US system is the best in the world. It creates millionaires who started from humble beginnings. It rewards innovation and hard work. It is the only system in the world that is self-limiting. My success in this system is limited by my ability, my work ethic, and the value I bring to the market. I limit my earnings and my worth in the market by the decisions I make. I do not want my economic success limited by decisions of power-addicted weanies in Washington who have never held a real job, never run a business, or had to make a payroll. Our system is the envy of the world, why do the dems want to kill it for government mandated mediocrity? Medicrity for everyone...courtesy of Uncle Freakin' Sam.
The United States tax problem is not a problem of too few revenues, the tax problem is too much spending. The tax problem in the US is a function of careerist politicians from both parties who want nothing more than to be re-elected and use tax-based handouts to buy votes. There is nothing wrong with the free market system in the United States. It works best when left alone. The free market has given us the standard of living we enjoy, the products we use, and the opportunities we leverage. It is our biggest asset. What is seriously broken in our country is the devolution of our republic into system of government handouts where political support is bought and paid for by politicians dreaming up new government guaranteed benefits for things that the free market and free consumers should provide for themselves.
If the government would stay out of the free market, there would be more and better of everything for those who chose to participate in what this country has to offer. I wish there were a politician with the courage to deliver this message to the nation. I guess it is easier to hand out "free" prescription drugs, retirement plans, and health care.
While this is a semi-counter intuitive reality, it is not outside the grasp of all the "smarties" currently in or running for political office. I know that democrats understand this as well as the reverse to this reality which is that higher taxes tank the economy and therefore reduce tax reveues. So if everyone understands this, why are the dems hell-bent on increasing taxes? Why do they want to soak the tax payers who are paying the vast majority of US taxes? Is it punative? Is it that the leading dems truly are socialists?
There are a few other realities that the tax-happy dems should understand before they reach further into the pockets of the "producers" in this country:
1) Most of "the rich" that they laoth (though the dems in congress ironically are all very rich) are all smart emough to find ways around any tax increase plan. The smartest politician cannot outsmart the high end tax payer...who is a likely a high-ender becuase they are smart, motivated problem solvers who understandably want to keep the money they earn. That is how the system works. I have talent/skill, I work hard, I do a very good job, and get the prize. There is no better system in the world. Most high-enders pay a ton of taxes. I think most high-enders know that they earn a lot and will pay a lot. But they are currently taxed to the brink, and if they are saddled with more unfair, redistributionist taxes, they will find ways to avoid them. I am so happy for them in this endeavor.
2) No matter how hard the government wants everyone to be "okay" and to have a middle class standard of living, there are those who will spit the bit. Congress cannot force every American to show up to work on time, to work hard, to save for a rainy day, to go the extra mile on the job. Congress cannot force people to not have children out of wedlock, to stay married when they decide to get married, and to finish high school. This is the simple recepie for a modicum of success in the US. It is not a hard plan to follow, but there are many who will not.
The best intended programs will not lead to "no hardship for anyone". The tax burden imposed by unecessary and overreaching government programs will throttle the economy and kill the golden goose of United States free-market capitalism. The irony in the democratic tax and spend plan is that the folks who the dems allegedly want to help are the first ones to get kicked in the shins during a tax hike induced economic recession. The rich that the dems want to take down several pegs can weather a pretty rough economic ride. How does the paycheck-to-paycheck clerk make it when the recession forces their employers to cut their job.
3) the best thing any politician can do in managing the economy is stay out of the way. The US system is the best in the world. It creates millionaires who started from humble beginnings. It rewards innovation and hard work. It is the only system in the world that is self-limiting. My success in this system is limited by my ability, my work ethic, and the value I bring to the market. I limit my earnings and my worth in the market by the decisions I make. I do not want my economic success limited by decisions of power-addicted weanies in Washington who have never held a real job, never run a business, or had to make a payroll. Our system is the envy of the world, why do the dems want to kill it for government mandated mediocrity? Medicrity for everyone...courtesy of Uncle Freakin' Sam.
The United States tax problem is not a problem of too few revenues, the tax problem is too much spending. The tax problem in the US is a function of careerist politicians from both parties who want nothing more than to be re-elected and use tax-based handouts to buy votes. There is nothing wrong with the free market system in the United States. It works best when left alone. The free market has given us the standard of living we enjoy, the products we use, and the opportunities we leverage. It is our biggest asset. What is seriously broken in our country is the devolution of our republic into system of government handouts where political support is bought and paid for by politicians dreaming up new government guaranteed benefits for things that the free market and free consumers should provide for themselves.
If the government would stay out of the free market, there would be more and better of everything for those who chose to participate in what this country has to offer. I wish there were a politician with the courage to deliver this message to the nation. I guess it is easier to hand out "free" prescription drugs, retirement plans, and health care.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Gas Prices too High? Not Yet.
The price for gasoline, while a big headache for all of us, is not high enough yet, or stated differently, the price of gas is not high enough for those in the United States to do anything more than complain about it. If the price of gas were actually "too high" we would demand that we draw the oil reserves out of ANWR. If the price of gasoline were really too high it would be political suicide for the governors of coastal states to stake their incumbancy on stopping off-shore drilling. If gasoline prices were really too high, we would be willing to leverage the ridculous amount of coal resources the United States has for our fuel needs. In the true measure of whether or not gas prices are too high, if gas prices were too high the free market would deliver a new innovative substitute fuel or technologically driven renewable source of energy, and competition for consumer's energy needs would drive market equilibrium to a lower price per unit of energy. However, none of this is happening. We have the luxury of sub-optimal fuel sourcing. We can revel in our smugness, knowing that somewhere a caribou is feeding on grasslands that might otherwise fuel our nation. We can feel good about our ferderal government spending billions on inefficeint, market failures like ethanol. We can enjoy cocktail party banter about the vast energy resources of the United States that go untapped, while we send billions of dollars to buy our energy from those who despise us. A barrell of oil will hit $ 100 some day. It may not be tomorrow, but absent some impactful change in the attitudes and actions of the US consumers, the price of oil will hit $ 100 a barrell. It has to, market demand is increasing faster than market supply. I am certain when that day comes, we will gripe about how gasoline is simply too expensive. However, until we are ready and willing to do somthing about it, it really isn't. While pondering about "somedays", someday this problem will be solved, someday the price of gaoline will be so high that we will do somthing about it or the free market will do somethng about it. That day just isn't today.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Random Thoughts
When did “I don’t like it” evolve into “It’s not fair”. I don’t like that fact that Tiger Woods can hit a gold ball into the next county and makes a ga-jillion dollars a year and I can’t and don’t. I may not like it, but it is certainly fair.
What do people mean by the term “economic justice”? And who determines what defines economic justice. Hypothetically of course, if I am smart, work hard, sacrifice personal time, and am effective in a very competitive industry, is it “just” that I make more money than someone who may not have the skills I do, does not work as hard, and never misses the 5 o’clock happy hour? Is it “just” that the last dollar I earn is taxed at a much higher rate than the guy who does not work as hard or make the sacrifices I make?
Do the fans of government “solutions” (aka handouts) give any thought to how much money it takes to generate every dollar of government benefit? How many dollars in FICA taxes does it take to generate a dollar in social security benefits? I have no idea but I know it is a lot more than the dollar of generated “benefits”. The Social Security Administration has buildings, employees, computer systems, networks, calculators, endless forms, desks, chairs, paper clips…so how much does each dollar of benefit cost us…$ 1.25, $ 2.00, $ 5.00? I have no idea, but I know that any dollar sent to Washington comes back to the people as less than a handful of pocket change. Who are these people who want to send more money to Washington? Is there are worse investment in the world? I can’t think of one.
Remember that no matter what happens in life...the lawyer always gets paid.
What do people mean by the term “economic justice”? And who determines what defines economic justice. Hypothetically of course, if I am smart, work hard, sacrifice personal time, and am effective in a very competitive industry, is it “just” that I make more money than someone who may not have the skills I do, does not work as hard, and never misses the 5 o’clock happy hour? Is it “just” that the last dollar I earn is taxed at a much higher rate than the guy who does not work as hard or make the sacrifices I make?
Do the fans of government “solutions” (aka handouts) give any thought to how much money it takes to generate every dollar of government benefit? How many dollars in FICA taxes does it take to generate a dollar in social security benefits? I have no idea but I know it is a lot more than the dollar of generated “benefits”. The Social Security Administration has buildings, employees, computer systems, networks, calculators, endless forms, desks, chairs, paper clips…so how much does each dollar of benefit cost us…$ 1.25, $ 2.00, $ 5.00? I have no idea, but I know that any dollar sent to Washington comes back to the people as less than a handful of pocket change. Who are these people who want to send more money to Washington? Is there are worse investment in the world? I can’t think of one.
Remember that no matter what happens in life...the lawyer always gets paid.
The Insurance Thing
When did health insurance equal health care? It seems that the pols, at least on the democratic side of the aisle, interchange health care and health insurance, implying that one cannot get health care if they are not insured. Anyone with half a brain knows that is not the case, but the emergency room as the primary care facility clearly is not the best option for Americans in any scenario.
I guess folks understand the insurance business, but then again maybe not. I am no insurance guru, but I do know that insurance is just that…something that insures me in case of a large unforeseen event. The insurance game is one of pooled risk.
Let’s look at the auto insurance business. I pay my insurance company quarterly around $ 400/month (now that my eldest daughter is driving). Everyone else who is a customer of my insurance company pays an amount based on their coverage needs as well. For the vast majority of auto insurance customers, year after year we lose money on our auto insurance bets. Knock on wood, I have never filed an auto insurance claim, so every year, I have paid into the shared risk pool and every year I have thankfully lost. The only ones who come out ahead are those who have an accident. Hence the “insurance” ensures that those who have an accident do not have to pay catastrophic out of pocket the collision costs, medicals, etc associated with a major wreck.
So why is health insurance perceived to be any differently? Uncle Sam, that’s why. If 10 people pay a thousand dollars a month into health insurance pool, if all of us become sick and need more than $ 120,000 of care the insurance company goes bust. There is no magic in healthcare insurance. There is no money multiplier that creates an infinite sum of funds available for consumers. However, most folks with health insurance are fairly cavalier about spending healthcare dollars as the majority of the funds come from the anonymous third party payer…the insurance company. However, the insurance company and the insurance industry is subject to the same financial and actuarial realities of any risk-based business. If the same 10 people pay a thousand dollars a month for health insurance and only one of us get seriously ill requiring $ 250,000 of medical treatment, then 9 out of 10 of us lost money in the fiscal period, but we were covered just in case by pooling our risk and the insurance company playing to odds that most of us will remain relatively well during the period. So far so good, however, once Uncle Sam sticks his nose into the healthcare business or any business, the efficiencies of markets go away, costs escalate, and we have problems with people being able to afford coverage as costs for care and usage are driven higher by artificial, non-market conditions.
I am a fan of pay as you go for wellness care and insurance for catastrophic or major illness. Just like a high auto insurance deductable, I would be able to reduce the cost of major event health plan by stepping up to the plate for routine care. This would also force me to shop around and look for the best value for my healthcare dollars.
The healthcare “crisis” is really not that hard to solve, as long as people understand the basics of the insurance business and have the incentive to spend their healthcare dollars wisely. There are a lot of difficult problems in this country, healthcare and health insurance really is not one of them, if people would just use their heads….and if uncle Sam would get out of the way.
I guess folks understand the insurance business, but then again maybe not. I am no insurance guru, but I do know that insurance is just that…something that insures me in case of a large unforeseen event. The insurance game is one of pooled risk.
Let’s look at the auto insurance business. I pay my insurance company quarterly around $ 400/month (now that my eldest daughter is driving). Everyone else who is a customer of my insurance company pays an amount based on their coverage needs as well. For the vast majority of auto insurance customers, year after year we lose money on our auto insurance bets. Knock on wood, I have never filed an auto insurance claim, so every year, I have paid into the shared risk pool and every year I have thankfully lost. The only ones who come out ahead are those who have an accident. Hence the “insurance” ensures that those who have an accident do not have to pay catastrophic out of pocket the collision costs, medicals, etc associated with a major wreck.
So why is health insurance perceived to be any differently? Uncle Sam, that’s why. If 10 people pay a thousand dollars a month into health insurance pool, if all of us become sick and need more than $ 120,000 of care the insurance company goes bust. There is no magic in healthcare insurance. There is no money multiplier that creates an infinite sum of funds available for consumers. However, most folks with health insurance are fairly cavalier about spending healthcare dollars as the majority of the funds come from the anonymous third party payer…the insurance company. However, the insurance company and the insurance industry is subject to the same financial and actuarial realities of any risk-based business. If the same 10 people pay a thousand dollars a month for health insurance and only one of us get seriously ill requiring $ 250,000 of medical treatment, then 9 out of 10 of us lost money in the fiscal period, but we were covered just in case by pooling our risk and the insurance company playing to odds that most of us will remain relatively well during the period. So far so good, however, once Uncle Sam sticks his nose into the healthcare business or any business, the efficiencies of markets go away, costs escalate, and we have problems with people being able to afford coverage as costs for care and usage are driven higher by artificial, non-market conditions.
I am a fan of pay as you go for wellness care and insurance for catastrophic or major illness. Just like a high auto insurance deductable, I would be able to reduce the cost of major event health plan by stepping up to the plate for routine care. This would also force me to shop around and look for the best value for my healthcare dollars.
The healthcare “crisis” is really not that hard to solve, as long as people understand the basics of the insurance business and have the incentive to spend their healthcare dollars wisely. There are a lot of difficult problems in this country, healthcare and health insurance really is not one of them, if people would just use their heads….and if uncle Sam would get out of the way.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Flying Below Half-staff
I am traveling out to my company’s annual sales kickoff meeting. I don’t mind these meetings while I am there, but I hate the time I waste traveling to these events and on the balance are generally not worth the time I spend at the meetings and the money my company spends putting on these events. However they seem to be a corporate ritual no matter where I work, so I try to make the best of the meetings and make the trip as pleasant as possible. After my 3rd Diet Coke of the day, somewhere over Wyoming and half way into my seat 300 pound seat-neighbor’s third pile of sawed logs I had to make my way to the lavatory. On my way back to the seat I noticed that the people watching the edited for airplane viewing movie seemed to be enjoying the movie more than a usual airplane film. They were smiling and giggling as I stumbled my way back to the airplane facilities. I thought that Shrek 2 must really be good as I got to the back of the plane, where us coach-class slugs had to take care of business. I thought any movie that could make people forget that they were packed into an aging 737 like tuna fish in a Starkist tin had to be a truly wonderful film. About the time I completed that thought, I closed the door to the bathroom only to discover that my fly was down. Holy mackerel! I was four and a half hours into a 6 hour trip. I had changed planes in Chicago, eaten the obligatory 7 dollar breakfast sandwich, gate checked my over-stuffed suitcase that had no chance of fitting into the overhead bin, only to now find out that I had done all this with my barn door open. Maybe Shrek 2 wasn’t such a good movie after all. I would submit that more than a few of smiles I saw walking back to the non-executive hopper were really sneers – “hey look at that knucklehead with his pants unzipped” “I am glad he’s wearing underpants”. These are a few of the things I would have thought had I seen me strolling back to the head, airing things out a little prematurely. It also explains why there were a few of the looks that were a little askance. When I sheepishly returned to my seat, I decided that reading PJ O’Rourke’s new book “Peace Kills” was a little too heady for me given my public display of indiscretion. I thought I should ponder my most recent “zipper down” experience. So here it goes: The thing that bothers me most is that, like locking my keys in the car, when I have a zipper down event, it is inexplicably followed by at least one usually two more events in the near future. Given that I was headed to a multi-day meeting where not only my team mates would be there, but my boss, his boss, followed by his boss on up to the top of our corporate food chain. Who would be the lucky duck that was around the next time I flew the flag at the bottom of the pole? How much damage to my career was this going to inflict? Until now, a little appreciated advantage of working for a company with over 10,000 sales, engineering, and management types, is that the probability was good that the next flash of boxer shorts was likely to be amidst total strangers. That was the best case scenario. The worst case is almost unfathomable. What if, heaven forbid, I won some award and had to go up on stage to shake hands with some executive who may not think that an introduction to Mr. Johnson was a good idea with the spot light on both of us in front of a crowd of 5,000 until now bored sales people eager to do what sales folks to best – empty out the nearest bar. If history was any predictor of future events, the probability was 100% that in the next 5 days I was going greet someone in full “zipper down”. I am starting to sweat.
My only consolation is that there have been other zipper down events that have had fairly innocuous or even happy endings. My brother in law was tossed out of a job with a formerly profitable S & L back in the initial days of over extending business plans when his seemingly happy employer went belly up. He was going through the grueling process of interviewing for jobs in the banking industry when there was a glut of banking professionals on the street thanks to the Keating 5 and other business visionaries. We were chatting one day about his quest and I asked him how his interviews were going. He told me that he had had what he hoped had been a promising interview earlier in the week. However he then told me that he was not bullish on his prospect for this position given that when he got in the car to return home, after interviewing all afternoon with the president of the bank and his executive team, he realized he had been “zipper down” all day. Better yet, he was wearing his best navy blue suit which created a fabulous contrast to his white boxer shorts. Is it ironic or simply fortuitous that after months of unsuccessful job interviews that the one interview you go through in its entirety with your fly down is the one where the phone rings and you hear that you have the job? There is no way that no one noticed his display. Come on, navy blue suit, white underwear, all day has to make an impression. What to you think bank’s executive committee said when they were making their decision to fill the job – which was for their chief lending position, an officer of the company? “that guy was able to pull off a full day of interviews with his fly down and didn’t skip a beat” or “Was his strategy to be ‘noticed’ in the interview process to flash his yang our way under the guise of being professionally dressed” I think I would have concluded that he had just given up his job search was now doing things like going all day with his fly open just to see what happened. I would have called some other banks to see if someone had shown up at an interview with no shoes, parked their car on the front lawn rather than in the parking lot, or had helped themselves to the interviewer’s chair and desk after exchanging pleasantries. However, this is a zipper down event with a decidedly happy ending. My brother-in-law got the job, got some stock options, waited for the bank to get gobbled up by some overpaying, incompetent rival, and cashed out with way more dough than he ever imagined. This really is a great country. However, I wonder two things about this little episode. First what would have happened if he had not had his fly down all day during his interview and second, what the heck were the other candidates like that the best of the bunch was a guy who couldn’t remember to check the barn door before going into an interview. I wish I could rewind this one to see what the other outcomes would have been.
In a far more personal zipper-down incident several years ago, I was waiting to get on very crowded flight back from Seattle. This was back in the day when I traveled all the time and having to fly coach was anathema. I was on stand by to upgrade to civilized class in very crowded waiting area. While standing by the check-in desk, trying to make sure the agent didn’t forget about me while not being a pest, a guy I had never seen before started walking toward the check-in counter. I was extremely worried that this was another upgrade wannabe, unwanted competition for my upgraded seat. If he had more miles than me I was toast. Just as I thought he was going to ask the agent to be added to the standby list for first class, he veered toward me, and stood right next to me. I was a little flustered as it was just about time for me to ask the attendant if I had made the cut yet and I didn’t want to get moved off her front burner. The interloper with intentions unknown leaned over to me and quietly said “I know you don’t know me, but if I were in your shoes, I’d want some one to say something to me” What could this possibly be? I wondered, starting to feel more than a little uneasy. He went on “you may want to pull up your fly unless you are trying to make a point with everyone else on this flight”. Rather than try to be coy or pretend like I had intended to have my pants unzipped in front of 200 people I had never seen before, I reflexively sent my hands into action to correct the problem and thanked him for his help. While I stood there and tried to compose myself, zipper back at full staff, I was called for the upgraded seat I coveted and was ready to head home. As luck would have, my informant was also in the upgraded cabin in the seat across the aisle. As he sat down, he commented, “going to keep everything in place for the flight or should I keep an eye out for you”. I laughed. I didn’t tell him about my track record leaving my fly down in bunches after the first offense. I would have bought him a drink for the flight home, but they were already free.
My only consolation is that there have been other zipper down events that have had fairly innocuous or even happy endings. My brother in law was tossed out of a job with a formerly profitable S & L back in the initial days of over extending business plans when his seemingly happy employer went belly up. He was going through the grueling process of interviewing for jobs in the banking industry when there was a glut of banking professionals on the street thanks to the Keating 5 and other business visionaries. We were chatting one day about his quest and I asked him how his interviews were going. He told me that he had had what he hoped had been a promising interview earlier in the week. However he then told me that he was not bullish on his prospect for this position given that when he got in the car to return home, after interviewing all afternoon with the president of the bank and his executive team, he realized he had been “zipper down” all day. Better yet, he was wearing his best navy blue suit which created a fabulous contrast to his white boxer shorts. Is it ironic or simply fortuitous that after months of unsuccessful job interviews that the one interview you go through in its entirety with your fly down is the one where the phone rings and you hear that you have the job? There is no way that no one noticed his display. Come on, navy blue suit, white underwear, all day has to make an impression. What to you think bank’s executive committee said when they were making their decision to fill the job – which was for their chief lending position, an officer of the company? “that guy was able to pull off a full day of interviews with his fly down and didn’t skip a beat” or “Was his strategy to be ‘noticed’ in the interview process to flash his yang our way under the guise of being professionally dressed” I think I would have concluded that he had just given up his job search was now doing things like going all day with his fly open just to see what happened. I would have called some other banks to see if someone had shown up at an interview with no shoes, parked their car on the front lawn rather than in the parking lot, or had helped themselves to the interviewer’s chair and desk after exchanging pleasantries. However, this is a zipper down event with a decidedly happy ending. My brother-in-law got the job, got some stock options, waited for the bank to get gobbled up by some overpaying, incompetent rival, and cashed out with way more dough than he ever imagined. This really is a great country. However, I wonder two things about this little episode. First what would have happened if he had not had his fly down all day during his interview and second, what the heck were the other candidates like that the best of the bunch was a guy who couldn’t remember to check the barn door before going into an interview. I wish I could rewind this one to see what the other outcomes would have been.
In a far more personal zipper-down incident several years ago, I was waiting to get on very crowded flight back from Seattle. This was back in the day when I traveled all the time and having to fly coach was anathema. I was on stand by to upgrade to civilized class in very crowded waiting area. While standing by the check-in desk, trying to make sure the agent didn’t forget about me while not being a pest, a guy I had never seen before started walking toward the check-in counter. I was extremely worried that this was another upgrade wannabe, unwanted competition for my upgraded seat. If he had more miles than me I was toast. Just as I thought he was going to ask the agent to be added to the standby list for first class, he veered toward me, and stood right next to me. I was a little flustered as it was just about time for me to ask the attendant if I had made the cut yet and I didn’t want to get moved off her front burner. The interloper with intentions unknown leaned over to me and quietly said “I know you don’t know me, but if I were in your shoes, I’d want some one to say something to me” What could this possibly be? I wondered, starting to feel more than a little uneasy. He went on “you may want to pull up your fly unless you are trying to make a point with everyone else on this flight”. Rather than try to be coy or pretend like I had intended to have my pants unzipped in front of 200 people I had never seen before, I reflexively sent my hands into action to correct the problem and thanked him for his help. While I stood there and tried to compose myself, zipper back at full staff, I was called for the upgraded seat I coveted and was ready to head home. As luck would have, my informant was also in the upgraded cabin in the seat across the aisle. As he sat down, he commented, “going to keep everything in place for the flight or should I keep an eye out for you”. I laughed. I didn’t tell him about my track record leaving my fly down in bunches after the first offense. I would have bought him a drink for the flight home, but they were already free.
Out of the Mouths of Talking Heads
Out of the Mouths of Talking Heads…
Maybe it’s me, but has anyone else grown tired of listening to political talking points? Does everyone in politics think that we are so stupid that we can’t see when someone is simply towing the party line or reciting some rehearsed message intended for political gain? I think what really galls me about this is that there are some serious issues that need thoughtful solutions, and in general, we tend to get political shots over the bow and mindless banter back and forth looking for sound bites that will stick with viewers or (gasp!) readers of headline news. The media thinks that we all have ADD so if they can condense an entire issue that may require the mental capacity of Einstein and the patience of Job into a 10 second quip we will remember for more than 24 hours they have “educated” us about a particular issue or problem. The real problem is that the issues facing us today are not a game and are not about the 2008 presidential election. Let’s pick one example, oh, say social security. Anyone with more than spuds for brains knows that this system is going to go belly up in the future. It is a pyramid scheme (which is illegal for everyone but the federal government, but let’s not get sidetracked). By definition and in reality, at some point in the future, the system will not have enough revenue to meet its obligation. The only point of debate is when this will occur. Will the year be 2018 or 2040? I have no idea and it’s not the point. The point is that there is a brick wall this system will smash into sometime either before or about my retirement. The brick wall is there, the train is headed straight for it. The only variable is when the crash occurs. President Bush has decided that he will risk the political capital of his entire second term to fix this looming problem. I have not decided if his proposal of personal accounts is the best answer or not. I tend to think they will work over time and help relieve the government of its obligations under social security but I have not read enough objective analysis yet to decide one way or the other. It is possible that there is a better solution floating out there waiting for a champion to put it into play. The problem is that the only “debate” and I use this term very broadly, I have heard about President Bush’ idea of personal savings accounts has been talking points from the Democrats telling us what a stupid idea this is and how we cannot “afford” the proposed solution. I have a personal credo I try to live by especially in my professional life and that is, never gripe or complain about an issue if I don’t have a suggestion for how to fix the problem. I have read endless rants by Paul Krugman and listened to harangues by Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi about what an incredibly risky and stupid idea the President has tried to inflict upon the country. I have read the outright distortions of this idea – this plan will wreck the system for current payees, this idea is an election debt that Bush owes his Wall Street buddies – who I am sure are calling the President everyday with insider trading information. I think they connected this plan to Haliburton somehow as well. I have heard the claims that the President’s plan will impoverish future retirees and will break the trusted bond between the federal government and the people (taxer/taxee). On a side note, I have news for the Dems, I have no idea what trusted bond they are referring to, as it has been ruled by the supreme court that the government can pull the plug on social security payouts any time it wants to and there is nothing you and I can do about it. How about that for a “bond”? I have also heard many Democrats say that there is no problem. I have always been impressed with a politician’s ability to simply deny away the truth, but this is math, 2+2 always equals 4. Pyramid schemes always screw the people on the bottom rungs because the system cannot fund the bloated top. The key point here is that I am still waiting for the first “plan B” or the first hint of a suggestion of another way to get off this road to financial oblivion. I have heard nothing but political pot shots and talking point blather about the pending financial train wreck in out future. The question is not if the system collapses, the question is just when. We are just haggling over the date. So when will any politician propose another idea to fix the problem? When will the talking point ping-pong match end? I am afraid the answer may be never or that the whole proposal to fix the problem will end up on the political scrap heap. This is what is so maddening about our politicians today, no one really gives a shit about you or me. No one gives a rat’s rear end if they fix this problem or if they train crashes. The only real issue for these people how will this affect the next election. This is why I never listen to an interview from the leader of the DNC or the RNC. I can already tell you what they will say. The RNC Chairman will love it. This is the panacea we have all been waiting for and why the heck have we been so blind, thank the Lord Almighty that George W. Bush has the courage to fix this problem. The DNC Chair will hate it. This is the stupidest idea from this president we have ever heard and that is saying something. Maybe when he finds the WMD’s in Iraq he will have the political capital to tackle the social security problem, if one exists. The proposal will add to our deficit and send the economy into a tail spin. Well, if that is all true, what would you do, assuming that do nothing is not an option? Go to the top of the talking points to hear the answer to that question. “This is stupidest idea…blah blah blah....economy into a tailspin.” If the people in Washington are all so smart, then why can’t anyone come up with an original thought? I know this condition in Washington won’t change anytime soon. Social Security will probably be broke by the time anyone musters the courage to actually address the problem or at least speak candidly about it in non-talking points. You and I will be the real losers as we will have paid thousands into a system for years and will get the federal brush-off when the time comes to actually tap into the “trust fund”. Well, I know I feel better, how about you? Let’s go spend some of the money our government has not taxed away from us while we still can.
Maybe it’s me, but has anyone else grown tired of listening to political talking points? Does everyone in politics think that we are so stupid that we can’t see when someone is simply towing the party line or reciting some rehearsed message intended for political gain? I think what really galls me about this is that there are some serious issues that need thoughtful solutions, and in general, we tend to get political shots over the bow and mindless banter back and forth looking for sound bites that will stick with viewers or (gasp!) readers of headline news. The media thinks that we all have ADD so if they can condense an entire issue that may require the mental capacity of Einstein and the patience of Job into a 10 second quip we will remember for more than 24 hours they have “educated” us about a particular issue or problem. The real problem is that the issues facing us today are not a game and are not about the 2008 presidential election. Let’s pick one example, oh, say social security. Anyone with more than spuds for brains knows that this system is going to go belly up in the future. It is a pyramid scheme (which is illegal for everyone but the federal government, but let’s not get sidetracked). By definition and in reality, at some point in the future, the system will not have enough revenue to meet its obligation. The only point of debate is when this will occur. Will the year be 2018 or 2040? I have no idea and it’s not the point. The point is that there is a brick wall this system will smash into sometime either before or about my retirement. The brick wall is there, the train is headed straight for it. The only variable is when the crash occurs. President Bush has decided that he will risk the political capital of his entire second term to fix this looming problem. I have not decided if his proposal of personal accounts is the best answer or not. I tend to think they will work over time and help relieve the government of its obligations under social security but I have not read enough objective analysis yet to decide one way or the other. It is possible that there is a better solution floating out there waiting for a champion to put it into play. The problem is that the only “debate” and I use this term very broadly, I have heard about President Bush’ idea of personal savings accounts has been talking points from the Democrats telling us what a stupid idea this is and how we cannot “afford” the proposed solution. I have a personal credo I try to live by especially in my professional life and that is, never gripe or complain about an issue if I don’t have a suggestion for how to fix the problem. I have read endless rants by Paul Krugman and listened to harangues by Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi about what an incredibly risky and stupid idea the President has tried to inflict upon the country. I have read the outright distortions of this idea – this plan will wreck the system for current payees, this idea is an election debt that Bush owes his Wall Street buddies – who I am sure are calling the President everyday with insider trading information. I think they connected this plan to Haliburton somehow as well. I have heard the claims that the President’s plan will impoverish future retirees and will break the trusted bond between the federal government and the people (taxer/taxee). On a side note, I have news for the Dems, I have no idea what trusted bond they are referring to, as it has been ruled by the supreme court that the government can pull the plug on social security payouts any time it wants to and there is nothing you and I can do about it. How about that for a “bond”? I have also heard many Democrats say that there is no problem. I have always been impressed with a politician’s ability to simply deny away the truth, but this is math, 2+2 always equals 4. Pyramid schemes always screw the people on the bottom rungs because the system cannot fund the bloated top. The key point here is that I am still waiting for the first “plan B” or the first hint of a suggestion of another way to get off this road to financial oblivion. I have heard nothing but political pot shots and talking point blather about the pending financial train wreck in out future. The question is not if the system collapses, the question is just when. We are just haggling over the date. So when will any politician propose another idea to fix the problem? When will the talking point ping-pong match end? I am afraid the answer may be never or that the whole proposal to fix the problem will end up on the political scrap heap. This is what is so maddening about our politicians today, no one really gives a shit about you or me. No one gives a rat’s rear end if they fix this problem or if they train crashes. The only real issue for these people how will this affect the next election. This is why I never listen to an interview from the leader of the DNC or the RNC. I can already tell you what they will say. The RNC Chairman will love it. This is the panacea we have all been waiting for and why the heck have we been so blind, thank the Lord Almighty that George W. Bush has the courage to fix this problem. The DNC Chair will hate it. This is the stupidest idea from this president we have ever heard and that is saying something. Maybe when he finds the WMD’s in Iraq he will have the political capital to tackle the social security problem, if one exists. The proposal will add to our deficit and send the economy into a tail spin. Well, if that is all true, what would you do, assuming that do nothing is not an option? Go to the top of the talking points to hear the answer to that question. “This is stupidest idea…blah blah blah....economy into a tailspin.” If the people in Washington are all so smart, then why can’t anyone come up with an original thought? I know this condition in Washington won’t change anytime soon. Social Security will probably be broke by the time anyone musters the courage to actually address the problem or at least speak candidly about it in non-talking points. You and I will be the real losers as we will have paid thousands into a system for years and will get the federal brush-off when the time comes to actually tap into the “trust fund”. Well, I know I feel better, how about you? Let’s go spend some of the money our government has not taxed away from us while we still can.
Is Anyone Home?
Yawn…..Oh, I am sorry, I was busy not worrying about whether or not Carl Rove did whatever it is he is accused of doing. I am not sure anyone knows what he did or if what he supposedly did is a crime or even against the rules of common decency. I do know one thing though. In a country where upwards of 4 of 5 Americans cannot name a single supreme court justice I know that no one outside the beltway gives two hoots about whatever it is the media is trying to stir into an uproar or even better into a “scandal”. The Carl Rove Scandal – that is clearly the goal of the mainstream press. I have had the following thought many times over the past year or so, but have never bothered to put down this thought on paper – or onto my hard drive. I wonder if politicians and the pusillanimous press who hang on politicians every word understand how irrelevant “political news” is to everyday, non-political junkie Americans. I have heard Hillary Clinton spout off about something or another, I have heard George Allen make comments about something else, and the press trying to make Carl Rove evil incarnate. Okay, fine. I don’t really care. I can name all of the supreme court justices and couldn’t care less about 98.5% of what is breathlessly reported by the mainstream press about the actions and speeches of our politicians. It is not that I am not interested in politics. It is not that what they do does not at times have merit. However, if politicians are not talking about my wallet or doing something that will have a direct impact on my family or national security, I really don’t care what they say or who they say it to. It is comical and also a little sad to watch the parade of congress men and women make impassioned pleas about….whatever it is they are frothed up about and then listen to the press try to get a disinterested public…well interested in the latest “scandal”. Every two-bit journalist thinks that if they can just turn the volume up on their completely irrelevant story, they will be the next Bob Woodward. So let’s look at what is really going on with this Carl Rove story. The democrats and mainstream media who despise President Bush more than kids despise their broccoli are trying to score political points with this “scandal”. I guess my question is who are they scoring political point with and to what end? It is clear to me that the press and the democrats think Carl Rove’s name is catchy enough that it can be the next Enron or Haliburton. When the next election comes around they can use “Rove” like they tried to do with their other verbal bb’s. “Oh yeah, well Bush is just trying to pull another Enron – remember how close he was tied to Enron. If it wasn’t for Bush and Ernon…” – Really, what about Bush and Enron? Do you have any idea what Enron did for a living and why they collapsed? “Well Dick Cheney is just trying coddle his buddies at Haliburton. Haliburton is who got us in this mess in Iraq. If it wasn’t for Bush and Cheney doing their buddies at Haliburton a favor we wouldn’t be in Iraq” Really, that is fascinating, can you name one line of business at Haliburton? You must to remember all the shrill comments and accusations coming from the left using a single catch-word to demonize the Bush administration. One hundred percent of the time the person spewing the catch word had not a clue what the catch word was or meant other than it was bad and it was tied to President Bush or Vice-president Cheney. I am guessing that Haliburton and Enron have lost their political cachet, so the media needs to create a new one. Rove! Rove is a single syllable word and surely event the biggest simp can keep Rove in their head long enough for the democrats to hang Bush with the Rove scandal. The reality behind all of this is that Carl Rove was the chief architect of the campaign strategy last fall that made the dems look like the nation’s political keystone cops and lost an election where 46% of the nation would not have voted for George Bush under any circumstance. The democrats and their friends on the media left had to find an additional 4.1% of the vote to swing their way and with the make up of the electoral college the election was their’s – heck they really didn’t need that many more votes, they just need a few thousand more votes in Ohio. In any event the Dems and their liberal friends blew it – they choked big time. This is a political axe that the democrats and the mainstream press now have to grind. They can’t help it. They are still so fuming mad about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory last fall that if they have a chance to hang the chief architect who made the Dems look like a bunch of political ninnies, well, they just have to do it – no matter how disinterested the nation is. The problem is that absolutely no one cares. No one outside of Washington cares about this circus that is arguably as important as a b-league professional wresting match at the local high school gym. This is not the first issue of this ilk, they come and go all the time and are spun up by both sides of the aisle. The problem today is that the left is so overwhelmed by their hatred of George Bush that they will grasp at the flimsiest of straws to try to make him look bad. So now we have the shrill senator Clinton and the camera hound Chuck Schumer trying so desperately that the veins are popping in their ears to try to make anyone care about the Carl Rove scandal. The only good news is that in a week or two there will be a new scandal brewing that we can all ignore. Clinton, Schumer, and fat Ted Kennedy will be outraged about the newest scandal that never makes it outside of the beltway. Wake me up if the politicians start talking about cutting my taxes again – then they will have my full attention.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Failure is Not and Option
“Failure is not an option” This was the famous quote from the movie “Apollo 13”; the story of the nearly tragic Apollo mission where an explosion on board the command module not only derailed the landing on the moon but threatened the lives of the 3 American astronauts on board the spaceship. In 1970, when Gene Kranz, the NASA flight director uttered these words, they had an entirely different meaning that they do today. In 1970, these were words of great resolve. We were not going to let these astronauts die in space, we were going to work around the clock using every resource at hand to ensure the safe return home of the entire Apollo 13 crew. The book by Jim Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13 describes in great detail how the “13” mission was a successful failure in that the mission to land on the moon was a failure, yet the NASA team overcame great odds to bring the astronauts home. This is a story of tremendous American ingenuity, of doing the impossible, of grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat. Failure was, in fact, not an option.
In 2007, this phrase has an entirely different meaning. “failure is not an option” in today’s world seems less about overcoming obstacles than it does about making sure that no one fails. Today, “failure is not an option” means that no one is allowed to fail. Everyone must be at least slightly above average. No one can get below a “C”. No one can have the stress of losing a job. No one can go without health insurance. No one can lose their home because they made a bad loan decision and no one should have to cut their own wake, when someone else can do it for them. No one should have to pay for their own prescriptions. The more I hear proposals from our leaders, especially in recent years, the more I think that we are afraid to let anyone fail. We are working so hard to make sure that everyone, in spite of themselves, is guaranteed some level of accommodation, of success, and standard of living. I think this flies in the face of our heritage and who we are as Americans. I think it is representative of a softening of the American spirit and our will to achieve. I understand sentiment and share the feeling that ideally no one should suffer. It would be fabulous if everyone were bright and responsible, if they took care of their own lives and helped out their neighbors. No one in their right mind revels in another’s suffering or rejoices in their failure. However, failure happens. It is part of life. The plan to invade Normandy was a failure within the first 30 minutes of H-hour. Paratroopers were scattered all over Normandy, no one was in their drop zone. Softening of the beaches for the landing forces had failed and intelligence had failed to properly gauge the strength of the German resistance. American soldiers were being sent to slaughter, they were drowning before they go to the beaches, they were failing miserably. However, while the plan, over two years in the making, was a dismal failure, the invasion of Europe was not. The Allied forces were in a tenuous position early in the invasion, ready to be crushed, pushed back into the sea. However, this failure was not to be the final story, and brilliant leadership from non-coms on the beach, good old Yankee know-how, and sheer resolve turned this failure into the first step to emancipate Europe. No one was guaranteeing Allied success, no one could venture to try. Yet success was born of dismal failure. Similarly, hard as we try, no one can guarantee any base line of success for any individual life, nor should they try. Failure has spurned great success. While no one likes to fail, and no one plans to fail, failure happens to everyone on some level and the keys to eventual success is what do we learn, how do we respond, what can be gained? Our government leaders have become addicted to winning our votes by trying to guarantee some minimal outcome for all of us, with terrible results. Diminishing marginal returns and increased marginal costs make the desired outcome impossible. Government cannot guarantee success, it can only mandate mediocrity. If failure is not an option, it is not because the government passed a bill outlawing failure, it is because individuals determine for themselves that failure is not an option, and work to make it so. Gene Kranz knew that failure was not an option for Apollo 13, but he also knew that no one was else besides he and his NASA team was going get those astronauts home safely, failure was not an option, because they worked to make sure it was not. NASA didn’t call congress to ask for help, they helped themselves, and indeed, failure was not an option.
“Failure is not an option” This was the famous quote from the movie “Apollo 13”; the story of the nearly tragic Apollo mission where an explosion on board the command module not only derailed the landing on the moon but threatened the lives of the 3 American astronauts on board the spaceship. In 1970, when Gene Kranz, the NASA flight director uttered these words, they had an entirely different meaning that they do today. In 1970, these were words of great resolve. We were not going to let these astronauts die in space, we were going to work around the clock using every resource at hand to ensure the safe return home of the entire Apollo 13 crew. The book by Jim Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13 describes in great detail how the “13” mission was a successful failure in that the mission to land on the moon was a failure, yet the NASA team overcame great odds to bring the astronauts home. This is a story of tremendous American ingenuity, of doing the impossible, of grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat. Failure was, in fact, not an option.
In 2007, this phrase has an entirely different meaning. “failure is not an option” in today’s world seems less about overcoming obstacles than it does about making sure that no one fails. Today, “failure is not an option” means that no one is allowed to fail. Everyone must be at least slightly above average. No one can get below a “C”. No one can have the stress of losing a job. No one can go without health insurance. No one can lose their home because they made a bad loan decision and no one should have to cut their own wake, when someone else can do it for them. No one should have to pay for their own prescriptions. The more I hear proposals from our leaders, especially in recent years, the more I think that we are afraid to let anyone fail. We are working so hard to make sure that everyone, in spite of themselves, is guaranteed some level of accommodation, of success, and standard of living. I think this flies in the face of our heritage and who we are as Americans. I think it is representative of a softening of the American spirit and our will to achieve. I understand sentiment and share the feeling that ideally no one should suffer. It would be fabulous if everyone were bright and responsible, if they took care of their own lives and helped out their neighbors. No one in their right mind revels in another’s suffering or rejoices in their failure. However, failure happens. It is part of life. The plan to invade Normandy was a failure within the first 30 minutes of H-hour. Paratroopers were scattered all over Normandy, no one was in their drop zone. Softening of the beaches for the landing forces had failed and intelligence had failed to properly gauge the strength of the German resistance. American soldiers were being sent to slaughter, they were drowning before they go to the beaches, they were failing miserably. However, while the plan, over two years in the making, was a dismal failure, the invasion of Europe was not. The Allied forces were in a tenuous position early in the invasion, ready to be crushed, pushed back into the sea. However, this failure was not to be the final story, and brilliant leadership from non-coms on the beach, good old Yankee know-how, and sheer resolve turned this failure into the first step to emancipate Europe. No one was guaranteeing Allied success, no one could venture to try. Yet success was born of dismal failure. Similarly, hard as we try, no one can guarantee any base line of success for any individual life, nor should they try. Failure has spurned great success. While no one likes to fail, and no one plans to fail, failure happens to everyone on some level and the keys to eventual success is what do we learn, how do we respond, what can be gained? Our government leaders have become addicted to winning our votes by trying to guarantee some minimal outcome for all of us, with terrible results. Diminishing marginal returns and increased marginal costs make the desired outcome impossible. Government cannot guarantee success, it can only mandate mediocrity. If failure is not an option, it is not because the government passed a bill outlawing failure, it is because individuals determine for themselves that failure is not an option, and work to make it so. Gene Kranz knew that failure was not an option for Apollo 13, but he also knew that no one was else besides he and his NASA team was going get those astronauts home safely, failure was not an option, because they worked to make sure it was not. NASA didn’t call congress to ask for help, they helped themselves, and indeed, failure was not an option.
Monday, September 17, 2007
10 Questions:
1) When will actors, actresses, models, film directors and professional athletes realize that no one cares what they think about: the war in Iraq, the US healthcare system, the war on terror, US tax policy, or global warming? Given the academic credentials of most of the people in these fields, especially the mouthy ones, why do they believe they have any standing or credibility whatsoever?
2) When will the media figure out that the United States will “spit the bit” on soccer as a national pastime no matter how many times they try to cram it down our throats?
3) When will American politicians realize how little the vast majority of their constituents care about them?
4) Do politicians really believe all the drivel that they spout on a daily basis?
5) Why is it that so few American understand that the simplest way to increase the quality of healthcare while lowering the cost is to get government out of the healthcare business?
6) Did the framers consider the impact on the nation of a mostly uniformed electorate?
7) While the flood of illegal immigrants is intolerable and a tremendous threat to the country, a funnel has two ends. Why does no one talk about the ridiculously long time it takes to immigrate legally to the United States? We should completely seal the boarders by what ever means necessary with the promise that any request to enter the United States legally will be adjudicated in 90 days.
8) When did healthcare and retirement income become a right? I know when it started down the path to becoming a right (FDR anyone?) but when did we cross the bridge that for some odd reason people feel “owed” by the government? I have paid into Social Security for over 20 years, so I am owed….the money my employers and I have paid into the system, but if I could cash that money out tomorrow and be owed nothing I would.
9) Why is it okay that there are winners and losers in the entertainment and athletic fields, but among many in the United States, those in business are not entitled to get too far ahead?
10) Why is so much attention heaped on celebrities? Who the cares what they eat, where they vacation, what they name their children, or what they wear to bed? It must be hard to live in that kind of a fishbowl, but then, they bring much of this on themselves, I guess they and their obsessed fans deserve each other.
2) When will the media figure out that the United States will “spit the bit” on soccer as a national pastime no matter how many times they try to cram it down our throats?
3) When will American politicians realize how little the vast majority of their constituents care about them?
4) Do politicians really believe all the drivel that they spout on a daily basis?
5) Why is it that so few American understand that the simplest way to increase the quality of healthcare while lowering the cost is to get government out of the healthcare business?
6) Did the framers consider the impact on the nation of a mostly uniformed electorate?
7) While the flood of illegal immigrants is intolerable and a tremendous threat to the country, a funnel has two ends. Why does no one talk about the ridiculously long time it takes to immigrate legally to the United States? We should completely seal the boarders by what ever means necessary with the promise that any request to enter the United States legally will be adjudicated in 90 days.
8) When did healthcare and retirement income become a right? I know when it started down the path to becoming a right (FDR anyone?) but when did we cross the bridge that for some odd reason people feel “owed” by the government? I have paid into Social Security for over 20 years, so I am owed….the money my employers and I have paid into the system, but if I could cash that money out tomorrow and be owed nothing I would.
9) Why is it okay that there are winners and losers in the entertainment and athletic fields, but among many in the United States, those in business are not entitled to get too far ahead?
10) Why is so much attention heaped on celebrities? Who the cares what they eat, where they vacation, what they name their children, or what they wear to bed? It must be hard to live in that kind of a fishbowl, but then, they bring much of this on themselves, I guess they and their obsessed fans deserve each other.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Inside the Torpedo
Inside the Torpedo
Geoffrey A. Moore has become a legend in the modern business era. He is kind of an oracle and pied-piper rolled into one clairvoyant visionary. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have seen Geoffrey Moore’s work either quoted, referenced, or bastardized by mid-level managers and big corporate executives alike. His two primary gospels are “Crossing the Chasm” and “Inside the Tornado”. I have read both of these books. They were interesting, insightful, and not too long with reasonably large print. I enjoyed reading both of these books. I have not, however, enjoyed living my management’s interpretations of these books. The problem with Moore’s work is that every two-bit manager who reads either of these books suddenly becomes the next Jack Welsh and is determined to live the dream, or inflict the nightmare depending on which side of desk you are sitting. So in response to any manager, strategist, or executive who has tried to implement Geoffrey Moore’s ideas into the real world where people actually have to accomplish things rather than just philosophize about them, I would like submit my rebuttal to Mr. Moore. I affectionately call this “Inside the Torpedo”. Before reading further, consider fully exactly what it would be like to be inside Torpedo….consider the feeling of being inside the torpedo as it travels to its destination….consider the end game of the torpedo. One of Geoffrey Moore’s most startling lessons is that “as markets move from stage to stage in the Life Cycle, the winning strategy does not change, it actually reverses the prior strategy. The very skills that you’ve just perfected become your liabilities and if you can’t put them aside to acquire new ones you are in for tough times”. “Tough times! Holy cow!” says the manager. There are two key points that I need to make here 1) most managers in business are over grown children who never got their way growing up. This is why they are managers. They can make a living telling other people what to do. 2) Two of the great lessons from every parent to every child are - never play with a gun and always treat every gun as if it were loaded so you don’t shoot anyone. Now think again about what Geoffrey A. Moore has just said in conjunction with those two very important lessons. Mr. Moore has just given a fully loaded .357 magnum to every over grown child on the planet along with a shot of whisky and pack of smokes. Your assets will become you liabilities. I think that may be true over time. However that statement, turned into strategy at the incompetent manager level turns into ideas like “we need to rearrange the deck chairs” (incompetent managers for some reason love to talk about deck chairs – I think it is so we will all think that they own boats – but we all know that only cruise ships have deck chairs so we really know that rather than owning a really cool sail boat he or she just got back from a Disney cruise and probably tripped over the deck chairs on the way to the buffet. I guess that’s why they need rearranging.) Do you know what rearranging the deck chairs means to the manager with a loaded gun? It means doing things like breaking all the long established, trusted, and invaluable relationships we have with our clients and putting snot-nosed MBA’s from Wharton in as new team leads. This is part of being inside the torpedo. I know my fate when this happens, I know the outcome when we make the people who pay our bills mad. I am inside the torpedo and there is nothing I can do to change my fate. If this type of action weren’t bad enough, newly empowered Jack Welsh wannabes then try to modify and interpret Moore’s ideas. Therefore, if over time our assets will become our liabilities….the over grown child concludes….it also must also be true that our liabilities will over the long run, become our assets. When managers who are disciples of Geoffrey Moore start extrapolating their own conclusions from Mr. Moore’s books, this is what I like to call “firing the torpedo”. This usually results in someone getting fired, like us by our best client, who we just turned into a liability. This of course over the long term does become an asset, but the new Jack Welsh didn’t realize that our new liability over the long term has become an asset not for us but our competitors. Geoffrey A. Moore’s work, in the hands of trained professionals, of managers who are not over grown children, who know how and when to fire a gun, is probably thought provoking and energizing in setting a corporate vision over time. If Geoffrey A. Moore really wanted to help the masses in business today, he would have a quiz that people would have to pass before they could buy his books. If he would follow this simple advice, he could keep his asset from turning into a liability and he could save us all a lot of torpedo rides.
Geoffrey A. Moore has become a legend in the modern business era. He is kind of an oracle and pied-piper rolled into one clairvoyant visionary. I cannot begin to count the number of times I have seen Geoffrey Moore’s work either quoted, referenced, or bastardized by mid-level managers and big corporate executives alike. His two primary gospels are “Crossing the Chasm” and “Inside the Tornado”. I have read both of these books. They were interesting, insightful, and not too long with reasonably large print. I enjoyed reading both of these books. I have not, however, enjoyed living my management’s interpretations of these books. The problem with Moore’s work is that every two-bit manager who reads either of these books suddenly becomes the next Jack Welsh and is determined to live the dream, or inflict the nightmare depending on which side of desk you are sitting. So in response to any manager, strategist, or executive who has tried to implement Geoffrey Moore’s ideas into the real world where people actually have to accomplish things rather than just philosophize about them, I would like submit my rebuttal to Mr. Moore. I affectionately call this “Inside the Torpedo”. Before reading further, consider fully exactly what it would be like to be inside Torpedo….consider the feeling of being inside the torpedo as it travels to its destination….consider the end game of the torpedo. One of Geoffrey Moore’s most startling lessons is that “as markets move from stage to stage in the Life Cycle, the winning strategy does not change, it actually reverses the prior strategy. The very skills that you’ve just perfected become your liabilities and if you can’t put them aside to acquire new ones you are in for tough times”. “Tough times! Holy cow!” says the manager. There are two key points that I need to make here 1) most managers in business are over grown children who never got their way growing up. This is why they are managers. They can make a living telling other people what to do. 2) Two of the great lessons from every parent to every child are - never play with a gun and always treat every gun as if it were loaded so you don’t shoot anyone. Now think again about what Geoffrey A. Moore has just said in conjunction with those two very important lessons. Mr. Moore has just given a fully loaded .357 magnum to every over grown child on the planet along with a shot of whisky and pack of smokes. Your assets will become you liabilities. I think that may be true over time. However that statement, turned into strategy at the incompetent manager level turns into ideas like “we need to rearrange the deck chairs” (incompetent managers for some reason love to talk about deck chairs – I think it is so we will all think that they own boats – but we all know that only cruise ships have deck chairs so we really know that rather than owning a really cool sail boat he or she just got back from a Disney cruise and probably tripped over the deck chairs on the way to the buffet. I guess that’s why they need rearranging.) Do you know what rearranging the deck chairs means to the manager with a loaded gun? It means doing things like breaking all the long established, trusted, and invaluable relationships we have with our clients and putting snot-nosed MBA’s from Wharton in as new team leads. This is part of being inside the torpedo. I know my fate when this happens, I know the outcome when we make the people who pay our bills mad. I am inside the torpedo and there is nothing I can do to change my fate. If this type of action weren’t bad enough, newly empowered Jack Welsh wannabes then try to modify and interpret Moore’s ideas. Therefore, if over time our assets will become our liabilities….the over grown child concludes….it also must also be true that our liabilities will over the long run, become our assets. When managers who are disciples of Geoffrey Moore start extrapolating their own conclusions from Mr. Moore’s books, this is what I like to call “firing the torpedo”. This usually results in someone getting fired, like us by our best client, who we just turned into a liability. This of course over the long term does become an asset, but the new Jack Welsh didn’t realize that our new liability over the long term has become an asset not for us but our competitors. Geoffrey A. Moore’s work, in the hands of trained professionals, of managers who are not over grown children, who know how and when to fire a gun, is probably thought provoking and energizing in setting a corporate vision over time. If Geoffrey A. Moore really wanted to help the masses in business today, he would have a quiz that people would have to pass before they could buy his books. If he would follow this simple advice, he could keep his asset from turning into a liability and he could save us all a lot of torpedo rides.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
What About the 72 Virgins?
What about the 72 Virgins?
This one has always intrigued me. The notion we hear that these mindless clowns who blow themselves up in an effort to kill innocent citizens or who fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of people they never knew and with whom they had no quarrel, would get 72 virgins waiting for them when they make it to their ever-after. Looking at these ruffians in photos on the news and listening to the mindless drivel that inexplicably was compelling enough to make them kill themselves for someone else’s idea of what the world should be makes me wonder. What about the 72 virgins? What did they do? If virgins are a part of anyone’s version of heaven, which makes me wonder even more about the intellect of this crowd, what in the world did the virgins do in this life to make them a part of heaven for the likes of these homicidal morons? What kind of deal is that for them? What kind of philosophy or religion says that when you get to heaven you will have 72 virgins for your pleasure and your pleasure alone with no regard for their feelings in the matter? Is that what heaven is? What if the terrorists get there and the virgins are all ugly? Maybe the women are virgins for a reason. Maybe there will be 72 nuns with wooden rulers. It boggles my imagination to think that there are leaders in the Muslim community, that have successfully sold the vision that when their special followers ignite, detonate, or incinerate themselves and take a few others with them that they are entitled to 72 other human souls for their sole pleasure. I am sorry, but how easily led are these followers? I might have believed something like that in second grade, however, by the time I was old enough to know what a virgin was, I would have been able to sift out the shit from the shine-o-la. To quote Bear Bryant in the movie “Forrest Gump” – these have to be the stupidest people alive”. But I still can’t get it out of my head, that the supposed waiting virgins are the ones who really get skunked in this deal. It’s not like any of these beasts would have been a door prize even if they had half their brain engaged and had taken a bath once in a while. So the sales job to the homicide soldiers by the Al Qaeda leadership is this: do what I say and you have my personal guarantee that there will be 72 virgins waiting for you on the other side. Now go blow yourself up. I’m sorry, I would need a little more than Al Qeada’s good faith and credit to have me go do anything more than walk out to my driveway to get my newspaper. Are these people that gullible or are they just stupid. Once again from Forrest Gump, I guess stupid is as stupid does. Also, what happens after the 72 aren’t virgins anymore, do they have to stick around? Do they send in replacements? After all these geniuses just blew themselves up and are dead for eternity and all they have to show for it is 72 virgins who probably don’t want to be there in the first place. It seems to me like they would need to pace themselves if 72 virgins were all they got for their efforts. And imagine spending eternity with 72 women who weren’t too wild about their fate in the first place. They may still be virgins after all is said and done…and cranky ones at that. I sure would like to see the faces of these terrorist dumb-asses when they show up on the other side and get a one way ticket to hell punched instead of the 72 virgins. But then again, maybe eternity with 72 crabby women keeping company against their will with some slobs who couldn’t think of anything better to do than blow themselves up is exactly what these idiots deserve.
This one has always intrigued me. The notion we hear that these mindless clowns who blow themselves up in an effort to kill innocent citizens or who fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of people they never knew and with whom they had no quarrel, would get 72 virgins waiting for them when they make it to their ever-after. Looking at these ruffians in photos on the news and listening to the mindless drivel that inexplicably was compelling enough to make them kill themselves for someone else’s idea of what the world should be makes me wonder. What about the 72 virgins? What did they do? If virgins are a part of anyone’s version of heaven, which makes me wonder even more about the intellect of this crowd, what in the world did the virgins do in this life to make them a part of heaven for the likes of these homicidal morons? What kind of deal is that for them? What kind of philosophy or religion says that when you get to heaven you will have 72 virgins for your pleasure and your pleasure alone with no regard for their feelings in the matter? Is that what heaven is? What if the terrorists get there and the virgins are all ugly? Maybe the women are virgins for a reason. Maybe there will be 72 nuns with wooden rulers. It boggles my imagination to think that there are leaders in the Muslim community, that have successfully sold the vision that when their special followers ignite, detonate, or incinerate themselves and take a few others with them that they are entitled to 72 other human souls for their sole pleasure. I am sorry, but how easily led are these followers? I might have believed something like that in second grade, however, by the time I was old enough to know what a virgin was, I would have been able to sift out the shit from the shine-o-la. To quote Bear Bryant in the movie “Forrest Gump” – these have to be the stupidest people alive”. But I still can’t get it out of my head, that the supposed waiting virgins are the ones who really get skunked in this deal. It’s not like any of these beasts would have been a door prize even if they had half their brain engaged and had taken a bath once in a while. So the sales job to the homicide soldiers by the Al Qaeda leadership is this: do what I say and you have my personal guarantee that there will be 72 virgins waiting for you on the other side. Now go blow yourself up. I’m sorry, I would need a little more than Al Qeada’s good faith and credit to have me go do anything more than walk out to my driveway to get my newspaper. Are these people that gullible or are they just stupid. Once again from Forrest Gump, I guess stupid is as stupid does. Also, what happens after the 72 aren’t virgins anymore, do they have to stick around? Do they send in replacements? After all these geniuses just blew themselves up and are dead for eternity and all they have to show for it is 72 virgins who probably don’t want to be there in the first place. It seems to me like they would need to pace themselves if 72 virgins were all they got for their efforts. And imagine spending eternity with 72 women who weren’t too wild about their fate in the first place. They may still be virgins after all is said and done…and cranky ones at that. I sure would like to see the faces of these terrorist dumb-asses when they show up on the other side and get a one way ticket to hell punched instead of the 72 virgins. But then again, maybe eternity with 72 crabby women keeping company against their will with some slobs who couldn’t think of anything better to do than blow themselves up is exactly what these idiots deserve.
Competition and the Market Economy
If you have ever wondered about the legitimacy of the capitalist claim that market competition provides better services at better prices, then I have a suggestion for you. If you’d like to test this premise, take a trip to the left coast, the Bay Area, the home of The Haight, one of the few places in America where it is not only okay to be a way-leftie, but it is cool and puts you in the center of the Bay Area’s political mainstream. I suggest that you spend time at Fisherman’s Warf and U Cal-Berkley. Last year I was able to spend consecutive days in each of these areas. Here is what I found: Fisherman’s Warf was teaming with tourists. It is filled with places to get great seafood, bars with good bands, shopping (everything has its darker side), and tourist attractions like Alcatraz and the famous sea lions. Seven days a week Fisherman’s Warf is brimming with tourists. Those realists among you have probably already filled out the mental image of Fisherman’s Warf as also packed with something else. Something most localities that rely on tourists absolutely hate – panhandlers. My completely subjective conclusion is that Fisherman’s Warf has more panhandlers per block than any other tourist location in the country. Those of you who are both realists and economists are now also probably concluding that with all these targets (oops I mean tourists) and all these panhandlers, that these panhandlers must be pretty good. What? Good panhandlers? Please move to the head of the class. The panhandlers at Fisherman’s Warf were, without question, the best panhandlers I have ever seen. In general they were polite, often entertaining, and almost always helpful. There were the “silver” guys who put on rudimentary street shows, there was the “bushman” who would scare the pants off your pal by hiding by a trash can, camo’ed from sight until the last minute when your victim passed by. The Bushman rustled his camo at just the right moment, getting a fabulously amusing “start” from your intended target. (I admit the bushman nailed me but good – it was the best dollar my friends spent on the Warf). There were also clever signs asking for help and offers to help tourists find elusive tickets for a bay cruise or Alcatraz tour. These panhandlers were the crème de la crème of their trade. Why? Because there were so darned many of them that if they weren’t pleasant, polite, entertaining, or helpful they had no chance to get any of the thousands of tourist dollars walking around in tourist pockets. I saw a couple of less than pleasant panhandlers on the Warf (undoubtedly rookies) making no headway with anyone at all. These must have been transplanted panhandlers from Berkley.
Prior to spending a couple of days on the Warf, we thought we would tour Berkley. See the campus of Cal-Berkley, hit a few of the bars that were probably a lot more fun back in the 60’s, and generally try to absorb some of the 60’s culture that dissipated into the atmosphere decades ago. There were still some living relics from the 60’s playing their guitars on the street for pocket change and there were some 60’s wannabe generation X’ers who appeared lost trying to be a new millennium hippie. As you might expect in any metropolitan area, there were panhandlers. I noticed while I was there that the Berkley panhandlers were an unusually snarlly lot. They asked for a hand out as though they expected it, as though my money was really their money that mysteriously found its way into my pocket. One particularly unpleasant panhandler berated us multiple times as we spent time strolling the streets of Berkley. His demeanor deteriorated each time we refused his demands for money to the point where we were flogged with obscenities the final time we tried to dart past him. As we were just getting out of earshot of this particularly unpleasant panhandler (I think the term bum probably applies to him, but I am trying to be sensitive here) I heard what I am sure was a well intentioned lady approach the snarly panhandler and ask “would you be offended if I offered you a few dollars?” Offended?!? Why would he be offended? Had she just heard what he had called us? This is not someone who offends easily, but there she was, not only asking if she could give the most snarly of panhandlers money, but making sure that it was done in a appropriate way, not in any way offensive. Heck, I wouldn’t have been offended if she’s offered me a few bucks too, but that didn’t happen. This, however, is the problem with the Berkley panhandlers and why they will never be up to the “standards” set by the panhandlers of Fisherman’s Warf – they don’t have to be good. There is no incentive for them to be the best panhandler they can be. There is less competition for tourist dollars in Berkley, there are fewer panhandlers, and there are people willing to fork over their cash to these less than pleasant panhandlers without provocation and do so in an inoffensive way. I find that highly offensive. Why should these panhandlers be offered “a few” inoffensive dollars while my pal the bushman is over on the Warf scaring the shorts off my friends 12 hours a day? My suspicion is that the bushman makes in an hour what these Berkley low-lifes make in a week…and you know what, the bushman earns what he gets. Like anything in a free market economy, there is equilibrium. Products find their demand or they go away, skills migrate where they can be rewarded, and competition brings out the best in everyone, even in panhandlers. The bushman is additive to the experience of the Warf, not because he wanted to be, but because he had to be. The competition is pretty stiff on the Warf, if you are a panhandler, you’d better be the best or you’ll soon find yourself panhandling in Berkley.
If you have ever wondered about the legitimacy of the capitalist claim that market competition provides better services at better prices, then I have a suggestion for you. If you’d like to test this premise, take a trip to the left coast, the Bay Area, the home of The Haight, one of the few places in America where it is not only okay to be a way-leftie, but it is cool and puts you in the center of the Bay Area’s political mainstream. I suggest that you spend time at Fisherman’s Warf and U Cal-Berkley. Last year I was able to spend consecutive days in each of these areas. Here is what I found: Fisherman’s Warf was teaming with tourists. It is filled with places to get great seafood, bars with good bands, shopping (everything has its darker side), and tourist attractions like Alcatraz and the famous sea lions. Seven days a week Fisherman’s Warf is brimming with tourists. Those realists among you have probably already filled out the mental image of Fisherman’s Warf as also packed with something else. Something most localities that rely on tourists absolutely hate – panhandlers. My completely subjective conclusion is that Fisherman’s Warf has more panhandlers per block than any other tourist location in the country. Those of you who are both realists and economists are now also probably concluding that with all these targets (oops I mean tourists) and all these panhandlers, that these panhandlers must be pretty good. What? Good panhandlers? Please move to the head of the class. The panhandlers at Fisherman’s Warf were, without question, the best panhandlers I have ever seen. In general they were polite, often entertaining, and almost always helpful. There were the “silver” guys who put on rudimentary street shows, there was the “bushman” who would scare the pants off your pal by hiding by a trash can, camo’ed from sight until the last minute when your victim passed by. The Bushman rustled his camo at just the right moment, getting a fabulously amusing “start” from your intended target. (I admit the bushman nailed me but good – it was the best dollar my friends spent on the Warf). There were also clever signs asking for help and offers to help tourists find elusive tickets for a bay cruise or Alcatraz tour. These panhandlers were the crème de la crème of their trade. Why? Because there were so darned many of them that if they weren’t pleasant, polite, entertaining, or helpful they had no chance to get any of the thousands of tourist dollars walking around in tourist pockets. I saw a couple of less than pleasant panhandlers on the Warf (undoubtedly rookies) making no headway with anyone at all. These must have been transplanted panhandlers from Berkley.
Prior to spending a couple of days on the Warf, we thought we would tour Berkley. See the campus of Cal-Berkley, hit a few of the bars that were probably a lot more fun back in the 60’s, and generally try to absorb some of the 60’s culture that dissipated into the atmosphere decades ago. There were still some living relics from the 60’s playing their guitars on the street for pocket change and there were some 60’s wannabe generation X’ers who appeared lost trying to be a new millennium hippie. As you might expect in any metropolitan area, there were panhandlers. I noticed while I was there that the Berkley panhandlers were an unusually snarlly lot. They asked for a hand out as though they expected it, as though my money was really their money that mysteriously found its way into my pocket. One particularly unpleasant panhandler berated us multiple times as we spent time strolling the streets of Berkley. His demeanor deteriorated each time we refused his demands for money to the point where we were flogged with obscenities the final time we tried to dart past him. As we were just getting out of earshot of this particularly unpleasant panhandler (I think the term bum probably applies to him, but I am trying to be sensitive here) I heard what I am sure was a well intentioned lady approach the snarly panhandler and ask “would you be offended if I offered you a few dollars?” Offended?!? Why would he be offended? Had she just heard what he had called us? This is not someone who offends easily, but there she was, not only asking if she could give the most snarly of panhandlers money, but making sure that it was done in a appropriate way, not in any way offensive. Heck, I wouldn’t have been offended if she’s offered me a few bucks too, but that didn’t happen. This, however, is the problem with the Berkley panhandlers and why they will never be up to the “standards” set by the panhandlers of Fisherman’s Warf – they don’t have to be good. There is no incentive for them to be the best panhandler they can be. There is less competition for tourist dollars in Berkley, there are fewer panhandlers, and there are people willing to fork over their cash to these less than pleasant panhandlers without provocation and do so in an inoffensive way. I find that highly offensive. Why should these panhandlers be offered “a few” inoffensive dollars while my pal the bushman is over on the Warf scaring the shorts off my friends 12 hours a day? My suspicion is that the bushman makes in an hour what these Berkley low-lifes make in a week…and you know what, the bushman earns what he gets. Like anything in a free market economy, there is equilibrium. Products find their demand or they go away, skills migrate where they can be rewarded, and competition brings out the best in everyone, even in panhandlers. The bushman is additive to the experience of the Warf, not because he wanted to be, but because he had to be. The competition is pretty stiff on the Warf, if you are a panhandler, you’d better be the best or you’ll soon find yourself panhandling in Berkley.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)