The new name for this blog has become The Best of Cleary Squared. There will no longer be new posts on this website; the best selections of previous posts will remain here.
7/11/2019: Yes, three years later and I just happened to stumble on this blog. At least people are still reading it (including the French)...
4/24/2016
11/28/2014
"Thankful I'm alive"
Yesterday, at my family's Thanksgiving feast, we all were asked what we were thankful for.
I was pretty much caught off-guard by this question. I didn't want to say anything flip or rude, so I blurted something out fast, like "Thankful I'm alive."
Back in June 9, 1989, I was working at what was Crown Shoes over on Hyde Park Avenue and getting change from what was then the Suffolk Franklin bank. I was crossing the street and I got hit by a car.
To say that Someone Upstairs was keeping an eye out for me was an understatement. I walked - yes, walked - away with two stitches in my head (the only pain I felt was the lidocaine burning and numbing my head) and numerous scrapes. I was well over six feet then, but anyone smaller would have easily been dead.
When it came to that revelation, it was one resting in my subconscious until it got jostled by accident. Awaking the slumbering part of my life that was bad at one moment but turned out very lucky, as it were. Sidney Friedman, the MASH psychiatrist played wonderfully by Allan Arbus, would be the one sitting in front of me, asking why I said that, and then after recounting what happened, would drolly say, "It's funny how what happened earlier in life comes back at the strangest times."
So I am thankful I'm alive. And I am forever grateful Someone Upstairs thought I wasn't ready for wings yet on June 9, 1989.
I was pretty much caught off-guard by this question. I didn't want to say anything flip or rude, so I blurted something out fast, like "Thankful I'm alive."
Back in June 9, 1989, I was working at what was Crown Shoes over on Hyde Park Avenue and getting change from what was then the Suffolk Franklin bank. I was crossing the street and I got hit by a car.
To say that Someone Upstairs was keeping an eye out for me was an understatement. I walked - yes, walked - away with two stitches in my head (the only pain I felt was the lidocaine burning and numbing my head) and numerous scrapes. I was well over six feet then, but anyone smaller would have easily been dead.
When it came to that revelation, it was one resting in my subconscious until it got jostled by accident. Awaking the slumbering part of my life that was bad at one moment but turned out very lucky, as it were. Sidney Friedman, the MASH psychiatrist played wonderfully by Allan Arbus, would be the one sitting in front of me, asking why I said that, and then after recounting what happened, would drolly say, "It's funny how what happened earlier in life comes back at the strangest times."
So I am thankful I'm alive. And I am forever grateful Someone Upstairs thought I wasn't ready for wings yet on June 9, 1989.
4/20/2013
Four streets down
Our company on Mount Auburn Street closed yesterday as it was four streets down from where the second Marathon bomber was finally captured in Watertown - ironically, hiding in a boat. If it weren't for an observant homeowner, who peeked inside and discovered him in there, the manhunt would have been continued into a nationwide dragnet (insert DUM BA DUM DUM).
I can't praise the police and law enforcement enough. They did an outstanding job, nothing like I've ever seen before...everyone across the state, in various vehicles, some regular, others heavily armored, looking for someone heavily armed and extremely dangerous. The police were disappointed they couldn't catch their man at 6:30, but about forty-five minutes later, a vigilant homeowner who had just been released from lockdown took a look around his boat and instantly changed fate. I listened to the radio exchange between police and it was more riveting than the news. Then, at 8:43pm, it was all over. They got their man.
Critics will ask why a lockdown of the entire city of Boston was necessary (although it seemed like it was business as usual in West Roxbury, albeit with no bus service). One, the lockdown prevented the curious from wandering down and interfering with police investigation. Conversely, it made law enforcement's investigation tons easier without a giant media and bystander circus. Two, the bomber was armed and extremely dangerous; the Cambridge police discovered the bombers weren't going to be satisfied with just bombing the Marathon, but were planning a final bigger act; pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs, and other weapons were found in the apartment. Third, if the bomber decided to take hostages and wasn't going to surrender, that would have been far worse.
I took it in stride. I did my laundry, paid my bills, had lunch, and just rode it out. I wasn't in harm's way; but when they captured the guy, I felt relieved it was over.
I can't praise the police and law enforcement enough. They did an outstanding job, nothing like I've ever seen before...everyone across the state, in various vehicles, some regular, others heavily armored, looking for someone heavily armed and extremely dangerous. The police were disappointed they couldn't catch their man at 6:30, but about forty-five minutes later, a vigilant homeowner who had just been released from lockdown took a look around his boat and instantly changed fate. I listened to the radio exchange between police and it was more riveting than the news. Then, at 8:43pm, it was all over. They got their man.
Critics will ask why a lockdown of the entire city of Boston was necessary (although it seemed like it was business as usual in West Roxbury, albeit with no bus service). One, the lockdown prevented the curious from wandering down and interfering with police investigation. Conversely, it made law enforcement's investigation tons easier without a giant media and bystander circus. Two, the bomber was armed and extremely dangerous; the Cambridge police discovered the bombers weren't going to be satisfied with just bombing the Marathon, but were planning a final bigger act; pressure cooker bombs, pipe bombs, and other weapons were found in the apartment. Third, if the bomber decided to take hostages and wasn't going to surrender, that would have been far worse.
I took it in stride. I did my laundry, paid my bills, had lunch, and just rode it out. I wasn't in harm's way; but when they captured the guy, I felt relieved it was over.
4/15/2013
Horatio Caine ain't here
In the show CSI - Miami, when the bad guy was captured, Horatio Caine did a line, then put on his sunglasses, and delivered a punchline. You knew the show was over then and the bad guy had been brought to justice.
Today's bombings at the Boston Marathon are already leading to speculation of who did it and why. We will sooner or later learn the identities and motives. In the meantime, we must wait.
Horatio Caine ain't here. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, he's not coming through that door.
We must be thankful our loved ones were safe, or in a safe place. The first responders did an amazing job in triage, hunting for explosives, cleaning up the debris, and finally taking the injured to the hospital. For those in the hospital, pray for their recovery, or pray that they've arrived to their Maker safely.
Then there will be grousings that everyone will be inconvenienced. That the police with dogs will be nothing more than "security theater." That traffic will be backed up, train stations closed, etc. Then the complaints about civil rights being eroded away, people being jailed for suspicion rather than fact, spirited away to phantom internment camps. That is the voice of the insecure trying to rationalize an attack like this to soothe themselves.
But in no way did we deserve this. We'll rise above and survive better than most.
I groused to myself this weekend that tourists will be taking over Boston for the marathon, hobnobbing here and there, looking in awe at all the tourist spots, eating overpriced tourist food, and going back to their hotels wondering how other neighborhoods have all sorts of crime and seediness. After the explosions, I thought to myself, "These tourists will now see the real side of Boston," and not that Boston that eyerolls each time a tourist from Cornpone USA asks where Harvard Yard is, or if Norm is still at Cheers. That "real" Boston isn't Southie, with dropped 'r's, or Roxbury, with enough blood and guts to make Gettysburg look like Six Flags, or other places.
That real side of Boston is when we get hit, we hit back. Hard. We don't give up, curl up into the fetal position, and plead for mercy. We get our crooks any way we can. We're ambitious, we love the thrill of the chase, and we bask in glory when the problem is solved. We don't have our Horatio Caines, but we have our own crusty detectives, our eager patrolmen, and people behind the scenes who don't need rounds or guns put people away - computers, forensics and witnesses do it for them.
And so it will be - when the perps are escorted from a Boston Police cruiser in handcuffs, tourists will understand that sure, we're cranky, but we're cranky with a purpose.
Today's bombings at the Boston Marathon are already leading to speculation of who did it and why. We will sooner or later learn the identities and motives. In the meantime, we must wait.
Horatio Caine ain't here. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, he's not coming through that door.
We must be thankful our loved ones were safe, or in a safe place. The first responders did an amazing job in triage, hunting for explosives, cleaning up the debris, and finally taking the injured to the hospital. For those in the hospital, pray for their recovery, or pray that they've arrived to their Maker safely.
Then there will be grousings that everyone will be inconvenienced. That the police with dogs will be nothing more than "security theater." That traffic will be backed up, train stations closed, etc. Then the complaints about civil rights being eroded away, people being jailed for suspicion rather than fact, spirited away to phantom internment camps. That is the voice of the insecure trying to rationalize an attack like this to soothe themselves.
But in no way did we deserve this. We'll rise above and survive better than most.
I groused to myself this weekend that tourists will be taking over Boston for the marathon, hobnobbing here and there, looking in awe at all the tourist spots, eating overpriced tourist food, and going back to their hotels wondering how other neighborhoods have all sorts of crime and seediness. After the explosions, I thought to myself, "These tourists will now see the real side of Boston," and not that Boston that eyerolls each time a tourist from Cornpone USA asks where Harvard Yard is, or if Norm is still at Cheers. That "real" Boston isn't Southie, with dropped 'r's, or Roxbury, with enough blood and guts to make Gettysburg look like Six Flags, or other places.
That real side of Boston is when we get hit, we hit back. Hard. We don't give up, curl up into the fetal position, and plead for mercy. We get our crooks any way we can. We're ambitious, we love the thrill of the chase, and we bask in glory when the problem is solved. We don't have our Horatio Caines, but we have our own crusty detectives, our eager patrolmen, and people behind the scenes who don't need rounds or guns put people away - computers, forensics and witnesses do it for them.
And so it will be - when the perps are escorted from a Boston Police cruiser in handcuffs, tourists will understand that sure, we're cranky, but we're cranky with a purpose.
3/24/2013
Stealing from savers - a hell of a trial balloon II
In an update to the previous post, Jonathan Krugman says that kind of plan is already here
in the form of ZIRP - Zero Interest Rate Program.
The ZIRP has had an unintended - and positive - consequence. Debtors - poor and middle class - who spent willy-nilly during the days where credit was easy are now pushed to pay off the high-interest rate balances on their debt - some at rates of 30% or more. With a lower interest rate, balances are paid off much faster than they normally would. While you might see puny interest in your savings accounts, once a debt is paid off, the interest you would have paid to the banks goes right into your pockets.
Example: If you paid off a $10,000 balance at 24% APR, you would be receiving an effective $200 extra per month. That's $200 less the bank would be receiving from you each month, which is much, much better than the 0.1% APR the bank would have paid on that $10,000 ($10 a year). You make a nice profit of $2,390, tax-free. And, if the creditor discharged your $10,000 debt, it would have become taxable income.
Also, not having any debt at all also denies banks and creditors the ability to make interest and profits off responsible customers. It may not make you a profitable customer in some banks' eyes, but in others, the ability to manage debt well is sound financial footing, no matter how much income or savings you have. Paying off the debt is equal to an interest free - 0% - loan.
On the other hand, there could be 180 degree opposite of Cyprus. In the right situation, that $9.6 trillion the banks are sitting on could be forced to be returned to savers - in exchange for not receiving a lengthy Federal prison sentence for the collapse of the markets in 2008. That and a few forced Big Bank breakups would work immediate and long-lasting wonders.
The ZIRP has had an unintended - and positive - consequence. Debtors - poor and middle class - who spent willy-nilly during the days where credit was easy are now pushed to pay off the high-interest rate balances on their debt - some at rates of 30% or more. With a lower interest rate, balances are paid off much faster than they normally would. While you might see puny interest in your savings accounts, once a debt is paid off, the interest you would have paid to the banks goes right into your pockets.
Example: If you paid off a $10,000 balance at 24% APR, you would be receiving an effective $200 extra per month. That's $200 less the bank would be receiving from you each month, which is much, much better than the 0.1% APR the bank would have paid on that $10,000 ($10 a year). You make a nice profit of $2,390, tax-free. And, if the creditor discharged your $10,000 debt, it would have become taxable income.
Also, not having any debt at all also denies banks and creditors the ability to make interest and profits off responsible customers. It may not make you a profitable customer in some banks' eyes, but in others, the ability to manage debt well is sound financial footing, no matter how much income or savings you have. Paying off the debt is equal to an interest free - 0% - loan.
On the other hand, there could be 180 degree opposite of Cyprus. In the right situation, that $9.6 trillion the banks are sitting on could be forced to be returned to savers - in exchange for not receiving a lengthy Federal prison sentence for the collapse of the markets in 2008. That and a few forced Big Bank breakups would work immediate and long-lasting wonders.
3/20/2013
Stealing from savers - a hell of a trial balloon
SamaBlog puts the whole Cyprus "savers to sacrifice savings" neatly: (emphasis mine)
Back in the 1940s, Americans were compelled to buy war bonds, which back then paid a handsome interest rate of 5% (but the dollar back then bought much more than today; a dollar back then would be about $14 today). Today, people are pressured to fund their retirement accounts, which total about $10-$20 trillion. Given the rightmanufactured crisis, the government will see that $10-$20 trillion as an irresistable lure that its citizens will be glad to hand over - not knowing that their money may never be paid back.
Say the government needs to bail out banks, and decide they will levy a 20% surtax on all 401(k) accounts, regardless of value. That means for every $100,000 you've scrimped and saved tax-free, the government is seizing $20,000, never to give it back. If you earn $50,000 a year and contribute 20%, $2,000 of the $10,000 that you put into your account will be captured by the government. If the situation is dire enough, the government will have the right to seize every bit of that $10-$20 trillion, and pay back at a fraction of that to the savers at a much lower rate.
I just wanted to go on the record that what has happened in Cyprus, with the seizure of bank accounts, is a trial balloon. If the world give it a collective shrug, that a first world central bank seized money from its citizens with no due process, then it will happen again, and it could happen here even. But as of right now, it is no longer safe to hold significant assets in a bank account, and I would recommend removing significant amounts of cash from the bank asap.What Cyprus was planning to do, via European Union diktat, was to take 6.9% out of all accounts up to 100,000 euros, and 9.5% above that, as conditions of the EU bailing out Cyprus. That effort was met with a huge outcry, and to prevent panic and bank runs, Cypriot banks closed. The Cypriot parliament voted that effort down, but banks are still closed, and may yet have bank runs. Cypriots and expats from Russia and the UK were furious, not just at the ministers, but at Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who engineered the conditions of the bailout.
Back in the 1940s, Americans were compelled to buy war bonds, which back then paid a handsome interest rate of 5% (but the dollar back then bought much more than today; a dollar back then would be about $14 today). Today, people are pressured to fund their retirement accounts, which total about $10-$20 trillion. Given the right
Say the government needs to bail out banks, and decide they will levy a 20% surtax on all 401(k) accounts, regardless of value. That means for every $100,000 you've scrimped and saved tax-free, the government is seizing $20,000, never to give it back. If you earn $50,000 a year and contribute 20%, $2,000 of the $10,000 that you put into your account will be captured by the government. If the situation is dire enough, the government will have the right to seize every bit of that $10-$20 trillion, and pay back at a fraction of that to the savers at a much lower rate.
3/15/2013
Resentment in perfection
There are schools that couldn't care less about kids who graduate, so long as they leave the building with the diploma they're all but handed. There are also those that do care and make every effort to have their kids graduate at a rate above 80%. Those who graduate every single student in the senior class is rare, yet incredible accomplishment.
So why take away the prom? I can see cancelling a prom for bad behavior, but to motivate students to have that distinction, against all odds, and taking away a major event just so the administrators can feel better?
These schools - really the administrators - who likely have tons and tons of federal and state education funds riding on the graduation rate, i.e. having a metrics fetish so archingly huge that a 99% graduation rate means losing funds - funds they can't afford to lose. It's an attention getter for the students to work harder, of course, but it sounds more like Captain Queeg running the high school.
On the other hand, these students are motivated enough to do their best, so this could all be a huge bluff by this principal to get them to work harder. I'd love to see the students call this principal's bluff as follows: "Fine, we'll hold our own, unsanctioned prom, full of liquor and drugs, obscene dancing, and chaos. No chaperones, no control, no anything. Would you like to be in the news for a 100% graduation rate, or half of the NYPD in the Bronx hauling kids to jail? Your choice."
Update: Never mind...the prom will go on.
So why take away the prom? I can see cancelling a prom for bad behavior, but to motivate students to have that distinction, against all odds, and taking away a major event just so the administrators can feel better?
These schools - really the administrators - who likely have tons and tons of federal and state education funds riding on the graduation rate, i.e. having a metrics fetish so archingly huge that a 99% graduation rate means losing funds - funds they can't afford to lose. It's an attention getter for the students to work harder, of course, but it sounds more like Captain Queeg running the high school.
On the other hand, these students are motivated enough to do their best, so this could all be a huge bluff by this principal to get them to work harder. I'd love to see the students call this principal's bluff as follows: "Fine, we'll hold our own, unsanctioned prom, full of liquor and drugs, obscene dancing, and chaos. No chaperones, no control, no anything. Would you like to be in the news for a 100% graduation rate, or half of the NYPD in the Bronx hauling kids to jail? Your choice."
Update: Never mind...the prom will go on.
1/25/2013
Taxes are funny, innit? II
Deval Patrick put out his budget proposals, and the people are taking out their frustrations over the details of said proposals on their politicians.
Namely: the increase of the income tax from 5.25% to 6.25%; the reduction of state sales tax to 4.5%, to which sodas, snacks, and water bottles will be included; the increase of cigarette taxes to $3.51, and other things. On the positive side, the personal exemption may go up to $8,800 - but only if you earn less than $37,000.
A few back-of-the-envelope calculations: If you're buying a pack of $6 generic cigarettes and the new excise tax is $3.51, that sports an effective tax rate of 58.5%, even before the sales tax is applied. If you're buying $50 of snacks and a case of 24 cans of soda at $8, the new tax will rake in $2.25 for the snacks and $0.36 for the soda, plus another $0.60 for deposit. That means an additional $3.21 tacked onto the bill. If you earn $40,000 a year, you pay an extra $400 per year, or $8 per paycheck.
Deval Patrick knows that he's a lame duck and is very smart to use ignorance to his advantage. He knows the real money to be taken is where no one will take a second to question why and calculate how much. He also knows the taxes he's raising are on the poor and lower middle classes who have little, if any, influence on how these taxes will be distributed - it might sound great that the monies are going to transit and education, but often they go to the general fund so they can be spent on pork and perks. They're the same people who will hang on every promise but in the end get whacked in the face, time and again, because they aren't savvy enough to differentiate between good taxes (that are put out front and benefit everyone) and bad taxes (that can be hidden and manipulated to the whim of the politician).
Furthermore, these extra taxes beyond the income tax are designed to be regressive, and will come from the disposable income of the poor and lower middle class. The snack and soda taxes alone will be a harsh regressive tax, and coupled with yearly fare hikes, the urban areas (and not the suburbs, who sustain most of the commuter rail fare hikes) will financing a huge chunk of shiny new buses and trains, while also having bus and train services reduced or cut. On top of it, no one, not even the poorest, will avoid the 6.25% income tax (and no one knows if they'll offer an alternate, higher income tax for those who want to pay more - the 5.85% tax has generated so little revenue anyway).
Voters re-elected Patrick with passion. Now they're seeing their passion repaid with a massive shakedown on their wallets. Now the voters are certainly rekindling that same passion - by giving politicians a huge earful about how they'll vote for the other guy if this budget passes.
Namely: the increase of the income tax from 5.25% to 6.25%; the reduction of state sales tax to 4.5%, to which sodas, snacks, and water bottles will be included; the increase of cigarette taxes to $3.51, and other things. On the positive side, the personal exemption may go up to $8,800 - but only if you earn less than $37,000.
A few back-of-the-envelope calculations: If you're buying a pack of $6 generic cigarettes and the new excise tax is $3.51, that sports an effective tax rate of 58.5%, even before the sales tax is applied. If you're buying $50 of snacks and a case of 24 cans of soda at $8, the new tax will rake in $2.25 for the snacks and $0.36 for the soda, plus another $0.60 for deposit. That means an additional $3.21 tacked onto the bill. If you earn $40,000 a year, you pay an extra $400 per year, or $8 per paycheck.
Deval Patrick knows that he's a lame duck and is very smart to use ignorance to his advantage. He knows the real money to be taken is where no one will take a second to question why and calculate how much. He also knows the taxes he's raising are on the poor and lower middle classes who have little, if any, influence on how these taxes will be distributed - it might sound great that the monies are going to transit and education, but often they go to the general fund so they can be spent on pork and perks. They're the same people who will hang on every promise but in the end get whacked in the face, time and again, because they aren't savvy enough to differentiate between good taxes (that are put out front and benefit everyone) and bad taxes (that can be hidden and manipulated to the whim of the politician).
Furthermore, these extra taxes beyond the income tax are designed to be regressive, and will come from the disposable income of the poor and lower middle class. The snack and soda taxes alone will be a harsh regressive tax, and coupled with yearly fare hikes, the urban areas (and not the suburbs, who sustain most of the commuter rail fare hikes) will financing a huge chunk of shiny new buses and trains, while also having bus and train services reduced or cut. On top of it, no one, not even the poorest, will avoid the 6.25% income tax (and no one knows if they'll offer an alternate, higher income tax for those who want to pay more - the 5.85% tax has generated so little revenue anyway).
Voters re-elected Patrick with passion. Now they're seeing their passion repaid with a massive shakedown on their wallets. Now the voters are certainly rekindling that same passion - by giving politicians a huge earful about how they'll vote for the other guy if this budget passes.
1/19/2013
Taxes are funny, innit?
For the many people who were shocked, shocked that their paychecks were reduced, it was because the Social Security tax that was temporarily reduced to 4.2% from 2011-2013 was rightfully restored to the original 6.2% rate.
I say "rightfully restored" because Congress let the temporary rate expire - and it was a bipartisan effort. Not that 6.2% is a nice, cheap rate - it's better than the 39.6% plus a few surcharges signed into law along with the permanent Bush tax rates - but the reduction was to get people to spend more money in their paychecks, yet it went to paying for higher food and fuel prices. (See also Making Work Pay, which credited people $400-$800 but also expired, replaced by the 4.2% temporary rate.)
Taxes are funny. People will whine about an increase in taxes, but will still buy cigarettes, which carry a effective tax rate of 40-65%, will purchase beer at 11 cents per gallon excise tax, liquor at $4.05 per gallon excise tax, not recycle their cans and reclaim their nickel per can/bottle, and not look at their phone bills and be on the hook for 12-13% in more taxes. Yet, when they're told that they can reduce or defer their taxes, either by decreasing the amounts they withhold in their paychecks or by deferring their income to a 401(k) program, they're too busy watching TV or letting the media narrate what's going on through the lens of a gossip columnist with a mighty big axe to grind.
Of course, there will bemasochists taxpayers willing to pay even more. Let them. Let them endorse their paychecks directly to Uncle Sam if it makes them giddy. It's a fool's errand, however, to force others to pay more just because you think they have deep pockets and must do it for the "common good." When the money runs out from these folks, it's the "common good" who has to fork over their savings. Soon enough, Margaret Thatcher's axiom of "eventually [running] out of other people's money" comes true.
I say "rightfully restored" because Congress let the temporary rate expire - and it was a bipartisan effort. Not that 6.2% is a nice, cheap rate - it's better than the 39.6% plus a few surcharges signed into law along with the permanent Bush tax rates - but the reduction was to get people to spend more money in their paychecks, yet it went to paying for higher food and fuel prices. (See also Making Work Pay, which credited people $400-$800 but also expired, replaced by the 4.2% temporary rate.)
Taxes are funny. People will whine about an increase in taxes, but will still buy cigarettes, which carry a effective tax rate of 40-65%, will purchase beer at 11 cents per gallon excise tax, liquor at $4.05 per gallon excise tax, not recycle their cans and reclaim their nickel per can/bottle, and not look at their phone bills and be on the hook for 12-13% in more taxes. Yet, when they're told that they can reduce or defer their taxes, either by decreasing the amounts they withhold in their paychecks or by deferring their income to a 401(k) program, they're too busy watching TV or letting the media narrate what's going on through the lens of a gossip columnist with a mighty big axe to grind.
Of course, there will be
1/12/2013
Our thirst for exploitation TV
Andrea Peyser's fantastic column in regards to the disgusting six year old child participating in beauty pageants hits a hard nerve.
I have two nieces. To their tremendous credit, they have zero interest in participating in things like that. They want to be kids, not some hardcore pervert's fantasy. My sister-in-law and my brother keep them rooted to reality.
Watching shows that exploit stereotypes, celebrities, and above all children has its parent in the Jerry Springer show. When the Jerry Springer show brought in every base stereotype into the mainstream, a lot of ears perked up. So did Maury Povich. So did many other shows, raking in the cash on every fight, every "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry" and every "You're not the father."
The Osbournes brought in celebrity exploitation, thanks to Ozzy's doddering speech and call outs to "Sharon." They beget the equally odious Kardashians. Producers love rolling in the money when Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed get married, get into fights, and all of the bleeps.
Now it's children and pageant/dance shows that have really solidified gross exploitative TV. It's not enough for children as young as three to look like painted trollops; it's ratings and advertising gold for the mother/trainer to blow up like a Parris Island drill instructor.
All because viewers have allowed degrading TV shows like this. We've not just become desensitized to gross violence and hedonistic sexual activities, but watching hicks, ghetto trash and other people do stupid stuff makes people feel better. Sure, you're two months back on rent and the collectors are calling you every two hours, but hey, at least I'm better than the people on TV, right?
No. It's not right. Not even close.
The best resolution is to make these shows so unappealing to watch that people will flock from the shows in droves...the Cousin Oliver syndrome writ large. Make viewers squirm in total discomfort, outrage them to the point where they call the network and threaten to boycott every advertiser on the show, and soon enough, the series finale will wind down and the show will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Once people wipe their eyes and see that vile and disgusting shows that exploit minorities, celebrities, children, and racial and sexual stereotypes only enrichen networks, they too will demand them off the networks. If the fear of God doesn't work, the threat of losing advertisers and their juicy revenue vaporizing does. The message to producers and networks will then become broadcast exploitation shows at your own financial peril.
Perhaps two decades from now, that six year old eating mayonnaise from a jar will become a better, wiser young woman and a spokesperson against child exploitation in particular and exploitation in general.
I have two nieces. To their tremendous credit, they have zero interest in participating in things like that. They want to be kids, not some hardcore pervert's fantasy. My sister-in-law and my brother keep them rooted to reality.
Watching shows that exploit stereotypes, celebrities, and above all children has its parent in the Jerry Springer show. When the Jerry Springer show brought in every base stereotype into the mainstream, a lot of ears perked up. So did Maury Povich. So did many other shows, raking in the cash on every fight, every "Jerry, Jerry, Jerry" and every "You're not the father."
The Osbournes brought in celebrity exploitation, thanks to Ozzy's doddering speech and call outs to "Sharon." They beget the equally odious Kardashians. Producers love rolling in the money when Gene Simmons and Shannon Tweed get married, get into fights, and all of the bleeps.
Now it's children and pageant/dance shows that have really solidified gross exploitative TV. It's not enough for children as young as three to look like painted trollops; it's ratings and advertising gold for the mother/trainer to blow up like a Parris Island drill instructor.
All because viewers have allowed degrading TV shows like this. We've not just become desensitized to gross violence and hedonistic sexual activities, but watching hicks, ghetto trash and other people do stupid stuff makes people feel better. Sure, you're two months back on rent and the collectors are calling you every two hours, but hey, at least I'm better than the people on TV, right?
No. It's not right. Not even close.
The best resolution is to make these shows so unappealing to watch that people will flock from the shows in droves...the Cousin Oliver syndrome writ large. Make viewers squirm in total discomfort, outrage them to the point where they call the network and threaten to boycott every advertiser on the show, and soon enough, the series finale will wind down and the show will be relegated to the dustbin of history. Once people wipe their eyes and see that vile and disgusting shows that exploit minorities, celebrities, children, and racial and sexual stereotypes only enrichen networks, they too will demand them off the networks. If the fear of God doesn't work, the threat of losing advertisers and their juicy revenue vaporizing does. The message to producers and networks will then become broadcast exploitation shows at your own financial peril.
Perhaps two decades from now, that six year old eating mayonnaise from a jar will become a better, wiser young woman and a spokesperson against child exploitation in particular and exploitation in general.
12/30/2012
The way out is the way in
"The way out is the way in" has an analogue: one door closes, another one opens.
After reading Suldog's "Happy New Year to Me" entry, it may be true: lose a job, get hired for a new one. It might take a month, a year, or longer, but it's never easy, especially when it comes to the end of the year and at the expense of longevity.
Whenever people get laid off for business purposes (and not disciplinary ones - as in getting flat-out fired for being flat-out stupid), or at meetings where layoffs are discussed and people are concerned they'll be next, I always go back to the time I was laid off in 1995 from a company operating in Newton Corner.
Layoffs and staff reductions are usually geared to getting rid of deadwood, but sometimes when management has already gotten rid of incompetent and corrupt employees, they have to get rid of the loyal (those who have worked over 20 years) and those who make too much money (why keep a $40k worker when you can retain $20k workers?).
I was between temping in Downtown Boston after college and beginning to pay off student loans when I happened upon an ad working for hotel reservations for major companies. The pay wasn't stellar, but enough to pay the bills I did have and keep a little cash on the side.
I began in August of 1995. We had one big firm that was having a major convention in the South. First, they had me typing in reservations...which was fine. Then they had me going onto the phones, taking reservations.
There were good days when the reservationers were friendly; other days, I simply wanted the job to end. I used to work from 11am to 8pm, come home on the express bus, and did it all again the next day. Soon, I went to a traditional 9am - 5pm schedule.
Sometimes, to cheer employees up, management brought in food and had prizes, but somehow all that food got consumed while me and a few other people were on the phones. In between doing the phones and entering reservations, I frequently got called to the carpet for accuracy and/or not selling people places other than the Big Hotels.
My health was also going downhill. I had a near nervous breakdown in November 1995, enough to send me home and have a meeting with my supervisor the next day. However, after Thanksgiving, everything seemed to improve. I received about details about health insurance, salary, etc. The company was going to have its annual Christmas Party at the hotel across the street.
Then December 5 came around.
Back then, I didn't see the warning signs: my time card was filled out for the rest of the week and it was only Tuesday; an admin handed me a $17 check for items I had purchased. I was doing my usual work after I returned from lunch when my manager tapped me on the shoulder and told me to come to the office.
He gave The Speech - we lost two accounts, and as a result I no longer had a job. He gave the same speech to nine other colleagues. When I returned to my desk to collect my stuff, other managers and supervisors were devastated, apologized profusely, but the damage was done.
Oh, and we were disinvited from the company Christmas Party.
About a few months later, after I got hired temp-to-perm, I met up with an old colleague. She was still working there and filled me in on the details of what happened after we were laid off:
From what I can gather, the final straw came when the owner sold it to a national congolmerate, sent the phone jobs to India, and fired everyone else.
The more I think about it, I was glad I got laid off from that company. I don't like to talk cold on the phone (and a later temp job cemented that so much that I actually gave my agency my last day), but the promise of health insurance and being hired full time made me hang on until management decided, after four months, to let me go.
Businesses naturally don't want to panic other workers into feeling, "oh my God, I might be next!" but that's the nature of business, cruel as it is. I say that each and every time someone gets laid off - and add that months from now, we might look at those layoffs as blip on the screen.
After reading Suldog's "Happy New Year to Me" entry, it may be true: lose a job, get hired for a new one. It might take a month, a year, or longer, but it's never easy, especially when it comes to the end of the year and at the expense of longevity.
Whenever people get laid off for business purposes (and not disciplinary ones - as in getting flat-out fired for being flat-out stupid), or at meetings where layoffs are discussed and people are concerned they'll be next, I always go back to the time I was laid off in 1995 from a company operating in Newton Corner.
Layoffs and staff reductions are usually geared to getting rid of deadwood, but sometimes when management has already gotten rid of incompetent and corrupt employees, they have to get rid of the loyal (those who have worked over 20 years) and those who make too much money (why keep a $40k worker when you can retain $20k workers?).
I was between temping in Downtown Boston after college and beginning to pay off student loans when I happened upon an ad working for hotel reservations for major companies. The pay wasn't stellar, but enough to pay the bills I did have and keep a little cash on the side.
I began in August of 1995. We had one big firm that was having a major convention in the South. First, they had me typing in reservations...which was fine. Then they had me going onto the phones, taking reservations.
There were good days when the reservationers were friendly; other days, I simply wanted the job to end. I used to work from 11am to 8pm, come home on the express bus, and did it all again the next day. Soon, I went to a traditional 9am - 5pm schedule.
Sometimes, to cheer employees up, management brought in food and had prizes, but somehow all that food got consumed while me and a few other people were on the phones. In between doing the phones and entering reservations, I frequently got called to the carpet for accuracy and/or not selling people places other than the Big Hotels.
My health was also going downhill. I had a near nervous breakdown in November 1995, enough to send me home and have a meeting with my supervisor the next day. However, after Thanksgiving, everything seemed to improve. I received about details about health insurance, salary, etc. The company was going to have its annual Christmas Party at the hotel across the street.
Then December 5 came around.
Back then, I didn't see the warning signs: my time card was filled out for the rest of the week and it was only Tuesday; an admin handed me a $17 check for items I had purchased. I was doing my usual work after I returned from lunch when my manager tapped me on the shoulder and told me to come to the office.
He gave The Speech - we lost two accounts, and as a result I no longer had a job. He gave the same speech to nine other colleagues. When I returned to my desk to collect my stuff, other managers and supervisors were devastated, apologized profusely, but the damage was done.
Oh, and we were disinvited from the company Christmas Party.
About a few months later, after I got hired temp-to-perm, I met up with an old colleague. She was still working there and filled me in on the details of what happened after we were laid off:
- One woman who came that night to work and discovered us laid off quit immediately.
- The group we were making reservations for had their credit cards charged two or three times, which led to very angry conventioneers and a loss of another account, which led to more layoffs.
- Some of the subordinates were having inappropriate personal relationships with supervisors, which resulted in more firings - the people who were participating in those relationships and managers who looked the other way.
- Some of the management who had severe personality conflicts and rage problems with other co-workers was later fired.
From what I can gather, the final straw came when the owner sold it to a national congolmerate, sent the phone jobs to India, and fired everyone else.
The more I think about it, I was glad I got laid off from that company. I don't like to talk cold on the phone (and a later temp job cemented that so much that I actually gave my agency my last day), but the promise of health insurance and being hired full time made me hang on until management decided, after four months, to let me go.
Businesses naturally don't want to panic other workers into feeling, "oh my God, I might be next!" but that's the nature of business, cruel as it is. I say that each and every time someone gets laid off - and add that months from now, we might look at those layoffs as blip on the screen.
12/28/2012
The impending death of WTKK
WTKK, ex-WSJZ, ex-WKLB, and for the longest time, WJIB (before it found a new home on 740 AM, which itself was WCAS), will likely go to the big Talk Radio Station in the Sky in the next week or two and be replaced with yet another derivative, shallow, dare I say corporate (as a slur/code word meaning profit grubbing capitalists) dance/top 40 radio station.
When I began listening to 'TKK in 1999, it was a fresh change. I started getting more conservative leanings listening to Eagan & Braude, the Inside Track girls, Jay Severin, Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus, Michael Graham, and others. It outsurvived Air America (in which the hosts of that long-gone network now ply their wares on MSNBC and NPR), and up until a couple of years ago, had promise and talent. Then controversy worked its way in. Imus and Severin were fired; Bill O'Reilly was shelved; and national conservative broadcasters far more strident filled in.
The big thing I take away from this is that any kind of media format or gimmick has its niche until it runs out of steam. Westerns, for instance, ran on TV from the early 50's to the late '70s. Then game shows had their run on daytime from the late '50s to the late 2000's. Soap operas were on every station from 12 noon to 4pm on every network between 1951 to 2008; now, there are only three soaps remaining. Scripted reality shows will die out; "Housewives of (fill in city here)", Survivor (fill in far-flung and dangerously infested country), and Big Brother will have its heroes elevated and its villains shilling infomercial products. And rarely do you hear about scripted professional wrestling anymore.
Compare this to the late David Brudnoy, the late Jerry Williams, and the current Dan Rea on WBZ, who treated their audiences to a differing viewpoint without being shouted out. They treated their listeners with patience, respect, and honor, not as people to be mocked so they can sell shady products. And you actually learn something from these hosts - you don't walk away with a side-eye looking for the nearest shower.
Talk radio - conservative and liberal - is a dying breed because it's bloviating and preaching to its separate choirs. Listening to 'TKK became tedious - it was as much the pro-Bush network as it was the anti-Obama network. But any network falls into that place where they don't have to worry about their dissenters because they have their blunderbuss aimed right at their face.
The Fairness doctrine didn't kill WTKK. The audience just dwindled away.
Update: WTKK 1999-2013, as of the end of Eagan & Braude's program.
When I began listening to 'TKK in 1999, it was a fresh change. I started getting more conservative leanings listening to Eagan & Braude, the Inside Track girls, Jay Severin, Bill O'Reilly, Don Imus, Michael Graham, and others. It outsurvived Air America (in which the hosts of that long-gone network now ply their wares on MSNBC and NPR), and up until a couple of years ago, had promise and talent. Then controversy worked its way in. Imus and Severin were fired; Bill O'Reilly was shelved; and national conservative broadcasters far more strident filled in.
The big thing I take away from this is that any kind of media format or gimmick has its niche until it runs out of steam. Westerns, for instance, ran on TV from the early 50's to the late '70s. Then game shows had their run on daytime from the late '50s to the late 2000's. Soap operas were on every station from 12 noon to 4pm on every network between 1951 to 2008; now, there are only three soaps remaining. Scripted reality shows will die out; "Housewives of (fill in city here)", Survivor (fill in far-flung and dangerously infested country), and Big Brother will have its heroes elevated and its villains shilling infomercial products. And rarely do you hear about scripted professional wrestling anymore.
Compare this to the late David Brudnoy, the late Jerry Williams, and the current Dan Rea on WBZ, who treated their audiences to a differing viewpoint without being shouted out. They treated their listeners with patience, respect, and honor, not as people to be mocked so they can sell shady products. And you actually learn something from these hosts - you don't walk away with a side-eye looking for the nearest shower.
Talk radio - conservative and liberal - is a dying breed because it's bloviating and preaching to its separate choirs. Listening to 'TKK became tedious - it was as much the pro-Bush network as it was the anti-Obama network. But any network falls into that place where they don't have to worry about their dissenters because they have their blunderbuss aimed right at their face.
The Fairness doctrine didn't kill WTKK. The audience just dwindled away.
Update: WTKK 1999-2013, as of the end of Eagan & Braude's program.
12/22/2012
The Alternative Minimum Tax Silencer
I've never advocated for the Alternative Minimum Tax because it never affected me. Without giving away too much on how I earn, it seems every time the waves of the AMT reach my financial front door, they seem to be swept away by another few bags of sand, in the form of a "patch."
The AMT is a lovely little tax that has only two rates - 26% and 28%. If you reach the magic IRS amount, you will be made to calculate your income tax twice - first through the traditional method, and then through the AMT - and then pay the higher tax amount. With the AMT, you cannot claim the standard or personal deduction; other deductions are very limited. You would end up paying a LOT more in taxes, and you'll be very lucky to escape alive (with a refund).
Over the past few years, the AMT has become more like a surf wave that hits more houses, as it has never been indexed to inflation since 1969. It would make sense to raise the AMT level, rather than having tens of millions of middle class earners to fork over an obscene amount of tax.
A new, revised AMT would involve the following:
1. Those earning more around $250,000 for singles, $375,000 for head of household, and $500,000 for married couples would automatically be subject to calculating the AMT. Once the AMT is paid for the year, a credit is applied to next year's taxes.
2. The percentages on which levels would be increased from 26% to 33% for $250,000-$500,000 and from 28% to 35% for above $500,000.
3. All members of Congress - including the President - will automatically be subject to the AMT for as long as they hold office.
Now, I don't earn $250,000 a year, but the people who would be affected would be the same people clamoring for higher taxes - like celebrities, sports players, entertainers, activists, and other lobby groups. It would certainly shut them up when they see that they're on the hook with Uncle Sam for at least $82,500 - the cost of a luxury car, a vacation to an exclusive island, a Rolex, or a shopping spree in New York - and perhaps more, because the AMT doesn't allow deductions. They cannot schmooze away what they really owe with fancy accounting footwork - they have to bite down and write that check. It would be a treat to watch Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other billionaires be forced to fund the government to the tune of $350 million per billion.
This is what Obama should unequivocably advocate for - updating and raising the level of the AMT, while excluding a lot of middle class earners from it. By doing so, it would bring in real revenue from the real rich - those with an aristocratic attitude who want to influence the daily lives of others through their caprice, their arrogance, and their profligacy. Recalibrating the AMT also alienate and infuriate all his friends and supporters that contributed millions to his (perpetual) campaign, only to be backstabbed with higher taxes.
Maybe with elections, forced retirements, and other activities, some authentic tax reform will come around that everyone would agree would be fair, bring in the appropriate revenue, and finally end class warfare. But you and I know that Congress, given short time, would probably put in quick fixes until the same, tired, cliched drama rolls around next time.
The AMT is a lovely little tax that has only two rates - 26% and 28%. If you reach the magic IRS amount, you will be made to calculate your income tax twice - first through the traditional method, and then through the AMT - and then pay the higher tax amount. With the AMT, you cannot claim the standard or personal deduction; other deductions are very limited. You would end up paying a LOT more in taxes, and you'll be very lucky to escape alive (with a refund).
Over the past few years, the AMT has become more like a surf wave that hits more houses, as it has never been indexed to inflation since 1969. It would make sense to raise the AMT level, rather than having tens of millions of middle class earners to fork over an obscene amount of tax.
A new, revised AMT would involve the following:
1. Those earning more around $250,000 for singles, $375,000 for head of household, and $500,000 for married couples would automatically be subject to calculating the AMT. Once the AMT is paid for the year, a credit is applied to next year's taxes.
2. The percentages on which levels would be increased from 26% to 33% for $250,000-$500,000 and from 28% to 35% for above $500,000.
3. All members of Congress - including the President - will automatically be subject to the AMT for as long as they hold office.
Now, I don't earn $250,000 a year, but the people who would be affected would be the same people clamoring for higher taxes - like celebrities, sports players, entertainers, activists, and other lobby groups. It would certainly shut them up when they see that they're on the hook with Uncle Sam for at least $82,500 - the cost of a luxury car, a vacation to an exclusive island, a Rolex, or a shopping spree in New York - and perhaps more, because the AMT doesn't allow deductions. They cannot schmooze away what they really owe with fancy accounting footwork - they have to bite down and write that check. It would be a treat to watch Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and other billionaires be forced to fund the government to the tune of $350 million per billion.
This is what Obama should unequivocably advocate for - updating and raising the level of the AMT, while excluding a lot of middle class earners from it. By doing so, it would bring in real revenue from the real rich - those with an aristocratic attitude who want to influence the daily lives of others through their caprice, their arrogance, and their profligacy. Recalibrating the AMT also alienate and infuriate all his friends and supporters that contributed millions to his (perpetual) campaign, only to be backstabbed with higher taxes.
Maybe with elections, forced retirements, and other activities, some authentic tax reform will come around that everyone would agree would be fair, bring in the appropriate revenue, and finally end class warfare. But you and I know that Congress, given short time, would probably put in quick fixes until the same, tired, cliched drama rolls around next time.
12/01/2012
The Fiscal Blarney Stone
It is rumored that the Blarney Stone in Ireland gives the one who kisses it magical powers of conversation. If the Irish have transported even a small part the Blarney Stone to Washington, somehow it's given its politicians the gift to bullshit the entire nation.
What we have is not a fiscal cliff, nor a bump, curb, ant hill, or anything else. It's a public pissing match between the radical wings of the left and the right in Congress, trying to put their version of fiscal and social utopia in place and trying to establish total power. Whether it's taxes, entitlements, spending, or anything else, someone's going to be hurting no matter what resolution comes about.
Which is why I say do nothing. Let the tax rates skyrocket, let the cuts to spending come home roost. Let everyone share in the misery of everyone paying high taxes, watch the unemployment rate skyrocket, and then maybe, just maybe, the public who willingly votes people into office on looks and promises will dump these losers, hacks and know-nothings out in 2014 with quadruple the ferocity of 2010.
Simply do nothing - don't fix a damn thing. For the first months, people will be fed up with gridlock in Washington. Then the volume will get louder and louder until someone with guts says, "let's cut the crap and get things moving - or our political careers are toast."
And by all means, keep talking smack to one another, Congress and Mr. President, until someone lets the real agenda slip out of their mouths - total and absolute control over the entire nation. The first person who utters on camera - even off the record - "we're doing this to grab power," and their party will be rendered into the ash heap of political irrelevancy. It doesn't matter who does it - all it takes is one admission.
But don't call this a crisis. It's a pure pissing match between the radical wings, all broadcast by a willing press. Nothing more, nothing less. And its only resolution will be to keep the status quo and kick the can down the road for another year - unless a brainstorm of lightning hits Washington and suddenly gives its politicians common sense.
Update: Jonathan Krugman of the New York Post comes up with the truth: Obama wants to raise the the debt ceiling again so the government can spend more. That's what happened the last time until Congress came to a "resolution." Again, I say let everything melt down, go into a hellish talespin, and only then will someone come forward and say, "stop acting like pissy little drama queens and come to a solution - or else we vote you all out."
What we have is not a fiscal cliff, nor a bump, curb, ant hill, or anything else. It's a public pissing match between the radical wings of the left and the right in Congress, trying to put their version of fiscal and social utopia in place and trying to establish total power. Whether it's taxes, entitlements, spending, or anything else, someone's going to be hurting no matter what resolution comes about.
Which is why I say do nothing. Let the tax rates skyrocket, let the cuts to spending come home roost. Let everyone share in the misery of everyone paying high taxes, watch the unemployment rate skyrocket, and then maybe, just maybe, the public who willingly votes people into office on looks and promises will dump these losers, hacks and know-nothings out in 2014 with quadruple the ferocity of 2010.
Simply do nothing - don't fix a damn thing. For the first months, people will be fed up with gridlock in Washington. Then the volume will get louder and louder until someone with guts says, "let's cut the crap and get things moving - or our political careers are toast."
And by all means, keep talking smack to one another, Congress and Mr. President, until someone lets the real agenda slip out of their mouths - total and absolute control over the entire nation. The first person who utters on camera - even off the record - "we're doing this to grab power," and their party will be rendered into the ash heap of political irrelevancy. It doesn't matter who does it - all it takes is one admission.
But don't call this a crisis. It's a pure pissing match between the radical wings, all broadcast by a willing press. Nothing more, nothing less. And its only resolution will be to keep the status quo and kick the can down the road for another year - unless a brainstorm of lightning hits Washington and suddenly gives its politicians common sense.
Update: Jonathan Krugman of the New York Post comes up with the truth: Obama wants to raise the the debt ceiling again so the government can spend more. That's what happened the last time until Congress came to a "resolution." Again, I say let everything melt down, go into a hellish talespin, and only then will someone come forward and say, "stop acting like pissy little drama queens and come to a solution - or else we vote you all out."
10/30/2012
When "single (blank)" is code for "state monopoly"
Massachusetts operates its liquor stores by letting independent distributors purchase and sell the liquor in retail stores. Other stores let the state itself price and distribute the booze - a prime example being New Hampshire, where you can buy certain kinds of beer in drug stores but you could only buy the hard stuff at State Liquor Stores.
Due to yesterday's Hurricane Sandy, many stores were closed up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Most reopened today - except for all liquor stores in Pennsylvania (via Consumerist, Philly.com), which closed per their Liquor Control Board "to assess the damage from Hurricane Sandy."
Now, if that meant "to prevent people from looting the stores for free liquor," that's one thing (and understandable - but no one should be denied a tipple in between cleaning out from a hurricane). If it means "we want to make sure none of the stores were damaged," it's fine. But when it's a vague phrase meant to keep people in the dark (no pun intended), and when people are crossing into Maryland and Delaware to purchase - it raises a lot of eyebrows.
One of the comments in Philly.com, however, drew my attention. In reference to Pennsylvania's oft-maddening liquor purchase laws, which would make Ben Franklin drink,
In fact, "single (blank)" is shorthand for state monopoly in anything. ("Medicare for All" is the cynically cutesy code for "You have no choice for healthcare other than what we're offering, and if you don't like it, tough.") This is why it makes sense when people want "single payor" healthcare, they really are referring to a state monopoly where a thick, unwavering bureaucracy makes every decision on health care as if they have a rubber band firmly tightened over their hinterparts, controlling every single aspect of healthcare from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how much sleep we get, and what medicines we're allowed to take. The state and only the state gets to determine things, not individuals or businesses.
And that's what people really believe to their own selfish and myopic means: that if they're ruled over by the state, they will be treated benevolently. Most often, they realize the harsher reality of a dictatorship: no room complaints and criticism, no freedom of movement, and a huge cult of personality they must honor, or else.
Due to yesterday's Hurricane Sandy, many stores were closed up and down the Eastern Seaboard. Most reopened today - except for all liquor stores in Pennsylvania (via Consumerist, Philly.com), which closed per their Liquor Control Board "to assess the damage from Hurricane Sandy."
Now, if that meant "to prevent people from looting the stores for free liquor," that's one thing (and understandable - but no one should be denied a tipple in between cleaning out from a hurricane). If it means "we want to make sure none of the stores were damaged," it's fine. But when it's a vague phrase meant to keep people in the dark (no pun intended), and when people are crossing into Maryland and Delaware to purchase - it raises a lot of eyebrows.
One of the comments in Philly.com, however, drew my attention. In reference to Pennsylvania's oft-maddening liquor purchase laws, which would make Ben Franklin drink,
I take "single buyer" to be the code for "state monopoly." Single buyer implied some nice middle-aged guy named Fred works in Harrisburg and buys all the alcohol for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. State monopoly evokes deep bureaucracies that we thought had died with the Soviet Union.
"The truth is if [the Liquor Control Board is] run really efficiently, and being a single buyer for the whole state, this system could really have the lowest prices anywhere."
In fact, "single (blank)" is shorthand for state monopoly in anything. ("Medicare for All" is the cynically cutesy code for "You have no choice for healthcare other than what we're offering, and if you don't like it, tough.") This is why it makes sense when people want "single payor" healthcare, they really are referring to a state monopoly where a thick, unwavering bureaucracy makes every decision on health care as if they have a rubber band firmly tightened over their hinterparts, controlling every single aspect of healthcare from what we eat, how much exercise we get, how much sleep we get, and what medicines we're allowed to take. The state and only the state gets to determine things, not individuals or businesses.
And that's what people really believe to their own selfish and myopic means: that if they're ruled over by the state, they will be treated benevolently. Most often, they realize the harsher reality of a dictatorship: no room complaints and criticism, no freedom of movement, and a huge cult of personality they must honor, or else.
8/09/2012
The real meaning behind "you didn't build that"
Mark Trumbull of the Christian Science Monitor puts forth an excellent column behind Obama's "you didn't build that" speech.
Here is the complete excerpt:
"You didn't build that" to me, doesn't mean "The government built it, it gets all of the credit, so don't try anything funny." It's more astonishment and amazement that without even the grain of help the government could give (better yet, the rules and regulations it could impose), the government is saying, "C'mon, are you serious? You got absolutely zero help from us or anyone else, and it's successful?" Then once the person proves their success, the government can say, "Well done."
Again, reading the whole speech and not cherry-picking certain phrases the left and right like, you get the full picture.
UPDATE 9/2/2012: Kyle Smith of the New York Post has more.
Here is the complete excerpt:
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."And also the final summary, emphasis mine:
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."Now if you put both of those phrases together, they do make an abundant amount of sense, don't they? Any President who is mindful that (a) people have a great opportunity to be successful and (b) are willing to put forth their dreams can do it. You could of course do everything on your own, from the sweat of your brow, and turn out to be wildly successful, but it's an uphill battle. If you get more people involved, it makes the job a lot easier.
"You didn't build that" to me, doesn't mean "The government built it, it gets all of the credit, so don't try anything funny." It's more astonishment and amazement that without even the grain of help the government could give (better yet, the rules and regulations it could impose), the government is saying, "C'mon, are you serious? You got absolutely zero help from us or anyone else, and it's successful?" Then once the person proves their success, the government can say, "Well done."
Again, reading the whole speech and not cherry-picking certain phrases the left and right like, you get the full picture.
UPDATE 9/2/2012: Kyle Smith of the New York Post has more.
6/30/2012
Chief Justice Roberts' neat tricks
Chief Justice John Roberts did something I like
in regards to the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare - it was certainly
not a dirty trick, but a fairly neat one in its cleverness and
simplicity.
After a few days of celebrating, chest-thumping, and self-congratulation, the hangover from the people who wanted ACA upheld will leave them thinking about something else. "ACA is upheld, but what did they say about that tax thingy?"
In an election year, raising taxes in an election year is an election killer. Walter Mondale, when running for President in 1984 against Reagan, stated thus when nominated by his party: "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
Little wonder why Mondale was trounced; Reagan won 49 states; Mondale his own home state of Minnesota plus the District of Columbia. 525-13 was the soundest trouncing of a Presidential candidate since 1936.
If you were running for office, would you want to celebrate imposing tax increase on those who don't have health insurance? If a person doesn't obtain health insurance in the first year of ACA in 2014, they pay a $95 per year/1% of income fine. Later on, it increases to $220/2.5% of income fine. Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people who can't afford or choose not to purchase health insurance and you have the biggest tax increase in American history, as the ACA will be funded not just with people who elect to pay the fine, but people who might be fined for not having adequate health insurance as defined by the government. Update 7/1/2012: Terry Keenan of the New York Post has more - including fines for small businesses paying anywhere from $40,000 to $140,000 for not supplying health insurance to workers.
Chief Justice Roberts' tricks? First, he took away Obama's ability to implement the ACA through executive order, which might have happened if the ACA were struck down and caused even more problems (executive branch usurping the judicial branch would have caused a huge firestorm). Second, he gave Obama and the remaining Democrats the distasteful task of telling voters why the ACA must be funded through taxes. Voters who brought in the Republicans in 2010 through a "shellacking" will now likely make sure those who mention ACA as "good for them" be drummed out of office. Third, and most importantly, Roberts assured the public that judicial activism - ruling from the bench - does not replace or circumvent the right to vote to strike down laws.
Hence, you could be a judge who is hell-bound to rule for their own whims and biases, yet it ultimately comes down to the voters who will make the final, absolute decision to uphold or strike down a law, directly through referendum or indirectly through voting in someone who will strike down the laws in question. That's what voters did with Scott Brown in 2010 and with Congress months later - they took their displeasure to the ballot box.
Chief Justice Roberts handed the Obama administration a victory - but not a victory they want to promote. In effect, Chief Justice Roberts said, "Try to defend your law as a tax increase on every single American - and don't be surprised if more voters decide to speak loudly through the ballot box."
Full disclosure: I work for a health insurance company. My opinions do not reflect those of my company and are wholly my own.
After a few days of celebrating, chest-thumping, and self-congratulation, the hangover from the people who wanted ACA upheld will leave them thinking about something else. "ACA is upheld, but what did they say about that tax thingy?"
In an election year, raising taxes in an election year is an election killer. Walter Mondale, when running for President in 1984 against Reagan, stated thus when nominated by his party: "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."
Little wonder why Mondale was trounced; Reagan won 49 states; Mondale his own home state of Minnesota plus the District of Columbia. 525-13 was the soundest trouncing of a Presidential candidate since 1936.
If you were running for office, would you want to celebrate imposing tax increase on those who don't have health insurance? If a person doesn't obtain health insurance in the first year of ACA in 2014, they pay a $95 per year/1% of income fine. Later on, it increases to $220/2.5% of income fine. Multiply that by hundreds of millions of people who can't afford or choose not to purchase health insurance and you have the biggest tax increase in American history, as the ACA will be funded not just with people who elect to pay the fine, but people who might be fined for not having adequate health insurance as defined by the government. Update 7/1/2012: Terry Keenan of the New York Post has more - including fines for small businesses paying anywhere from $40,000 to $140,000 for not supplying health insurance to workers.
Chief Justice Roberts' tricks? First, he took away Obama's ability to implement the ACA through executive order, which might have happened if the ACA were struck down and caused even more problems (executive branch usurping the judicial branch would have caused a huge firestorm). Second, he gave Obama and the remaining Democrats the distasteful task of telling voters why the ACA must be funded through taxes. Voters who brought in the Republicans in 2010 through a "shellacking" will now likely make sure those who mention ACA as "good for them" be drummed out of office. Third, and most importantly, Roberts assured the public that judicial activism - ruling from the bench - does not replace or circumvent the right to vote to strike down laws.
Hence, you could be a judge who is hell-bound to rule for their own whims and biases, yet it ultimately comes down to the voters who will make the final, absolute decision to uphold or strike down a law, directly through referendum or indirectly through voting in someone who will strike down the laws in question. That's what voters did with Scott Brown in 2010 and with Congress months later - they took their displeasure to the ballot box.
Chief Justice Roberts handed the Obama administration a victory - but not a victory they want to promote. In effect, Chief Justice Roberts said, "Try to defend your law as a tax increase on every single American - and don't be surprised if more voters decide to speak loudly through the ballot box."
Full disclosure: I work for a health insurance company. My opinions do not reflect those of my company and are wholly my own.
6/20/2012
A thirst for common sense
Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced an idea to limit soda sizes to 16 ounces. The limit is only for sugary drinks that have over 25 calories per 8 ounces. Diet sodas and water would likely exempted. However, the city of Cambridge thinks this is an equally delightful idea, would likely include ALL drinks, all the name of "the war on obesity."
But myopic rules like these don't work. They're designed to be stifling and show the laziness of governments not to do their research on health, to knee-jerk their way into control of the populace who consumes these drinks. This is why rules like this get ridiculed; no law is worse than when proposed by someone who doesn't like what others do (and is tyring to get money from the government to fund such cockeyed schemes) and try to control others.
Furthermore, by disguising these stiff laws as "it's for your own good," they hide the real motivation behind them, which is "we don't like what you're doing, regardless of it being harmless, and we'll prevent you from doing it any way we can." Types of laws like this usually devolve into resentment, confusion, and then revolt and black markets. See the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s for an example of that success story.
A better idea would be to suggest that occasionally, a 20 ounce drink with as much sugar as your pancreas can handle is fine, so long as you balance it out during the day. That's better than being laughed at as a crank and a control freak.
But myopic rules like these don't work. They're designed to be stifling and show the laziness of governments not to do their research on health, to knee-jerk their way into control of the populace who consumes these drinks. This is why rules like this get ridiculed; no law is worse than when proposed by someone who doesn't like what others do (and is tyring to get money from the government to fund such cockeyed schemes) and try to control others.
Furthermore, by disguising these stiff laws as "it's for your own good," they hide the real motivation behind them, which is "we don't like what you're doing, regardless of it being harmless, and we'll prevent you from doing it any way we can." Types of laws like this usually devolve into resentment, confusion, and then revolt and black markets. See the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s for an example of that success story.
A better idea would be to suggest that occasionally, a 20 ounce drink with as much sugar as your pancreas can handle is fine, so long as you balance it out during the day. That's better than being laughed at as a crank and a control freak.
6/16/2012
Five Years from Now: A new kind of commencement speech
I got this idea from Suldog, who in turn got his idea from a commencement speaker who put forth a pretty astringent speech to a set of high school students in Wellesley. Mine might not be as funny as Suldog's, but all I ask is that you read.
Good morning.
I'm not here to give you a happy, "the world is yours" speech. I'm here to give you an idea of what happens in the real world - not the overpaid celebrity commencement speech world.
In the past few weeks, you've cleaned out your dorm rooms, said your final goodbyes, had your final off-campus party, survived your final collegiate hangover, and likely had your university supply you with your usual senior tradition.
This morning, you are here in your shirts and ties, your best dresses, your hair combed and curled and blown out just so, wearing your best shoes or heels, so your chancellor or principal can hand you a piece of paper stating you've met all the requirements of your degree.
Fast forward to five years from now.
Today, you may wear your spiral curls, spread out on your shoulders like the goddess Aphrodite, wearing your favorite slinky dress you wore to a sorority party where you met your future husband, plus a sparkly pair of Louboutin sandals to show off your opal-painted toenails. Five years from now, you may be pregnant with your second child, with one screaming two year old in your ears, your hair tossed in a frightful mess, and cursing the husband you met at the sorority party for "working late" again, wondering if he's having his way with the secretary in his office.
Today, you may wear a Hugo Boss suit, a $125 tie, and tied shoes. Five years from now, your human resources department, with your supervisor, manager, and two HR representatives, will hand you a box for your personal belongings because the company has gone out of business. The remainder of the company will get that speech too, but as there is no more money, there will be no severance. For many weeks after, you will not be able to find a job; whatever you did save will dwindle to pocket change; your health insurance will be cancelled, and that the only jobs you're qualified won't even cover your rent.
Today, you may have ended your academic career with straight A's from primary school, through middle school, high school, and college. Your 4.0 GPA has showered you with accolades, praise, and the title "summa cum laude." You were likely the class valedictorian. Five years from now, you're in a hospital bed, IV's dripping with chemotheraputic poison because your PCP didn't like a spot on your brain and it turned out to be Stage IV brain cancer - which explains the slurred speech, the migranes, the dizzy spells, the vomiting, and the occasional spacing out. All of your hair is gone; you've dropped from a robust weight to a thin, cachexic skeleton of yourself, praying for that last seizure or the death rattle.
Of course, today you're just here to get the hell out of this college. You didn't want to be here; you got a 2.0 GPA just to avoid academic probation; you partied all the time, took drugs, and just didn't care. Five years from now, you're in a prison cell. The reason was spelled out by a judge who was tired of seeing you again and decided the rest of your life would be served best away from modern society. She was tired of looking at your heroin-wasted, hyper-tense body, pleading for just one more chance to do good, even after the five other times you were caught hustling for drug money, but the last straw was a home invasion with your friends, and in turn one of your friends - to save himself from your fate - plead and turned state's evidence. Karma got him - he was stabbed to death by a vicious prison gang member.
Those are the extreme cases. You may experience other things nowhere nearly as unpleasant as what I've described. I'm here to shatter perceptions, to transition you from the dream world to the real world, and to grab your attention, I used those stories as extreme examples.
Reality happens. Dreams are often killed by something we don't prepare for - fate, if you will, has something in store to prepare us for real life. To have commencement speakers pump the "go forth and be successful" drivel into your brains does you no good. You could work hard and get nowhere. You could follow your dreams and hit a hard brick wall. Meanwhile, the commencement speaker is cashing their check for a new trip to the Carribean Islands.
Mary Ann Esposito, when telling her audience how to get the hairy "choke" out of artichokes, told us in an easy, laid back fashion, "You do nothing." What she did is braise the artichoke in chicken stock, lemon juice, parsley, garlic, and mint, let it rest for awhile, and then with a spoon, popped out the choke very easily.
Like the hairy choke that Mary Ann Esposito told you to "do nothing" with, "do nothing" with your life.
Forget five year expectations. Better yet, don't plan. Let things happen, and you'll be pleasantly surprised where fate might lead you.
If you're successful in some things but not in others, that's fine.
If you choose not to marry, whether because you don't want to or for other political reasons, that's fine.
If you don't earn a million dollars, but can live very well with thirty thousand, that's fine.
If you choose not to have children, or decide to adopt because you physically can't, that's fine.
And for those of you who weren't valedictorians, who were satisfied with a 3.0 GPA, who didn't party all that often and got an occasional hangover, who didn't have a SO, who have a small balance on their college loans, who stayed anonymous - you were fine all along.
There will be times you'll have to live with your parents because you still can't afford to live on your own, attend court hearings to get custody of your children, go weeks without pay because you're on strike, sit through boring, pointless meetings peppered with business cliches and jargon, and so forth. That's life. Just sit back, relax, don't plan, and let things fall into place.
Thank you.
Good morning.
I'm not here to give you a happy, "the world is yours" speech. I'm here to give you an idea of what happens in the real world - not the overpaid celebrity commencement speech world.
In the past few weeks, you've cleaned out your dorm rooms, said your final goodbyes, had your final off-campus party, survived your final collegiate hangover, and likely had your university supply you with your usual senior tradition.
This morning, you are here in your shirts and ties, your best dresses, your hair combed and curled and blown out just so, wearing your best shoes or heels, so your chancellor or principal can hand you a piece of paper stating you've met all the requirements of your degree.
Fast forward to five years from now.
Today, you may wear your spiral curls, spread out on your shoulders like the goddess Aphrodite, wearing your favorite slinky dress you wore to a sorority party where you met your future husband, plus a sparkly pair of Louboutin sandals to show off your opal-painted toenails. Five years from now, you may be pregnant with your second child, with one screaming two year old in your ears, your hair tossed in a frightful mess, and cursing the husband you met at the sorority party for "working late" again, wondering if he's having his way with the secretary in his office.
Today, you may wear a Hugo Boss suit, a $125 tie, and tied shoes. Five years from now, your human resources department, with your supervisor, manager, and two HR representatives, will hand you a box for your personal belongings because the company has gone out of business. The remainder of the company will get that speech too, but as there is no more money, there will be no severance. For many weeks after, you will not be able to find a job; whatever you did save will dwindle to pocket change; your health insurance will be cancelled, and that the only jobs you're qualified won't even cover your rent.
Today, you may have ended your academic career with straight A's from primary school, through middle school, high school, and college. Your 4.0 GPA has showered you with accolades, praise, and the title "summa cum laude." You were likely the class valedictorian. Five years from now, you're in a hospital bed, IV's dripping with chemotheraputic poison because your PCP didn't like a spot on your brain and it turned out to be Stage IV brain cancer - which explains the slurred speech, the migranes, the dizzy spells, the vomiting, and the occasional spacing out. All of your hair is gone; you've dropped from a robust weight to a thin, cachexic skeleton of yourself, praying for that last seizure or the death rattle.
Of course, today you're just here to get the hell out of this college. You didn't want to be here; you got a 2.0 GPA just to avoid academic probation; you partied all the time, took drugs, and just didn't care. Five years from now, you're in a prison cell. The reason was spelled out by a judge who was tired of seeing you again and decided the rest of your life would be served best away from modern society. She was tired of looking at your heroin-wasted, hyper-tense body, pleading for just one more chance to do good, even after the five other times you were caught hustling for drug money, but the last straw was a home invasion with your friends, and in turn one of your friends - to save himself from your fate - plead and turned state's evidence. Karma got him - he was stabbed to death by a vicious prison gang member.
Those are the extreme cases. You may experience other things nowhere nearly as unpleasant as what I've described. I'm here to shatter perceptions, to transition you from the dream world to the real world, and to grab your attention, I used those stories as extreme examples.
Reality happens. Dreams are often killed by something we don't prepare for - fate, if you will, has something in store to prepare us for real life. To have commencement speakers pump the "go forth and be successful" drivel into your brains does you no good. You could work hard and get nowhere. You could follow your dreams and hit a hard brick wall. Meanwhile, the commencement speaker is cashing their check for a new trip to the Carribean Islands.
Mary Ann Esposito, when telling her audience how to get the hairy "choke" out of artichokes, told us in an easy, laid back fashion, "You do nothing." What she did is braise the artichoke in chicken stock, lemon juice, parsley, garlic, and mint, let it rest for awhile, and then with a spoon, popped out the choke very easily.
Like the hairy choke that Mary Ann Esposito told you to "do nothing" with, "do nothing" with your life.
Forget five year expectations. Better yet, don't plan. Let things happen, and you'll be pleasantly surprised where fate might lead you.
If you're successful in some things but not in others, that's fine.
If you choose not to marry, whether because you don't want to or for other political reasons, that's fine.
If you don't earn a million dollars, but can live very well with thirty thousand, that's fine.
If you choose not to have children, or decide to adopt because you physically can't, that's fine.
And for those of you who weren't valedictorians, who were satisfied with a 3.0 GPA, who didn't party all that often and got an occasional hangover, who didn't have a SO, who have a small balance on their college loans, who stayed anonymous - you were fine all along.
There will be times you'll have to live with your parents because you still can't afford to live on your own, attend court hearings to get custody of your children, go weeks without pay because you're on strike, sit through boring, pointless meetings peppered with business cliches and jargon, and so forth. That's life. Just sit back, relax, don't plan, and let things fall into place.
Thank you.
6/13/2012
The $18 gallon of milk and the $5 can of Pepsi
Nunavut, the relatively new province in Canada carved out of the Northwest Territories, is enduring high food prices.
Not just ordinary high food prices. Food prices bordering on outright gouging.
Would you pay $104 (Canadian) for a case of bottled water? Here, it's about $9-10, and the store-brand is about $6.
How about $10 for a bell pepper, where it's about $2 here? A two-liter bottle of Pepsi for $19. Store-brand chicken - here, you could get it for about $6 a pound. In Nunavut, it's $65 for a 2kg package, or roughly $14.75 a pound.
Part of the reason why prices are so high is understandable - Nunavut has no roads, it is remote place, and fuel and shipping factor into the price. But with Nunavut's minimum wage at $11 an hour, you can bet stores are exploiting the disadvantages of not having access to more stores. If they are the only game in town, you can bet they're going to charge whatever they like and make a profit off of it.
Furthermore, Nunavutians could go to a major city, purchase what they need at a fraction of the price, and then ship it home. However, shipping costs would easily negate this convenience - if shipping to Nunavut is $10 per kilogram and you're shipping 100 kilograms of food that cost you $500, that's $1,000 added to the price, easily double the cost you've purchased and increasing the per-kilogram cost to $15.
However, if you're a person with a narcissistic political bent, the cogs are turning in your head - just like cigarettes, you'd demand for a tax so high that few people buy the product you don't like. Instead of an outright ban on bottled water, a town with a snobbish environmental bent (and a few bitter cranks) could charge $100 for a case. In New York, where Mike Bloomberg is trying to limit soda sizes to sixteen ounces, he could instead charge $0.125 per ounce in taxes, tacking on $1 for every 8 ounces of soda consumed (64 ounces would command $8) Or how about a two cent per calorie tax on fattening foods? No one would want to buy a 2850 calorie milkshake if they're paying $57 in pure tax on it - or that 6,000 calorie Vermonster sporting a $120 tax!
Not just ordinary high food prices. Food prices bordering on outright gouging.
Would you pay $104 (Canadian) for a case of bottled water? Here, it's about $9-10, and the store-brand is about $6.
How about $10 for a bell pepper, where it's about $2 here? A two-liter bottle of Pepsi for $19. Store-brand chicken - here, you could get it for about $6 a pound. In Nunavut, it's $65 for a 2kg package, or roughly $14.75 a pound.
Part of the reason why prices are so high is understandable - Nunavut has no roads, it is remote place, and fuel and shipping factor into the price. But with Nunavut's minimum wage at $11 an hour, you can bet stores are exploiting the disadvantages of not having access to more stores. If they are the only game in town, you can bet they're going to charge whatever they like and make a profit off of it.
Furthermore, Nunavutians could go to a major city, purchase what they need at a fraction of the price, and then ship it home. However, shipping costs would easily negate this convenience - if shipping to Nunavut is $10 per kilogram and you're shipping 100 kilograms of food that cost you $500, that's $1,000 added to the price, easily double the cost you've purchased and increasing the per-kilogram cost to $15.
However, if you're a person with a narcissistic political bent, the cogs are turning in your head - just like cigarettes, you'd demand for a tax so high that few people buy the product you don't like. Instead of an outright ban on bottled water, a town with a snobbish environmental bent (and a few bitter cranks) could charge $100 for a case. In New York, where Mike Bloomberg is trying to limit soda sizes to sixteen ounces, he could instead charge $0.125 per ounce in taxes, tacking on $1 for every 8 ounces of soda consumed (64 ounces would command $8) Or how about a two cent per calorie tax on fattening foods? No one would want to buy a 2850 calorie milkshake if they're paying $57 in pure tax on it - or that 6,000 calorie Vermonster sporting a $120 tax!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)