It's over for President Obama. Yes, I know he's only just starting the second year of a four year gig and that his fortunes can change; thing is, I don't think they will change. My crystal ball is clouded by depressing headlines and overly verbose pundits, but I can still see for miles, and unless we find Sarah Palin back on the GOP ticket, I predict Obama will be a one-term president.
It's not that I think his policies and/or decisions are the problem, although his first year could have been much better. He ruined a good chance at health care reform by tasking Congress with that responsibility instead of taking the lead himself. Man, that was a mistake. His waffling on Afghanistan showed too careful of a deliberation, bordering on weakness; still, he should get credit for finally doing the right thing and sending in more troops. His trip to Copenhagen was a waste. Guantanamo is still wide open, and his efforts to make government more transparent remain to be seen. I won't even start on Ken Salazar.
The Obama administration is pretty bad at public relations, too. The president had to bail out the banks, but the White House did a piss poor job of explaining why. "To big to fail" is not an answer. It would've been better if they had said that if we didn't bail out the banks many more people would lose their homes and jobs and life would be pretty miserable for a longer time. How come we only hear about how most of the banks have paid back their loans with interest in the Money section? I would think they'd want that all over the news. Obama's PR people are failing him.
It's really the forces massed against Obama that will make his presidency resemble Jimmy Carter's, one of failed promise. The Party of No has the momentum, and despite all the talk about bi-partianship they have no desire or need to work with Obama and the Democrats. They have the upperhand and don't need to budge, so Obama will need to concede more and more to them in order to get anything done, resulting in victories for the GOP. The GOP is far more unified, far more energized, and far nastier then the Democrats. Another prediction: I foresee a second Republican Revolution this November.
Obama also has to contend with an American public that is fickle and short on patience. The economy went sour on Bush's watch but because Obama foolishly promised to make things better in the first year of his presidency, John Doe now blames him for the whole mess. I wasn't a stellar student of the dismal science, faring better in Micro- than I did in Macroeconomics; yet, I learned enough to know that economies don't turn around in one year (and that the second ice cream cone is not as good as the first - point of diminishing returns). Unfortunately for this president, Americans as a rule live in the short-term, with patience for the long-term being un-American. Americans lack the ability to see the big picture. We want quick fixes and immediate results, and you just don't get those in economics. Or soccer. The economy will rebound and jobs will be created and unemployment will drop, but not in time to save Obama (but in time for the GOP to take credit for it).
The Democratic Party isn't helping the president either. They still have a majority in Congress and they can't agree on anything. They should review tapes of the Bush years to learn how to support a leader. Loyalty doesn't have to be blind. Showing a little backbone and relegating Sen. Lieberman to the political backwaters and removing Howard Dean as DNC Chairman might help a bit.
Obama must also contend with an alarming unity of ugly discontent. It's not just the usual FOX News and Limbaugh groupies and the Glenn Beck flunkies that hate Obama simply because; Independents and moderate Democrats are increasingly joining their ranks. Honestly, I don't know what they want, but they're passionate and vocal, and that spells trouble.
We all knew that Obama couldn't bring the political skill and experience Hillary Clinton would have brought to the office. He only got my vote because she was too polarising and wouldn't have been elected president. Nonetheless, I felt warm inside when he took the presidency. Maybe it was hope. Fast-forward a year and his administration is floundering and showing few signs that it has any staying power.
You might say that it's too early to predict an early retirement for Obama, that I'm being pessimistic, only seeing the bad. Perhaps. If my team is losing, I am prone to turning off the TV before the game is over, before the last pitch is thrown, and because of that I've missed a few great comebacks. Only a few. Some will remind me that Bill Clinton's presidency was doomed after his first year and yet he bounced back. To that I simply reply, "Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton."
There is a ray of hope in that my record as a teller of fortunes is spotty (particularly in horse racing), and I actually hope I'm wrong this time.
But I don't think I am.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Facebook is FREE!!
I'll keep this one short and sweet: Facebook is FREE, so quit complaining about it.
You don't like the changes or the ads? Get over it; it's FREE. FB's privacy policies not good enough for you? That's what you get when something is FREE. If you want more assurances that the photos you uploaded to a server you didn't contribute one penny to help purchase and which you pay nothing to maintain won't be used in ads or whatever, then quit...posting...photos. It's that frickin' simple.
FB is FREE. You have no right to demand anything of or ask anything from the FB Powers that Be. Why can't you just be content with the fact the FB is awesome and it's FREE? It doesn't have to be FREE, you know. They could (and probably should) start charging monthly fees, but you wouldn't use it then, would you? If you paid a subscription, then I think you would have a foot to stand on when demanding changes; however, you don't have to subscribe to FB because it's FREE and so you have nothing to stand on when complaining about what FB should or should not do. You're acting like a spoiled child.
Facebook is FREE. Quit complaining.
You don't like the changes or the ads? Get over it; it's FREE. FB's privacy policies not good enough for you? That's what you get when something is FREE. If you want more assurances that the photos you uploaded to a server you didn't contribute one penny to help purchase and which you pay nothing to maintain won't be used in ads or whatever, then quit...posting...photos. It's that frickin' simple.
FB is FREE. You have no right to demand anything of or ask anything from the FB Powers that Be. Why can't you just be content with the fact the FB is awesome and it's FREE? It doesn't have to be FREE, you know. They could (and probably should) start charging monthly fees, but you wouldn't use it then, would you? If you paid a subscription, then I think you would have a foot to stand on when demanding changes; however, you don't have to subscribe to FB because it's FREE and so you have nothing to stand on when complaining about what FB should or should not do. You're acting like a spoiled child.
Facebook is FREE. Quit complaining.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Moral Outrage
Like most Americans, I am "outraged" by the bonuses that many bank executives will purportedly receive. It sickens me, and if I think about it too much I'm sure I'll get an ulcer. But that's my moral outrage speaking. One aspect of my personality that I've battled with all my life is to not let my moral outrage get the best of me. It gets in the way of reasoning, and though I may not always be reasonable, I tend to let Reason dictate. Which is why I began thinking this morning that if those people excelled at what they were supposed to excel at (presumably increasing profits), then they should be compensated for a job well done. It's only logical.
I bet if the scale of the bonuses wasn't so high, then none of us would care. We get outraged when we hear about people raking in six or seven figure bonuses, but no one seemed outraged when I got a performance bonus several years ago. After taxes it amounted to barely $100 a month, but it was a bonus nonetheless. If we're going to get all high and mighty about bank executives and their bonuses, it only stands to reason that our outrage should be directed towards everyone who gets a bonus. Our moral outrage, however, thinks it wrong for the rich to get richer, even if they earn it. Ironically, our collective moral outrage seems to disappear when unions force companies to pay employees to not work or to not work well.
The fact of the matter is that our society has decided that some professions are more important than others, and as a result the people in those professions generally get paid more. We need doctors and lawyers, for example, and so that's one reason they make the good money. Banks, too, are critical to our society; if we all kept our money tucked away in our mattresses, our economy, our so-called way of life, would die. So there's no logical reason why bank executives shouldn't get bigger bonuses than those in non-critical professions...like librarians.
The reason some of the most important jobs in our society - teachers and social workers being among my top 10 - don't get the salaries and bonuses they deserve is that we, the American people, don't value them nearly as much as we value the people who heal us, who interpret the law, and, yes, who manage our money. Oh, we all like to say how important education is but when push comes to shove and we're asked to vote on a tax increase to support our schools, the majority of us suddenly decide our money is more important than our schools and we vote no. In all the cities and liberal college towns I've lived in, I've never known a tax increase to support public schools to pass. Never. Not in Boulder, not in Eugene, not in Austin, not in Chicago, not in Ithaca, not in Atlanta. THAT gets my moral outrage all in a tizzy!
So, my Reason tells me that the bonuses to be doled out to the evil bank execs is fine, and if I listen to my Reason, I'll not get that ulcer and will probably live longer. It's silly to get all bent out of shape over the amount of money someone I don't know makes or doesn't make. Let them make billions and all the power to them if they get bonuses for making those billions. In the end, it means nothing to me. Thanks, Reason.
I bet if the scale of the bonuses wasn't so high, then none of us would care. We get outraged when we hear about people raking in six or seven figure bonuses, but no one seemed outraged when I got a performance bonus several years ago. After taxes it amounted to barely $100 a month, but it was a bonus nonetheless. If we're going to get all high and mighty about bank executives and their bonuses, it only stands to reason that our outrage should be directed towards everyone who gets a bonus. Our moral outrage, however, thinks it wrong for the rich to get richer, even if they earn it. Ironically, our collective moral outrage seems to disappear when unions force companies to pay employees to not work or to not work well.
The fact of the matter is that our society has decided that some professions are more important than others, and as a result the people in those professions generally get paid more. We need doctors and lawyers, for example, and so that's one reason they make the good money. Banks, too, are critical to our society; if we all kept our money tucked away in our mattresses, our economy, our so-called way of life, would die. So there's no logical reason why bank executives shouldn't get bigger bonuses than those in non-critical professions...like librarians.
The reason some of the most important jobs in our society - teachers and social workers being among my top 10 - don't get the salaries and bonuses they deserve is that we, the American people, don't value them nearly as much as we value the people who heal us, who interpret the law, and, yes, who manage our money. Oh, we all like to say how important education is but when push comes to shove and we're asked to vote on a tax increase to support our schools, the majority of us suddenly decide our money is more important than our schools and we vote no. In all the cities and liberal college towns I've lived in, I've never known a tax increase to support public schools to pass. Never. Not in Boulder, not in Eugene, not in Austin, not in Chicago, not in Ithaca, not in Atlanta. THAT gets my moral outrage all in a tizzy!
So, my Reason tells me that the bonuses to be doled out to the evil bank execs is fine, and if I listen to my Reason, I'll not get that ulcer and will probably live longer. It's silly to get all bent out of shape over the amount of money someone I don't know makes or doesn't make. Let them make billions and all the power to them if they get bonuses for making those billions. In the end, it means nothing to me. Thanks, Reason.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Who Are You to Judge?
A few words of wisdom as you pass judgement on Tiger Woods:
John 8:7(Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000)
"...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 7 (The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000)
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
John 8:7(Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000)
"...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
The Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 7 (The Holy Bible: King James Version. 2000)
1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Petition This!
It seems everybody wants me to sign a petition. I've certainly signed my share of petitions in this lifetime, so many, in fact, that if the FBI doesn't have a file on me by now I will have to consider mine a life not well lived. Petitions are perfect for arm chair activists such as myself: they allow me to have a say without really committing myself to anything.
The problem is, petitions don't wield near the power they once did. The Web has made them a dime a dozen, saturated the market, so to speak. If it's an online petition, almost anyone can sign it, there are no age or residency requirements, and it can often be signed more than once by the same person by simply using a different email address. Any self-respecting government official, religious leader, or company CEO that is the target of a petition campaign knows that a web-based petition carries very little weight.
I'm constantly sending emails to congressional representatives, government agency heads, and corporate presidents; I have a growing list of companies and industries that I boycott; and I routinely make financial donations to select causes and organizations. I almost never sign petitions. I wonder which of Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue's staffers is the poor soul that gets to respond to my emails. Should get a raise.
Anyway, I recently came across Avaaz.org and was particularly struck (annoyed) by the urgent plea to sign a petition against Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Now, I've followed the actions of Mugabe for years, and he truly is a bad man, one that should have come to a timely end years ago. But as so often happens in Africa, the US, South Africa, and most of the "free world" simply looked the other way. I'm all for making the man's existence as hard as possible, but, come on, a petition?! Do you really think a dictator like Mugabe is going to be stopped by a petition signed by a bunch of nosey foreigners? Will countries supporting the Kimberley Process really be persuaded by a petition signed by some American in Atlanta, GA, whose wife doesn't list the diamond as one of her best friends? Perhaps if 200,000 people in the diamond industry signed the petition, there might be some hope, but a petition "signed" by 200,000 well-meaning global nobodies will fall on deaf ears. I mean, hurrah! for Avaaz for trying, for believing that we can make a difference, but the approach is truly a lost cause.
The petition as a force of global change is dead. It still has local and regional power, but nationally, it's power has waned, too. We weren't all made to be waging whale wars or breaking Starbuck's windows during G8 summits or going vegan or even walking from door to door gathering signatures - trust me, I'm not made of that material - so if all you can or want to do is sign an online petition, then by all means do. But know it will do very little to help the people of Zimbabwe or harp seals near Canada or indiginous tribes in South America or women in Saudi Arabia.
I recently sent an email to the president of the University of Nevada at Reno asking him to halt the practice of purchasing cats and dogs from Class B dealers for animal experiments. President Glick replied back from his own email account letting me know in no uncertain terms that his institution no longer uses cats and dogs in animal experiments. Now, about those rats and mice UNR is using...
The problem is, petitions don't wield near the power they once did. The Web has made them a dime a dozen, saturated the market, so to speak. If it's an online petition, almost anyone can sign it, there are no age or residency requirements, and it can often be signed more than once by the same person by simply using a different email address. Any self-respecting government official, religious leader, or company CEO that is the target of a petition campaign knows that a web-based petition carries very little weight.
I'm constantly sending emails to congressional representatives, government agency heads, and corporate presidents; I have a growing list of companies and industries that I boycott; and I routinely make financial donations to select causes and organizations. I almost never sign petitions. I wonder which of Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue's staffers is the poor soul that gets to respond to my emails. Should get a raise.
Anyway, I recently came across Avaaz.org and was particularly struck (annoyed) by the urgent plea to sign a petition against Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe. Now, I've followed the actions of Mugabe for years, and he truly is a bad man, one that should have come to a timely end years ago. But as so often happens in Africa, the US, South Africa, and most of the "free world" simply looked the other way. I'm all for making the man's existence as hard as possible, but, come on, a petition?! Do you really think a dictator like Mugabe is going to be stopped by a petition signed by a bunch of nosey foreigners? Will countries supporting the Kimberley Process really be persuaded by a petition signed by some American in Atlanta, GA, whose wife doesn't list the diamond as one of her best friends? Perhaps if 200,000 people in the diamond industry signed the petition, there might be some hope, but a petition "signed" by 200,000 well-meaning global nobodies will fall on deaf ears. I mean, hurrah! for Avaaz for trying, for believing that we can make a difference, but the approach is truly a lost cause.
The petition as a force of global change is dead. It still has local and regional power, but nationally, it's power has waned, too. We weren't all made to be waging whale wars or breaking Starbuck's windows during G8 summits or going vegan or even walking from door to door gathering signatures - trust me, I'm not made of that material - so if all you can or want to do is sign an online petition, then by all means do. But know it will do very little to help the people of Zimbabwe or harp seals near Canada or indiginous tribes in South America or women in Saudi Arabia.
I recently sent an email to the president of the University of Nevada at Reno asking him to halt the practice of purchasing cats and dogs from Class B dealers for animal experiments. President Glick replied back from his own email account letting me know in no uncertain terms that his institution no longer uses cats and dogs in animal experiments. Now, about those rats and mice UNR is using...
Monday, November 16, 2009
A Library Closes
I heard it said that when a person dies a library dies with them. Our family recently lost an immense library when my uncle died unexpectedly. His library of thoughts, experiences, knowledge, feelings, and ideas will be missed just as much as his physical person. We all learned from and enjoyed his library, whether it was sitting around the Thanksgiving table, walking along the beach, watching a Broncos game or huddled together in a tiny mountain cabin. He loaned to us freely: no use restrictions, no due dates, no copyright laws. His life was a library we visited many times, one that I myself spent 40 years in. It was a good library.
We are all libraries. Our lives are books of non-fiction that read like novels. We are collections of short stories; anthologies of poetry; tales of mystery and romance; dramas, comedies and tragedies; scientific texts; philosophical treatise; and spiritual meditations. The depth and nature of our collection is up to us; as long as we keep on living life, our collection keeps on growing.
My uncle's library is closed now, but he left us priceless works that we will continue to reflect upon and enjoy until that time when our own libraries close.
We are all libraries. Our lives are books of non-fiction that read like novels. We are collections of short stories; anthologies of poetry; tales of mystery and romance; dramas, comedies and tragedies; scientific texts; philosophical treatise; and spiritual meditations. The depth and nature of our collection is up to us; as long as we keep on living life, our collection keeps on growing.
My uncle's library is closed now, but he left us priceless works that we will continue to reflect upon and enjoy until that time when our own libraries close.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Hating the Yankees
I have an unyielding belief in the importance of being a good sport. I expect it of winners and losers, players and coaches, owners and fans. If you can't handle winning or losing gracefully, then you are nothing short of a bad sport. It has nothing to do with being "competitive" but it has everything to do with showing some class.
When the Yankees won the World Series last night, I was hoping that the self-described Yankee Haters out there would display some measure of good sportsmanship. Apparently that was too much for them, and they simply continue to voice their hate. No acknowledgement of it having been a good series; no recognition of Matsui's (yes, there are other players on the team) play; no appreciation for beating a solid Phillies team. No, all that Yankee Haters can apparently do is fume, boil, stew, and spew.
I don't know the hate they harbor. Certainly if the Yankees caused them some personal harm (it's not their fault you bet the house on the losing team) then I would hear them out, but the sad thing is they all give the same reasons for their hatred. First, they don't like that the Yankee players shave and actually cut their hair. One Yankee Hater told me the clean-cut look reminded him of corporate America. Now, really, if you're that frickin' superficial, then, please, just get away from me. To hate a baseball team because their organization requires that the players maintain a certain level of grooming is idiotic and subsequently means you should hate every person of every organization that has a dress code, including me.
Second, Yankee Haters like to hate the Steinbrenners. Yet another superficial reason to hate an entire team, but one that I can somewhat relate to. See, I won't eat Domino's Pizza because the company supports pro-life groups. It's not that the pizza is especially bad or I got bad service once or that I hated the Noid. No, the only reason I don't buy their pizza is because I don't agree with their politics. The difference between me and the Yankee Haters is that I don't hate the pizza, I just don't buy it. Yankee Haters hate the Steinbrenners so much they end up hating the team. I think they call that transference in the psychiatric circles. Grow up or seek counseling.
The third and biggest reason Yankee Haters like to hate the Yankees is that they complain that the organization "buys" championships by paying enormous amounts of money to get the best players in baseball. There's no doubt the Yankees have money to spend and they spend it. And why not? What's wrong with trying to get the best players to help your organization win the World Series? Do Yankee Haters really believe that the Red Sox or Cubs or Rockies or Astros or any team in MLB wouldn't do the same if they had the means? Of course they would! The Red Sox outbid even the Yankees to get Daisuke Matsuzaka (over $51 million), so don't try and tell me it's only the Yankees throwing money around to get the best. And what do Yankee Haters have to say about the fact that only three Yankee players are among the top 10 highest paid players in MLB? The Yankees do have more money than other teams and they spend it, but I'm willing to bet there isn't a team (and it's fans) out there that wouldn't trade banking accounts with them in a heartbeat.
I would understand if Yankee Haters hated the team because they won all the time (and they don't) or out of grudging respect. I "hate" Tom Brady because he is the best quarterback playing, and I know that you never count him out. The man is ice. If your team beats the Patriots, you have to breathe a sigh of relief because you just beat the NFL's best QB. My hate of Brady is really fear of his prowess and respect for what he has, can and will do, and I'm willing to admit that. Yankee Haters won't admit that the team that won last night was the better team; they won't admit that Mariano Rivera is the most feared closer in MLB history; they won't admit that Pettitte closed down the Phillies; they won't even admit that A-Rod and Jeter are actually great baseball players.
Yankee Haters are simply poor sports.
When the Yankees won the World Series last night, I was hoping that the self-described Yankee Haters out there would display some measure of good sportsmanship. Apparently that was too much for them, and they simply continue to voice their hate. No acknowledgement of it having been a good series; no recognition of Matsui's (yes, there are other players on the team) play; no appreciation for beating a solid Phillies team. No, all that Yankee Haters can apparently do is fume, boil, stew, and spew.
I don't know the hate they harbor. Certainly if the Yankees caused them some personal harm (it's not their fault you bet the house on the losing team) then I would hear them out, but the sad thing is they all give the same reasons for their hatred. First, they don't like that the Yankee players shave and actually cut their hair. One Yankee Hater told me the clean-cut look reminded him of corporate America. Now, really, if you're that frickin' superficial, then, please, just get away from me. To hate a baseball team because their organization requires that the players maintain a certain level of grooming is idiotic and subsequently means you should hate every person of every organization that has a dress code, including me.
Second, Yankee Haters like to hate the Steinbrenners. Yet another superficial reason to hate an entire team, but one that I can somewhat relate to. See, I won't eat Domino's Pizza because the company supports pro-life groups. It's not that the pizza is especially bad or I got bad service once or that I hated the Noid. No, the only reason I don't buy their pizza is because I don't agree with their politics. The difference between me and the Yankee Haters is that I don't hate the pizza, I just don't buy it. Yankee Haters hate the Steinbrenners so much they end up hating the team. I think they call that transference in the psychiatric circles. Grow up or seek counseling.
The third and biggest reason Yankee Haters like to hate the Yankees is that they complain that the organization "buys" championships by paying enormous amounts of money to get the best players in baseball. There's no doubt the Yankees have money to spend and they spend it. And why not? What's wrong with trying to get the best players to help your organization win the World Series? Do Yankee Haters really believe that the Red Sox or Cubs or Rockies or Astros or any team in MLB wouldn't do the same if they had the means? Of course they would! The Red Sox outbid even the Yankees to get Daisuke Matsuzaka (over $51 million), so don't try and tell me it's only the Yankees throwing money around to get the best. And what do Yankee Haters have to say about the fact that only three Yankee players are among the top 10 highest paid players in MLB? The Yankees do have more money than other teams and they spend it, but I'm willing to bet there isn't a team (and it's fans) out there that wouldn't trade banking accounts with them in a heartbeat.
I would understand if Yankee Haters hated the team because they won all the time (and they don't) or out of grudging respect. I "hate" Tom Brady because he is the best quarterback playing, and I know that you never count him out. The man is ice. If your team beats the Patriots, you have to breathe a sigh of relief because you just beat the NFL's best QB. My hate of Brady is really fear of his prowess and respect for what he has, can and will do, and I'm willing to admit that. Yankee Haters won't admit that the team that won last night was the better team; they won't admit that Mariano Rivera is the most feared closer in MLB history; they won't admit that Pettitte closed down the Phillies; they won't even admit that A-Rod and Jeter are actually great baseball players.
Yankee Haters are simply poor sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)