"Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one."
Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990)
This Forbes is the elder motorcycle Forbes, not to be confused with his son, Steve Forbes, the erstwhile presidential candidate.
And, OK, OK, this Forbes isn't the likeliest candidate to be a fount of wisdom on education…..nevertheless, his pithy reminder above is an elevating admonition to anyone who hasn't recently mused in solitude or among friends, about the urgency of promoting the benefits of a liberal arts education. I like it. Pass it on.
A brief Wikipedia item on Malcolm Forbes
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Trump as moderator?....not to worry
Well, the good news bear came through!
Donald Trump has archly announced that he will not moderate a Dec. 27 debate of GOP presidential candidates.
See my Dec. 4 post on this farcical excess of GOP primary madness
Good riddance. Anyway, almost all of the Republican candidates had more or less respectfully announced that they would not participate in the debate to be sponsored by the conservative website http://www.newsmax.com/. For some reason the GOP hopefuls in general have been toadying to Trump, I guess they're hoping to get his endorsement—the presumption of prestige escapes me here…..
Anyway, looks like this goofy debate is toast or is gonna be toast. Let's put it behind us.
Something else is going to qualify as the low point of this revoltingly degraded campaign. Stay tuned. Keep the sickness bags close by.
Washington Post says "Trump Fires Himself As Debate Moderator"
newsmax.com sees Trump as "fair and tough moderator"
Donald Trump has archly announced that he will not moderate a Dec. 27 debate of GOP presidential candidates.
See my Dec. 4 post on this farcical excess of GOP primary madness
Good riddance. Anyway, almost all of the Republican candidates had more or less respectfully announced that they would not participate in the debate to be sponsored by the conservative website http://www.newsmax.com/. For some reason the GOP hopefuls in general have been toadying to Trump, I guess they're hoping to get his endorsement—the presumption of prestige escapes me here…..
Anyway, looks like this goofy debate is toast or is gonna be toast. Let's put it behind us.
Something else is going to qualify as the low point of this revoltingly degraded campaign. Stay tuned. Keep the sickness bags close by.
Washington Post says "Trump Fires Himself As Debate Moderator"
newsmax.com sees Trump as "fair and tough moderator"
Monday, December 12, 2011
Review: Moravian College Christmas Vespers
Many folks, like me, think of the Moravian College Christmas Vespers as an annual pilgrimage to a place where the music is all.
Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, PA, is a serene setting for Vespers. It's all about heart-stoppingly beautiful music that makes you hold your breath as the choir fills the space and fills your mind. It's all about the precious talent and energy of amateurs who rise to the occasion each year, and create the best you can imagine at the moment, and each moment brings new wonder, and each year automatically starts to feel like it's "the best it's ever been," except that we remember we felt the same excess of delight last year…
The Vespers performance in 2011 was no exception to the marvelous tradition of seasonal choral music that proclaims glad tidings of great joy. My wife and I usually agree immediately on the "best" piece in the program, and the friends who accompany us usually chime in with their approbation. Over the years we haven't squabbled much as we savor the premier offering.
This year, hands down, it was "I See" from "Three Spirituals" by Robert S. Cohen, text by Maria Seigenthaler. I say "hands down" with some poignancy: it is Vespers tradition that there is no applause during the program, I honor the code but I yearn often to stand and flout it noisily.
Cohen's "I See" is a tender retrospective by a newborn babe who recalls first moments with plain, earnest, delicate awe…and a barely awakened vocabulary of love.
As a grandfather, I can't resist urging you to read it and listen (see below).
Listen to " I See "
Text of "I See" from "Three Spirituals" --
I saw the light before I knew to call it light.
I saw the light at the moment I was born
And I cried for the soft smooth darkness,
The darkness that had been my only home.
Then I felt the cold before I knew to call it cold
I felt the cold and I wailed out for the warm.
The warm and the closeness of the soft, smooth darkness,
And the rhythm of the comfort I had known.
Then I felt the love before I knew to call it love.
I felt the love as she touched and held and fed me.
Then I welcomed in the light for the love was in the light
Where I came to see that I am not alone.
In the light I saw that I am not alone.
Text from December 11, 2011, program for Moravian College Christmas Vespers.
About Robert Cohen
Central Moravian Church, Bethlehem, PA
Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA
Central Moravian Church in Bethlehem, PA, is a serene setting for Vespers. It's all about heart-stoppingly beautiful music that makes you hold your breath as the choir fills the space and fills your mind. It's all about the precious talent and energy of amateurs who rise to the occasion each year, and create the best you can imagine at the moment, and each moment brings new wonder, and each year automatically starts to feel like it's "the best it's ever been," except that we remember we felt the same excess of delight last year…
The Vespers performance in 2011 was no exception to the marvelous tradition of seasonal choral music that proclaims glad tidings of great joy. My wife and I usually agree immediately on the "best" piece in the program, and the friends who accompany us usually chime in with their approbation. Over the years we haven't squabbled much as we savor the premier offering.
This year, hands down, it was "I See" from "Three Spirituals" by Robert S. Cohen, text by Maria Seigenthaler. I say "hands down" with some poignancy: it is Vespers tradition that there is no applause during the program, I honor the code but I yearn often to stand and flout it noisily.
Cohen's "I See" is a tender retrospective by a newborn babe who recalls first moments with plain, earnest, delicate awe…and a barely awakened vocabulary of love.
As a grandfather, I can't resist urging you to read it and listen (see below).
Listen to " I See "
Text of "I See" from "Three Spirituals" --
I saw the light before I knew to call it light.
I saw the light at the moment I was born
And I cried for the soft smooth darkness,
The darkness that had been my only home.
Then I felt the cold before I knew to call it cold
I felt the cold and I wailed out for the warm.
The warm and the closeness of the soft, smooth darkness,
And the rhythm of the comfort I had known.
Then I felt the love before I knew to call it love.
I felt the love as she touched and held and fed me.
Then I welcomed in the light for the love was in the light
Where I came to see that I am not alone.
In the light I saw that I am not alone.
Text from December 11, 2011, program for Moravian College Christmas Vespers.
About Robert Cohen
Central Moravian Church, Bethlehem, PA
Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA
The wisdom of Will Rogers
"We could certainly slow the aging process down if it had to work its way through Congress."
Will Rogers (1879-1935)
Y'know, I think Will Rogers never coined an aphorism I don't like. So here are a couple more:
"Liberty doesn't work as well in practice as it does in speeches."
"You've got to go out on a limb sometimes because that's where the fruit is."
More Will Rogers quotes from www.brainyquote.com
Wikipedia on Will Rogers
Photos are from http://www.bing.com/
Will Rogers (1879-1935)
Y'know, I think Will Rogers never coined an aphorism I don't like. So here are a couple more:
"Liberty doesn't work as well in practice as it does in speeches."
"You've got to go out on a limb sometimes because that's where the fruit is."
More Will Rogers quotes from www.brainyquote.com
Wikipedia on Will Rogers
Photos are from http://www.bing.com/
Sunday, December 11, 2011
The wisdom of Thomas Edison
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."
Thomas Edison (1847-1931)
Wikipedia's biography of Thomas Edison
Stuff about Edison
He called it "Menlo Park," not "Silicon Valley"
Images are from Wikipedia
Thomas Edison (1847-1931)
 |
| Tom as a lad |
Wikipedia's biography of Thomas Edison
Stuff about Edison
He called it "Menlo Park," not "Silicon Valley"
Friday, December 9, 2011
New York income tax cut….ummm, pants on fire!
"New NY tax bill hits
millionaires, helps middle" blared the New York Post on Dec. 7.
On the other hand, what if there is a tax cut, but only the wealthiest households actually got the big benefits? Think New York, and you're on the right track.
This week New York state politicos re-structured the state income tax, changing the previous flat rate tax of 6.85%. Yeah, if you're not a New Yorker, resume reading as soon as you stop coughing and gagging….
Now, the headline reporting described the revision as benefiting lower and middle classes, while the wealthiest New Yorkers would get "hit." Turns out the opposite is true.
ProPublica says tax change benefits the rich
See, for the last three years, New York has had a "temporary" surcharge of 1% on state income tax paid by households with income of $300,00-$500,00 (they paid 7.85% total), and a surcharge of 2.12% on households making $500,00 or more (they paid 8.97% total).
The new tax code does cut everybody's current tax rate. However, it ALMOST COMPLETELY ELIMINATES the surcharges.
So, here's how the "tax cut" benefits stack up for New Yorkers:
Household with $ 149,999 income: actual tax cut of $ 600
Household with $ 299,999 income: actual tax cut of $ 600
Household with $ 499,999 income: actual tax cut of $ 5,000
Household with $ 1,999,999 income: actual tax cut of $ 42,400 (yeah, that's right!)
Households with income over $2 million would see a relatively small tax cut of $1,500 for every $1 million of income.
A New York family making just under $2 million will keep $42,400 in their pockets--that's more than 5 times the percentage reduction offered to households making less than $150,000, and, outrageously, 265 times the absolute $160 tax reduction enjoyed by a household reporting income of $40,000.
I'd take that kind of "hit" any day. Bring it on. C'mon, hurt me.
New York Post headline is confused
The wisdom of Mahatma Gandhi
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
Gandhi's outlook on Western civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."
Mahandas K. Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
A Gandhi website
More on Gandhi
Some quotations
Gandhi's outlook on Western civilization: "I think it would be a good idea."
Mahandas K. Gandhi (1869 - 1948)
A Gandhi website
More on Gandhi
Some quotations
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Teddy Roosevelt: No kidding, a progressive Republican
President Theodore Roosevelt, our notoriously progressive Republican prez, delivered his call to action, his "New Nationalism" speech, in Osawatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910.
Teddy's "New Nationalism" speech
I presume his shade was clapping on Tuesday as President Obama spoke to the nation in Osawatomie, declaring " I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules."
President Obama's Osawatomie speech
I know, I know, being a Republican in 1910 doesn't translate in any simple way to being a Republican in 2011. Likewise, Teddy's brand of "progressive" political theory was framed in the political/economic/commercial/cultural context of his time—for instance, it was pre-Federal Reserve Bank (the Fed was created in 1913) and pre-women's suffrage (19th Amendment, 1920). Mainly, I'm mentioning that he was a progressive Republican mostly to be politely provocative.
If you're of the progressive persuasion (and even if you're not), Teddy's "New Nationalism" speech is deeply resonant with the angst of our times. So skip Rachel Maddow or Charles Krauthammer tonight and read it.
"The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation."
"The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being. There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done."
"We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
"I believe in shaping the ends of government to protect property as well as human welfare."
"Those who oppose reform will do well to remember that ruin in its worst form is inevitable if our national life brings us nothing better than swollen fortunes for the few and the triumph in both politics and business of a sordid and selfish materialism."
The Bull Moose has spoken.
Teddy's Progressive Party
The Bull Moose himself
Blagojevich: There are more where he came from…
Nice to hear that ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich is going to jail for 14 years. There should be a long line of the perps in politics right behind him. I'd be happy to help pay for construction of new prisons to provide a roof and three squares a day for all those wrong-doers……and I don't think they'd need "country club jail" facilities, y'know?
Huffington Post says "Big Hair To The Big House"
Washington Post announces Blagojevich jail term
Huffington Post says "Big Hair To The Big House"
Washington Post announces Blagojevich jail term
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Iowa Caucuses: Spoofing Democracy
Here we go again. The state that brought you the Ames Poll in August now offers the next Punch-and-Judy show of the U.S. presidential campaign: the Iowa caucuses.
Merely 4,823 Iowans—that's two-tenths of 1 per cent of the statewide electorate, or 1 out of every 476 adults—decided that Michelle Bachmann was the GOP frontrunner in the Ames flim-flam that was more BBQ-in-action than democracy-in-action. Remember her?
See my previous post on Ames poll:
...and this one, too:
On January 3, if history is a guide, about 16% of the voting age population of Iowa will turn out for their respective party caucuses, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans about 2-to-1.
So, more than 8 out of 10 Iowa voters most likely won't bother to participate.
Newt Gingrich is the putative leader in the GOP field as of 30 seconds ago (see link below), with about 25% of presumed Iowa Republican caucus-goers giving him the nod. Suppose that turns out to be a good estimate.
Then we'll know on January 3 that about 1.3% of eligible Iowa voters can take credit for giving Gingrich what the news media will describe as a huge campaign boost in his quest to be President of the United States.
Folks, this ain't the way democracy is supposed to work.
The Iowa caucuses do make for good entertainment as the cable news talking heads do their thing.
But, as political process, the Iowa caucuses are a faulty mash-up of tripe and partisanship and outrageous ad spending, and precious little voter participation. The credulous media coverage trivializes the policy issues we must resolve, and misinforms the American public.
This is de-mock-racy in action. Not a pretty picture. Make sure you vote next November in the real election.
The Washington Post on Iowa caucus outlook:
Gingrich in the lead with 1.3%
The Iowa caucus process:
...more on the Iowa caucus process:
Merely 4,823 Iowans—that's two-tenths of 1 per cent of the statewide electorate, or 1 out of every 476 adults—decided that Michelle Bachmann was the GOP frontrunner in the Ames flim-flam that was more BBQ-in-action than democracy-in-action. Remember her?
See my previous post on Ames poll:
...and this one, too:
On January 3, if history is a guide, about 16% of the voting age population of Iowa will turn out for their respective party caucuses, with Democrats outnumbering Republicans about 2-to-1.
So, more than 8 out of 10 Iowa voters most likely won't bother to participate.
Newt Gingrich is the putative leader in the GOP field as of 30 seconds ago (see link below), with about 25% of presumed Iowa Republican caucus-goers giving him the nod. Suppose that turns out to be a good estimate.
Then we'll know on January 3 that about 1.3% of eligible Iowa voters can take credit for giving Gingrich what the news media will describe as a huge campaign boost in his quest to be President of the United States.
Folks, this ain't the way democracy is supposed to work.
The Iowa caucuses do make for good entertainment as the cable news talking heads do their thing.
But, as political process, the Iowa caucuses are a faulty mash-up of tripe and partisanship and outrageous ad spending, and precious little voter participation. The credulous media coverage trivializes the policy issues we must resolve, and misinforms the American public.
This is de-mock-racy in action. Not a pretty picture. Make sure you vote next November in the real election.
The Washington Post on Iowa caucus outlook:
Gingrich in the lead with 1.3%
The Iowa caucus process:
...more on the Iowa caucus process:
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Trump as moderator?....fuggeddaboudit !
I'm not going to bother watching Donald Trump moderating a Newsmax.com-sponsored debate for the Republican presidential candidates, minus Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, who also aren't going to bother watching Donald Trump moderating a…..well, you know….
The Republican debates so far have been long on sound-bites and short on substance, and I guess the Newsmax.com debate on December 27 will be more of the same.
I guess the big question is: which part of the debate itself and the ensuing media coverage WON'T be about Donald Trump, his goofy sally into the presidential tourney last spring and ill-defined speculation about the candidates "playing to the conservative (or Tea Party) base"?
I guess it goes without saying that it's a grotesque affront to American democratic ideals to have a reality TV super-celebrity as a debate moderator in the presidential race.
I guess it goes without saying that the candidates almost certainly would NOT have planned a debate two days after Christmas if the self-described "largest online conservative news portal in the nation" hadn't made it a self-serving point to do so.
I guess it means that if you thought the low point of the campaign would be a knuckle-headed celebrity billionaire moderating a Republican debate, you were wrong……there's plenty of time left for this revoltingly degraded campaign to get worse. Stay tuned. Keep the sickness bags close by.
CNN and Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman aren't buyin'...
NPR isn't a Trump fan...
Newsmax.com is puffed up about it:
The Republican debates so far have been long on sound-bites and short on substance, and I guess the Newsmax.com debate on December 27 will be more of the same.
I guess the big question is: which part of the debate itself and the ensuing media coverage WON'T be about Donald Trump, his goofy sally into the presidential tourney last spring and ill-defined speculation about the candidates "playing to the conservative (or Tea Party) base"?
I guess it goes without saying that it's a grotesque affront to American democratic ideals to have a reality TV super-celebrity as a debate moderator in the presidential race.
I guess it goes without saying that the candidates almost certainly would NOT have planned a debate two days after Christmas if the self-described "largest online conservative news portal in the nation" hadn't made it a self-serving point to do so.
I guess it means that if you thought the low point of the campaign would be a knuckle-headed celebrity billionaire moderating a Republican debate, you were wrong……there's plenty of time left for this revoltingly degraded campaign to get worse. Stay tuned. Keep the sickness bags close by.
CNN and Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman aren't buyin'...
NPR isn't a Trump fan...
Newsmax.com is puffed up about it:
Friday, December 2, 2011
Who will watch the watchdogs? (Part 2)
"Aw, heck, senator, we don't actually regulate anything, y'know?"
Here's an update on the sketchy government oversight of MF Global, the financial derivatives broker run by Jon Corzine that went belly-up recently with a billion or so of customer money reported "missing"…..
In a followup Reuters story by Christopher Doering and Sarah Lynch on December 2, 2011, the reporters note (with my emphasis):
The U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee is investigating "whether regulators could have done more to prevent the failure and protect investors, traders and farmers who may be out hundreds of millions of dollars."
" Before the collapse, MF Global had nearly a half dozen regulators policing various parts of the firm, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission and industry watchdogs such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. But no single regulator was responsible for the whole company."
"…why," a senator asked, did MF Global get "clean bills of health just months before its failure and the revelation of its messy books."
"The regulators said their ability to check the firm was limited because they have few resources and are forced to rely on industry watchdogs."
"In the case of the CFTC, the agency does not examine any of the futures commission merchants itself and instead is 100 percent reliant on self-regulatory organizations to oversee them."
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission was established in 1974 as "an independent agency of the United States government that regulates futures and option markets" (see Wikipedia source below). Seems like it does nothing of the kind.
The CFTC apparently presides over presumed self-regulation by the financial entities that it's charged with regulating.
Do we have to say this out loud? That's not regulation in the public interest—that's insidious protection by our government of powerful and wealthy companies/individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated that they're working both stealthily and openly to increase their wealth and power.
My self-interest, and your self-interest, and the public interest of Americans do not get them started in the morning.
"Aw, heck, senator, we don't actually regulate anything, y'know?"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm one of the 99%. How about you?
The CFTC, as it's supposed to be....
The follow-up Reuters story:
Here's an update on the sketchy government oversight of MF Global, the financial derivatives broker run by Jon Corzine that went belly-up recently with a billion or so of customer money reported "missing"…..
In a followup Reuters story by Christopher Doering and Sarah Lynch on December 2, 2011, the reporters note (with my emphasis):
The U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee is investigating "whether regulators could have done more to prevent the failure and protect investors, traders and farmers who may be out hundreds of millions of dollars."
" Before the collapse, MF Global had nearly a half dozen regulators policing various parts of the firm, including the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Securities and Exchange Commission and industry watchdogs such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. But no single regulator was responsible for the whole company."
"…why," a senator asked, did MF Global get "clean bills of health just months before its failure and the revelation of its messy books."
"The regulators said their ability to check the firm was limited because they have few resources and are forced to rely on industry watchdogs."
"In the case of the CFTC, the agency does not examine any of the futures commission merchants itself and instead is 100 percent reliant on self-regulatory organizations to oversee them."
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission was established in 1974 as "an independent agency of the United States government that regulates futures and option markets" (see Wikipedia source below). Seems like it does nothing of the kind.
The CFTC apparently presides over presumed self-regulation by the financial entities that it's charged with regulating.
Do we have to say this out loud? That's not regulation in the public interest—that's insidious protection by our government of powerful and wealthy companies/individuals who have repeatedly demonstrated that they're working both stealthily and openly to increase their wealth and power.
My self-interest, and your self-interest, and the public interest of Americans do not get them started in the morning.
"Aw, heck, senator, we don't actually regulate anything, y'know?"
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm one of the 99%. How about you?
The CFTC, as it's supposed to be....
The follow-up Reuters story:
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Who will watch the watchdogs? (Part 1)
This is a routine story from the Yahoo Finance website about apparent failure of U.S. government regulatory agencies to police the rogue actions of Jon Corzine and MF Global, a financial derivatives broker. Corzine and company declared bankruptcy, and customer funds are reported "missing."
The full story
Why isn't there more public outrage about this?
From the Reuters story by Christopher Doering and Sarah Lynch (with my emphasis):
"Senators plan to press regulators on Thursday on whether they were asleep at the switch…"
Note: A Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman, Gary Gensler, has recused himself from the agency's investigation because he and Corzine worked together at Goldman Sachs in the 1990s……..how many former financial executives are now working at the regulatory commission?
"Investigators have been scouring the company's books, described as messy and unorganized, for the fund shortfall that has been estimated as much as $1.2 billion by the liquidating trustee."
"MF Global had nearly a half dozen regulators, including the CFTC, the SEC, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, policing various parts of the firm. However, there was no one clear watchdog responsible for the whole company."
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
When was the last time you heard a regulator say: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!" ?
Background on MF Global, per Wikipedia:
MF Global website:
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Forget about Herman Cain!
Let's get back to relevant campaign issues.
I'm no fan of Herman Cain, the erstwhile Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. He's a one-trick pony, and the "9-9-9" plan, frankly, was a non-starter from the git-go. It's not a "bold" plan, it's a simplistic, unrealistic plan. All headline, no body copy. All sound bite, much too little substance. That is, it's perfect for cable news talking heads, but goofy for a campaign plank.
But this isn't a partisan rant against Herman Cain. It is a fed-up, despairing complaint about the degraded, voyeuristic coverage of Cain's alleged habit of sexual harassment and his alleged long-running affair with a woman not his wife. Is there anyone who's never, ever heard of stories like these? The sexual harassment cases can't be trivialized, but our current embattled national political discourse is not about sexual harassment. Extramarital peccadilloes are pathetically commonplace, and, as a nation, surely, we must be almost completely if not actually completely jaded to the revelation of yet one more, even if it does involve a presidential candidate. I don't care who Herman Cain sleeps with….
I do care about the transfixed media attention to Cain squirming in the unwelcome limelight of accusers and reporter/interrogators. I do care about the waste of unrelenting media speculation about if or when Cain will bow out of the Republican primary race. I do care about the fact that Cain hasn't said one substantial word about domestic or foreign policy issues for days, and still he's the celebrity in media coverage.
Is there any reasonably realistic person anywhere in America, and, indeed, among Cain's remaining adherents, who doesn't know that Cain is washed up as a candidate? Why are the media wasting air time, ink and bandwidth on continuing coverage of Herman Cain? Forget about him! No need to hear any more about Herman Cain. Let's get back to the relevant campaign issues.
A random bit of comment on Cain media coverage:
I'm no fan of Herman Cain, the erstwhile Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. He's a one-trick pony, and the "9-9-9" plan, frankly, was a non-starter from the git-go. It's not a "bold" plan, it's a simplistic, unrealistic plan. All headline, no body copy. All sound bite, much too little substance. That is, it's perfect for cable news talking heads, but goofy for a campaign plank.
But this isn't a partisan rant against Herman Cain. It is a fed-up, despairing complaint about the degraded, voyeuristic coverage of Cain's alleged habit of sexual harassment and his alleged long-running affair with a woman not his wife. Is there anyone who's never, ever heard of stories like these? The sexual harassment cases can't be trivialized, but our current embattled national political discourse is not about sexual harassment. Extramarital peccadilloes are pathetically commonplace, and, as a nation, surely, we must be almost completely if not actually completely jaded to the revelation of yet one more, even if it does involve a presidential candidate. I don't care who Herman Cain sleeps with….
I do care about the transfixed media attention to Cain squirming in the unwelcome limelight of accusers and reporter/interrogators. I do care about the waste of unrelenting media speculation about if or when Cain will bow out of the Republican primary race. I do care about the fact that Cain hasn't said one substantial word about domestic or foreign policy issues for days, and still he's the celebrity in media coverage.
Is there any reasonably realistic person anywhere in America, and, indeed, among Cain's remaining adherents, who doesn't know that Cain is washed up as a candidate? Why are the media wasting air time, ink and bandwidth on continuing coverage of Herman Cain? Forget about him! No need to hear any more about Herman Cain. Let's get back to the relevant campaign issues.
A random bit of comment on Cain media coverage:
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Hot Times---Global Climate Change
The U.N. reported today that 2011 will be the 10th hottest year on record. Every one of the top 10 hottest years on record were recorded during the last 15 years. Like, y'know, global climate change is real. Global warming is real. People—our industries, our energy consumption, our heedless non-green lifestyles, our disregard for degradation of our environment—are causing dangerous changes in the atmosphere which are already guaranteed to come back to bite us real soon. The lifestyles we enjoy today are not sustainable. The world we live in will change within OUR lifetimes. The world our children and grandchildren will live in will be less hospitable than the world we have enjoyed, even as we have been cooking it for the last 200 years. It's time to start making a difference. You owe it to yourself. And your kids. And their kids….do something about it today
Monday, November 28, 2011
We're cooking the planet
The U.N. estimates that human being No. 7,000,000,000 (that's seven BILLION) was born on October 31, 2011. That means that the human population on earth has doubled since 1965…..and this dangerous growth rate continues.
The lifestyles and commerce of affluent Westerners squander energy and generate greenhouse gases that are cooking our planet. Everyone else on the planet wants the goodies we enjoy, and they're moving quickly to get them. Some degree of harsh climatic change and seasonal disruption of agriculture and desperate disruption of life on our seacoasts is already guaranteed, because we and our elected representatives have dithered in our pathetic national and international efforts to come to grips with the very expensive changes we're going to have to make in our lifestyles and commerce if we want to keep the good times even modestly rolling.
The science on global climate change is well-grounded and indisputable….some radio talk show hosts, and a couple presidential candidates, and some doctrinaire political partisans haven't figured it out yet, still, they're going to sweat just like everyone else. Some companies and industries are cravenly and criminally trying to delay implementing costly changes that will protect the environment.
Not so long ago I privately reassured myself that "I'll be dead before worldwide climate change and global warming starts to cause the really bad stuff." I was concerned, but in a rather abstract way. My first grandchild was born 11 months ago. Very sadly, I expect that she'll be alive when the really bad stuff starts to be unavoidably obvious. Abstract concern isn't good enough for me anymore. How about you?
NASA has details:
See Wikipedia for more links on climate change:
The lifestyles and commerce of affluent Westerners squander energy and generate greenhouse gases that are cooking our planet. Everyone else on the planet wants the goodies we enjoy, and they're moving quickly to get them. Some degree of harsh climatic change and seasonal disruption of agriculture and desperate disruption of life on our seacoasts is already guaranteed, because we and our elected representatives have dithered in our pathetic national and international efforts to come to grips with the very expensive changes we're going to have to make in our lifestyles and commerce if we want to keep the good times even modestly rolling.
The science on global climate change is well-grounded and indisputable….some radio talk show hosts, and a couple presidential candidates, and some doctrinaire political partisans haven't figured it out yet, still, they're going to sweat just like everyone else. Some companies and industries are cravenly and criminally trying to delay implementing costly changes that will protect the environment.
Not so long ago I privately reassured myself that "I'll be dead before worldwide climate change and global warming starts to cause the really bad stuff." I was concerned, but in a rather abstract way. My first grandchild was born 11 months ago. Very sadly, I expect that she'll be alive when the really bad stuff starts to be unavoidably obvious. Abstract concern isn't good enough for me anymore. How about you?
NASA has details:
See Wikipedia for more links on climate change:
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Musical Review: "Billy Elliot The Musical"
You had to be there. The Academy of Music in Philadelphia, it happened to be Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, but inside the Academy is another world, no worries, a high comfort level for me sitting in that wonderful historic place…………..it opened in 1857, it's America's oldest opera house still in use for opera performances, the original architects concentrated their time (and money) on interior decoration, leaving the façade "plain and simple like a Markethouse" (see history link below), the 19th century gilded interior is flamboyantly excessive, one feels a transient time warp………….I have to say that I would buy a ticket just to sit there, all by myself, grandly indulging my imagination……….when I was a youngster, my grandfather several times took my brother and me to Philadelphia Orchestra concerts at the Academy, I was a bit too young to appreciate the orchestra's classical repertoire, the music seemed strange and "grown up" to me, I usually fell asleep during the second half of the concert, but my memory of being in that luscious, luxurious place is vivid and warm.
Anyway, Billy Elliot The Musical. First, I loved it. Masterful staging, the dancing was intriguing and entrancing, the loving bond between Billy and his departed mother was palpable, heart-felt pathos, the cast was exuberant, the singing lusty………I can't avoid the fact that the heavy dose of miner strike polemics was dry and formulaic—except for the Margaret Thatcher-bashing scenes, all of them were a hoot and I won't spoil the fun for you by recalling them in detail. Billy's dance scenes were heroic, that young man didn't disappoint.
Finally, I'm bound to say I like the movie version of "Billy Elliot" better. For my taste, the film is a more personal and more warmly developed story of Billy's inner turmoil as a working class lad who prefers ballet to boxing, who reacts with confusion and tortured faith to the grownups who don't hesitate to influence him, who learns to articulate the electricity he feels and manifests when he dances. The final triumphant scene of the movie is duplicated, not quite sublimely, during the second act of the stage production…..but the film's ending soars, it is so profoundly, almost abstractly powerful that I can understand why the folks who produced the musical might have been assured that they needed to throw in some Elton John music to give it equal horsepower. Good try. Check out the movie. I'm going to watch it again.
Billy Elliot The Musical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Elliot_the_Musical
Billy Elliot, movie version:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249462/
The Academy of Music in Philadelphia:
http://www.academyofmusic.org/home.php
http://academyofmusic.org/fs_history.htm
Anyway, Billy Elliot The Musical. First, I loved it. Masterful staging, the dancing was intriguing and entrancing, the loving bond between Billy and his departed mother was palpable, heart-felt pathos, the cast was exuberant, the singing lusty………I can't avoid the fact that the heavy dose of miner strike polemics was dry and formulaic—except for the Margaret Thatcher-bashing scenes, all of them were a hoot and I won't spoil the fun for you by recalling them in detail. Billy's dance scenes were heroic, that young man didn't disappoint.
Finally, I'm bound to say I like the movie version of "Billy Elliot" better. For my taste, the film is a more personal and more warmly developed story of Billy's inner turmoil as a working class lad who prefers ballet to boxing, who reacts with confusion and tortured faith to the grownups who don't hesitate to influence him, who learns to articulate the electricity he feels and manifests when he dances. The final triumphant scene of the movie is duplicated, not quite sublimely, during the second act of the stage production…..but the film's ending soars, it is so profoundly, almost abstractly powerful that I can understand why the folks who produced the musical might have been assured that they needed to throw in some Elton John music to give it equal horsepower. Good try. Check out the movie. I'm going to watch it again.
Billy Elliot The Musical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Elliot_the_Musical
Billy Elliot, movie version:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0249462/
The Academy of Music in Philadelphia:
http://www.academyofmusic.org/home.php
http://academyofmusic.org/fs_history.htm
Sunday, November 20, 2011
The Shame of the Super Committee
I am just about terminally sickened by the antics of the Super Committee that's been pretending all these weeks that it's working hard on a deficit-busting proposal that can be supported by both Dems and Repubs in Congress. It has not been working with the public good in mind. Think "charade." Think "folly." Think "doctrinaire play-acting." Think "pandering to the base," whatever "base" may mean. Just don't think that the Super Committee members have been acting with your best interests in mind, and don't bother thinking that they are conscientiously working for the good and the betterment of America.
I say "shame on you" to all twelve committee members, not least for their failure to talk straight to all of us about the problem(s) they were instructed to deal with…….seriously, do you think that what those twelve have been doing, and what they plan to do, has been conceived with your present and future welfare in mind?
Tell me about it!
Super Committee diddles, says CNN
I say "shame on you" to all twelve committee members, not least for their failure to talk straight to all of us about the problem(s) they were instructed to deal with…….seriously, do you think that what those twelve have been doing, and what they plan to do, has been conceived with your present and future welfare in mind?
Tell me about it!
Super Committee diddles, says CNN
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Book review: "1491" by Charles C. Mann
"1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus"
2011, Vintage Books
Everything you never knew about civilized people in the Americas before the Europeans arrived and killed most of them (OK, many died in battle, but it was European diseases, mostly). Maybe close to 100 million "native" people died within 100 years or so of the "discovery" by Columbus…..but hold on, this book is not about Wounded Knee-type criticism or ex post facto self-flagellation.
Mann beautifully describes the marvelous sophistication of cultures, cities, agriculture, arts and science that blossomed in North America, Central America, and South America thousands of years ago, in many cases predating achievements and growth and civilization in Europe. Yes, the Incas never used the wheel except for children's toys. And yes, the Mississippian city of Cahokia was a bustling port and a trading center with population equal to Paris in France---and that was 500 years before Columbus sailed.
Beautiful downtown Cahokia
And yes, there were grand cities in the Americas before there was pyramid-building in Egypt. And yes, the Olmec culture in what is now Mexico invented the zero whole centuries before mathematicians in India did the same.
My recollection of learning about the history of the Americas is that the dates and events were tied to discovery and conquest and colonization by Europeans. The implication was that, before the white men with guns, germs and steel arrived, nothing much was going on in whole continents characterized more by "virgin land" and "endless wilderness" than by people who had agriculture, city life, art, trade, commerce, religion, science, kings and philosophers.
For me, the joy of reading this book is learning about the multiplicity of cultures that flourished in the Americas, and learning how they tamed and managed and very greenly conserved their environment…and for me, the sad revelation of this book is understanding that the peoples of the Americas were human beings whose achievements were noble and notable, and yet, lamentably, their legacies are largely lost and the losses are barely mourned.
In 1533 Pizarro and his conquistadors at Cuzco precipitated the decline of the 300-year-old Inca empire in Peru. Fifty years later, the Spanish colonial administrators in Peru ordered the burning of all the Incan "khipu" knotted string records because they were "idolatrous objects." Khipu were the Incas' only form of writing. The smoke from the burning of the books gets in your eyes, forever and ever.
Khipu knotted string:
Charles Mann's website: http://www.charlesmann.org/Book-index.htm
Some other book reviews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080401609_pf.html
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/08/28/a_whole_new_world/
http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/1491/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/2445/
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X
Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2011 All rights reserved.
2011, Vintage Books
Everything you never knew about civilized people in the Americas before the Europeans arrived and killed most of them (OK, many died in battle, but it was European diseases, mostly). Maybe close to 100 million "native" people died within 100 years or so of the "discovery" by Columbus…..but hold on, this book is not about Wounded Knee-type criticism or ex post facto self-flagellation.
Mann beautifully describes the marvelous sophistication of cultures, cities, agriculture, arts and science that blossomed in North America, Central America, and South America thousands of years ago, in many cases predating achievements and growth and civilization in Europe. Yes, the Incas never used the wheel except for children's toys. And yes, the Mississippian city of Cahokia was a bustling port and a trading center with population equal to Paris in France---and that was 500 years before Columbus sailed.
Beautiful downtown Cahokia
And yes, there were grand cities in the Americas before there was pyramid-building in Egypt. And yes, the Olmec culture in what is now Mexico invented the zero whole centuries before mathematicians in India did the same.
My recollection of learning about the history of the Americas is that the dates and events were tied to discovery and conquest and colonization by Europeans. The implication was that, before the white men with guns, germs and steel arrived, nothing much was going on in whole continents characterized more by "virgin land" and "endless wilderness" than by people who had agriculture, city life, art, trade, commerce, religion, science, kings and philosophers.
For me, the joy of reading this book is learning about the multiplicity of cultures that flourished in the Americas, and learning how they tamed and managed and very greenly conserved their environment…and for me, the sad revelation of this book is understanding that the peoples of the Americas were human beings whose achievements were noble and notable, and yet, lamentably, their legacies are largely lost and the losses are barely mourned.
In 1533 Pizarro and his conquistadors at Cuzco precipitated the decline of the 300-year-old Inca empire in Peru. Fifty years later, the Spanish colonial administrators in Peru ordered the burning of all the Incan "khipu" knotted string records because they were "idolatrous objects." Khipu were the Incas' only form of writing. The smoke from the burning of the books gets in your eyes, forever and ever.
Khipu knotted string:
Charles Mann's website: http://www.charlesmann.org/Book-index.htm
Some other book reviews:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080401609_pf.html
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2005/08/28/a_whole_new_world/
http://www.reviewsofbooks.com/1491/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/2445/
http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X
Copyright © Richard Carl Subber 2011 All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Fast Times
This is an experimental piece, I'm fasting for 24 hours (except for clear liquids) before a routine medical procedure and I'm curious enough to reflect on how I feel about not eating.
So, it's 8:45 am, I skipped breakfast, now on my second cup of tea and I honestly don't feel hungry. I'm conscious of the fact that I didn't eat my usual bowl of zone-balanced cereal, fruit, cottage cheese, almonds, protein powder and 1% milk. But that's it. That's all. Not hungry, I'm at my desk, working on condo business and plans for an alumni relations roundtable event. I'm also conscious of the fact that hundreds of millions of people woke up this morning and didn't eat breakfast because they don't have anything to eat….and they're not blogging about it.
10:45 am, oops, first hunger pang. I had sort of forgotten what a hunger pang feels like…rather weak, I expect, compared to the average hunger pang…ever wondered what a "pang" is? My old favorite Random House dictionary says: "a sudden feeling of mental distress; a sudden, brief, sharp pain, or a spasm or severe twinge of pain." I'm not really sure I believe that a hunger thingy qualifies as a pang, I am pretty sure it's more mental than physical at this point. Anyway, what does "severe twinge" mean? C'mon already.
12:15 pm, yup, I'm thinking about lunch, I have been thinking about eating off and on for the last hour, but really this isn't bad. I'm doing a steady input of clear fluids. No, Virginia, gin does not qualify here as a "clear fluid" for some reason….
4:30 pm, OK, now I'm sporadically thinking about particular food items instead of just plain old generic "eating," in particular I'd love to go downstairs and eat a date as I do most every afternoon, just one, at my age the old alimentary canal is very completely satisfied with just one…and only one..
7:20 pm, I went to a faculty development meeting around dinner time, so I didn't do any conscious countdown to not eating the evening meal, my stomach knows that I haven't eaten today, but it's pretty much just a dull awareness, haven't had a "hunger pang" for hours, obviously the body fat I'm carrying is taking care of my metabolic needs today without much problem whatsoever….
This whole business of fasting has been greatly less troubling and greatly less interesting than I imagined at the outset. I've been distracted from time to time, but honestly I haven't felt "hungry" with a capital H or anything…
I'm very strongly aware that not eating for one day isn't much of an achievement in a global context. I think I've been trying to feel low key about this, it hasn't required much effort to do so…
8:45 pm, very little sensation of hunger, it's not top of mind….it may be a different story in a few hours, not sure if I will wake up hungry during the night…how important is it, really, to eat three meals a day?
Conclusions right now:
This was too easy. I'm overweight. I need to do this again, soon.
Images of Hunger from Bing:
Hunger in America, think about it......
So, it's 8:45 am, I skipped breakfast, now on my second cup of tea and I honestly don't feel hungry. I'm conscious of the fact that I didn't eat my usual bowl of zone-balanced cereal, fruit, cottage cheese, almonds, protein powder and 1% milk. But that's it. That's all. Not hungry, I'm at my desk, working on condo business and plans for an alumni relations roundtable event. I'm also conscious of the fact that hundreds of millions of people woke up this morning and didn't eat breakfast because they don't have anything to eat….and they're not blogging about it.
10:45 am, oops, first hunger pang. I had sort of forgotten what a hunger pang feels like…rather weak, I expect, compared to the average hunger pang…ever wondered what a "pang" is? My old favorite Random House dictionary says: "a sudden feeling of mental distress; a sudden, brief, sharp pain, or a spasm or severe twinge of pain." I'm not really sure I believe that a hunger thingy qualifies as a pang, I am pretty sure it's more mental than physical at this point. Anyway, what does "severe twinge" mean? C'mon already.
12:15 pm, yup, I'm thinking about lunch, I have been thinking about eating off and on for the last hour, but really this isn't bad. I'm doing a steady input of clear fluids. No, Virginia, gin does not qualify here as a "clear fluid" for some reason….
4:30 pm, OK, now I'm sporadically thinking about particular food items instead of just plain old generic "eating," in particular I'd love to go downstairs and eat a date as I do most every afternoon, just one, at my age the old alimentary canal is very completely satisfied with just one…and only one..
7:20 pm, I went to a faculty development meeting around dinner time, so I didn't do any conscious countdown to not eating the evening meal, my stomach knows that I haven't eaten today, but it's pretty much just a dull awareness, haven't had a "hunger pang" for hours, obviously the body fat I'm carrying is taking care of my metabolic needs today without much problem whatsoever….
This whole business of fasting has been greatly less troubling and greatly less interesting than I imagined at the outset. I've been distracted from time to time, but honestly I haven't felt "hungry" with a capital H or anything…
I'm very strongly aware that not eating for one day isn't much of an achievement in a global context. I think I've been trying to feel low key about this, it hasn't required much effort to do so…
8:45 pm, very little sensation of hunger, it's not top of mind….it may be a different story in a few hours, not sure if I will wake up hungry during the night…how important is it, really, to eat three meals a day?
Conclusions right now:
This was too easy. I'm overweight. I need to do this again, soon.
Images of Hunger from Bing:
Hunger in America, think about it......
Saturday, October 15, 2011
I know I'm in the 99%
I'm encouraged to see that more and more Americans are joining public protests against the financial and political clout of "the 1%" and against the disastrous, growing imbalance of wealth and income and concern for the public good in America. Yes, the protesters are a somewhat disorganized, polyglot, motley and perhaps slightly grubby group, but, to their credit, they are mad as hell and they don't want to take it any more.
And, no, they're not the liberal progressive version of the Tea Party.....for starters, no hatred of immigrants, no disdain of the poor, no Bibles, no dogmatic interpretation of the Constitution, and no guns!
And, yes, Virginia, there is a chance that the pilgrims of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement may become a political force in the coming presidential election.....
For me, the important thing right now is that they are expressing righteous outrage about the financial and political stranglehold that "the 1%" are using in our government and in our society, with no obvious intention to do good in ways that benefit all of us.
------------
Here's a thoughtful commentary from The Economist:
We are the 99% - Straining for the populist mandate
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/we-are-99?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-14-2011|new_on_the_economist
And more from The Washington Post:
And more from The Slate.com:
And, no, they're not the liberal progressive version of the Tea Party.....for starters, no hatred of immigrants, no disdain of the poor, no Bibles, no dogmatic interpretation of the Constitution, and no guns!
And, yes, Virginia, there is a chance that the pilgrims of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement may become a political force in the coming presidential election.....
For me, the important thing right now is that they are expressing righteous outrage about the financial and political stranglehold that "the 1%" are using in our government and in our society, with no obvious intention to do good in ways that benefit all of us.
------------
Here's a thoughtful commentary from The Economist:
We are the 99% - Straining for the populist mandate
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/we-are-99?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-14-2011|new_on_the_economist
And more from The Washington Post:
Occupy Wall Street protests reveal liberal tensions
And more from The Slate.com:
Tea Party Takes Aim at Occupy Wall Street
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
The boy with a red hat
Just a little boy playing on the beach?
Him?
No. He is a dreamer, making his mark.
Skinny legs pumping as he navigates the sand,
pinched in behind so it fits,
the big brim points his way,
his eyes are hidden…
but he sees his way clear enough.
He announces to his Dad that the task is "building cities."
He is the Designer,
he is the Engineer,
he is the Sand Hauler,
he is the Shovel Handler,
he is the Bucket Man,
he is the Creative Force.
A little boy playing in the sand?
No. He is a city builder.
Richard Carl Subber
Bethany Beach, DE
Sept 17, 2008
This poem appeared in the 2009 issue of The Manuscript, the Moravian College literary magazine.
http://www.moravian.edu/default.aspx?pageid=1708
Saturday, October 8, 2011
To All Job Creators: Get To Work (Part 2)
Some Republican leaders won't stop claiming that the "job creators" will take a big hit if federal income taxes are increased for those whose income puts them in the top two tax brackets. We're talking about the loosely defined "small businesses" that are in the 33% and 35% brackets on their annual Form 1040s.
The real scoop is that the "job creators" generally are NOT the small businesses who pay taxes at those rates.
Raising taxes for the prospering businesses in those tax brackets won't really hamper job creation because these businesses generally aren't the ones doing the job creating.
For starters, less than 4% of small businesses would be affected by tax hikes in those brackets, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
Note: Some of my talking points here are drawn from this CNN Money piece:
See CNNMoney story by Charles Riley on Oct. 3, 2011
What kind of "small businesses" are we talking about when we talk about the "small businesses" who would pay more taxes if those two marginal rates were raised? Most definitely we're NOT talking about the American classic kinds of small businesses like hard-working entrepreneurs and Mom-and-Pop operations.
In fact, 80% of the increased tax revenue would be paid by "non-business" types of small businesses like doctors, lawyers and members of limited partnerships. Not too many "job creators" in that bunch.
In fact, about 80% of all tax-paying small businesses have no employees other than the owner. Not too many "job creators" in that bunch.
In fact, the American classic "start-up" small businesses are the ones who create most of the new jobs---but they're also responsible for substantial job losses, because start-ups are notoriously prone to fail quickly. Not too many permanent, net new jobs created by that bunch.
"It turns out most of the firms those pols define as small businesses don’t hire or invest very much at all.," according to Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the Urban Institute.
See Gleckman's Sep. 27, 2011, blog "Small Business And Taxes: Not What You Think"
In fact, taxes on businesses---including the elusively-defined small businesses---are the lowest they've been in decades.
We all know business taxes haven't been raised since the financial collapse three years ago.
Memo to all job creators:
WHAT'S STOPPING YOU? GET TO WORK!
The real scoop is that the "job creators" generally are NOT the small businesses who pay taxes at those rates.
Raising taxes for the prospering businesses in those tax brackets won't really hamper job creation because these businesses generally aren't the ones doing the job creating.
For starters, less than 4% of small businesses would be affected by tax hikes in those brackets, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.
Note: Some of my talking points here are drawn from this CNN Money piece:
See CNNMoney story by Charles Riley on Oct. 3, 2011
What kind of "small businesses" are we talking about when we talk about the "small businesses" who would pay more taxes if those two marginal rates were raised? Most definitely we're NOT talking about the American classic kinds of small businesses like hard-working entrepreneurs and Mom-and-Pop operations.
In fact, 80% of the increased tax revenue would be paid by "non-business" types of small businesses like doctors, lawyers and members of limited partnerships. Not too many "job creators" in that bunch.
In fact, about 80% of all tax-paying small businesses have no employees other than the owner. Not too many "job creators" in that bunch.
In fact, the American classic "start-up" small businesses are the ones who create most of the new jobs---but they're also responsible for substantial job losses, because start-ups are notoriously prone to fail quickly. Not too many permanent, net new jobs created by that bunch.
"It turns out most of the firms those pols define as small businesses don’t hire or invest very much at all.," according to Howard Gleckman, a resident fellow at the Urban Institute.
See Gleckman's Sep. 27, 2011, blog "Small Business And Taxes: Not What You Think"
In fact, taxes on businesses---including the elusively-defined small businesses---are the lowest they've been in decades.
We all know business taxes haven't been raised since the financial collapse three years ago.
Memo to all job creators:
WHAT'S STOPPING YOU? GET TO WORK!
Thursday, October 6, 2011
To All Job Creators: Get To Work! (Part 1)
Some Republican leaders won't stop claiming that the "job creators" are willing and able to create all the jobs we need, and all that's required is to cut their taxes and remove "uncertainty" so they can get started.
That would be a load off my mind if it weren't such a load of you-know-what....
Corporations generally are sitting on mountains of cash, which generally is earning an investment return that is insanely close to zero.
What are the "job creators" waiting for?
Note: Some of my talking points here are drawn from this CNN Money piece:
See CNNMoney story by Charles Riley on Oct. 3, 2011
American corporations (excluding financial institutions) essentially have stuffed about $2 trillion under the mattress, the largest percentage of corporate assets held as cash in roughly the last 50 years. This amazing cash hoard does nothing to increase shareholder value, it does nothing to create jobs. This pile of cash creates only a national shame. President Obama and Democrats should call the Republicans on it, loudly, daily. News media and cable news talking heads should be asking every CEO: why are you sitting on that cash?
Wall Street Journal on corporate cash reserves
I propose these $2,000,000,000,000 Questions:
Can we avoid suspecting that the leaders of some or many American corporations are deliberately holding back on investing their cash and hiring workers and re-energizing the economy?
Are they sabotaging our economic recovery with the aim of derailing President Obama's bid for re-election?
Are they screwing you and me and America so the Republican candidate has a better shot in 2012?
Don't you think it's about time for you to do something about it?
Think about doing something--anything--to achieve your sense of what's right.
And, by the way, if you're a job creator, get busy.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Chanson de mer
I am the rock.
I am the island.
I am the glistening boulder at the waterline.
I am the sharp-edged, flinty fragment,
tossed by the blue-green surge,
scattered by the stinging wind,
collected once, and dropped, by a child.
I am the ancient stratum exposed to the faintly salty air.
I am the blunt face of the heaved-up, broken stone,
I am the silent witness to the everlasting crash and song of the sea,
I stand against the tumbling, roiling crests that
dash to me,
break on me,
climb my height,
die at my foot,
and rise, vaulting, surging, crashing, singing,
to grandly break on me again, again…
the lyric, rhythms, chords the same as at the last or next millennial dawn.
I am the rock, the sea endlessly sings to me.
Good, enough.
Tarry.
Listen.
Sep 15, 2011
Richard Carl Subber
Beavertail State Park in Jamestown
Conanicut Island
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
http://www.riparks.com/beaverta1.htm
http://www.jamestown-ri.info/RRJamestown.htm
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Ames Straw Poll....the party's over
If you don't know Michelle Bachmann won the Ames Straw Poll on Aug. 13, well......gimme a call and tell me how you managed to avoid knowing it, just for my future reference...
Let's disregard the maliciously categorical media hype. Consider a few facts: MSNBC.com published the first vote totals I could find online after the "polls" closed:
Let's disregard the maliciously categorical media hype. Consider a few facts: MSNBC.com published the first vote totals I could find online after the "polls" closed:
16,892 Iowans turned out (and paid $30) to vote for their favorite Republican presidential candidate.
4,823 of them, led by enthusiastic BBQ-and-Randy Travis fans, voted for Michelle Bachmann to give her the win.
There are approximately 2.3 million Iowa residents of legal voting age, so another way to think about this is: for every Bachmann supporter at the Straw Poll event, there are about 476 Iowans who didn't show up to vote for her.
Merely two-tenths of 1 per cent of the potential statewide Iowa electorate decided that Bachmann was the GOP frontrunner as of Aug. 13. (Don't read this if you have a weak heart: imagine that President Obama had won the White House in 2008 with about 475,000 votes nationwide.....)
The Ames Straw Poll is not democracy in action. It is embarrassingly consequential entertainment at an American heartland event that should be realistically and only trivially regarded as a good old-fashioned political fundraiser with good BBQ and good music......
Saturday, August 13, 2011
The Ames Straw Poll...democracy it ain't
Just the facts, m'am, just the facts......the Ames Straw Poll is open to any resident of Iowa (or student at an Iowa college/university) who likes barbecue, is at least 16 and 1/2 years old, can get to Iowa State University on Aug. 13, and can pay the $30 entry fee. Republican candidates and their campaign organizations can recruit Straw Poll participants throughout the state and pay their expenses. In 2007 there were approximately 2.25 million Iowans of legal voting age. In the 2007 Straw Poll, a total of 14,302 Iowans voted for their Republican presidential pick: Mitt Romney, the winner, received 4,516 votes.............John McCain, the ultimate GOP presidential candidate, received 101 votes.
The Ames Straw Poll doesn't even remotely resemble an election. The unfastidious and perniciously indiscriminate news media transform the Straw Poll from an all-American political BBQ event in Iowa to a national Punch & Judy show without the redeeming slapstick. It is not a hallmark of democracy.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_straw_poll
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-ames-straw-poll-explained/2011/08/08/gIQAxn102I_blog.html
The Ames Straw Poll doesn't even remotely resemble an election. The unfastidious and perniciously indiscriminate news media transform the Straw Poll from an all-American political BBQ event in Iowa to a national Punch & Judy show without the redeeming slapstick. It is not a hallmark of democracy.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ames_straw_poll
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/the-ames-straw-poll-explained/2011/08/08/gIQAxn102I_blog.html
Friday, April 29, 2011
Everybody's a manager?
Well, no, actually. Most people aren't managers...many by choice, many due to inability. At least this is true if we're talking about managing PEOPLE. Go crazy with "time management" and "managing your own affairs" if you want to. I'm talking about the management of people in an organization that has more than two people in it.
After about 20 seconds of deep reflection, I suggest that an organization of two people probably can't be seriously mismanaged or seriously harmed by a delusional co-worker because, more or less, one of the two people can walk away if the stuff starts to get too deep. Also, one person more or less can't gang up on the other person. One person really can't ignore the other person effectively. One person can't patronize, victimize, offend, de-motivate, undermine or mislead the other person very effectively, considering the above-mentioned "walk away" factor.
So let's talk about organizations in which management in some form is imperative, that is, all organizations with several members and all larger organizations with up to several hundred thousand members (and don't get me started on the fundamental impossibility of effectively managing several hundred thousand people with a coherent central mission and strategy....).
Why is management imperative? You're right, that's a topic for another seminar in a warm place with a friendly bartender nearby. Let's just agree that, in their natural state, a typically average collection of people will not willingly work cooperatively over an extended period of time to achieve a common goal if unavoidably explicit personal sacrifice is required of them in that pursuit, even if the common goal manifestly benefits all of them. If you prefer, I'll say it more precisely and less brutally: they will not be successful in attempting to do so.
I was talking the other day with my sister, Jan, who like me has dabbled in management in the workplace from time to time. She said she had never aspired to be the CEO, the top dog. I never got to the CEO's office either. We reminded ourselves that "managing the boss" or, to say it another way, "managing up," is a talent and a responsibility which I propose as an imperative in the ideally well-functioning organization.
I teach a college Management course, and it occurs to me that I have only tangentially encouraged my students to think about "managing up" as we plow through the textbook topics on top-down management.
Not everyone is or wants to be a manager, but in an organization with at least several members, everyone has an opportunity to be a manager. It's a damn shame too few people can or want to rise to the challenge. There just aren't enough really good managers to fill all the slots. More on this in my next post.
After about 20 seconds of deep reflection, I suggest that an organization of two people probably can't be seriously mismanaged or seriously harmed by a delusional co-worker because, more or less, one of the two people can walk away if the stuff starts to get too deep. Also, one person more or less can't gang up on the other person. One person really can't ignore the other person effectively. One person can't patronize, victimize, offend, de-motivate, undermine or mislead the other person very effectively, considering the above-mentioned "walk away" factor.
So let's talk about organizations in which management in some form is imperative, that is, all organizations with several members and all larger organizations with up to several hundred thousand members (and don't get me started on the fundamental impossibility of effectively managing several hundred thousand people with a coherent central mission and strategy....).
Why is management imperative? You're right, that's a topic for another seminar in a warm place with a friendly bartender nearby. Let's just agree that, in their natural state, a typically average collection of people will not willingly work cooperatively over an extended period of time to achieve a common goal if unavoidably explicit personal sacrifice is required of them in that pursuit, even if the common goal manifestly benefits all of them. If you prefer, I'll say it more precisely and less brutally: they will not be successful in attempting to do so.
I was talking the other day with my sister, Jan, who like me has dabbled in management in the workplace from time to time. She said she had never aspired to be the CEO, the top dog. I never got to the CEO's office either. We reminded ourselves that "managing the boss" or, to say it another way, "managing up," is a talent and a responsibility which I propose as an imperative in the ideally well-functioning organization.
I teach a college Management course, and it occurs to me that I have only tangentially encouraged my students to think about "managing up" as we plow through the textbook topics on top-down management.
Not everyone is or wants to be a manager, but in an organization with at least several members, everyone has an opportunity to be a manager. It's a damn shame too few people can or want to rise to the challenge. There just aren't enough really good managers to fill all the slots. More on this in my next post.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thanks for voting
I really mean it -- thanks for voting -- regardless of how you voted. Even if you voted for a revoltingly doctrinaire, really ridiculously unqualified candidate because you're angry. It's legitimate to be angry, and I understand that you may be moved to vote on that basis. It's self-defeating, and you should feel at least slightly embarassed, if you failed to vote because you're angry, or sick to death of politicians and their shenanigans, or for any other reason.
I won't even mention that in some countries people risk their lives to vote, and all we have to do in America to exercise the greatest of our freedoms is jump in the car and drive down to the conveniently located polling place and spend a few minutes voting for the candidates of our choice. You don't even have to dip your finger in purple indelible ink. It's a lot more fun than getting a vaccination. You can take your kids if you need to. If you have to take your dog, you can ask one of the campaign workers outside to hold on to the leash for a few minutes, otherwise they're not doing anything useful.
If you voted, you set a good example for your family, your neighbors, your friends and your co-workers, and for the people of Texas, who may have posted the lowest election turnout rate in the Nov. 2 election: it seems that barely 1 out of 3 Texans who were eligible to vote actually went to the polls. And Gov. Perry's victory?....he got votes from less than 18% of Texan voters...
See http://www.cnn.com/ election results: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/main.results/#val=G
See this data set created by Prof. Michael McDonald at George Mason University: http://elections.gmu.edu/index.html
Nationwide, it looks like barely 42% of eligible voters went to the polls. This means that in any tight races, less than 25% of eligible voters decided the winner.
This is not the way democracy is supposed to work. And, to tell the truth, democracy isn't really working when the voter turnout reveals that less than half of us are voting. Next spring, urge your family, friends and associates to vote in the primary election. As an American, do the right thing. You owe it to yourself.
I won't even mention that in some countries people risk their lives to vote, and all we have to do in America to exercise the greatest of our freedoms is jump in the car and drive down to the conveniently located polling place and spend a few minutes voting for the candidates of our choice. You don't even have to dip your finger in purple indelible ink. It's a lot more fun than getting a vaccination. You can take your kids if you need to. If you have to take your dog, you can ask one of the campaign workers outside to hold on to the leash for a few minutes, otherwise they're not doing anything useful.
If you voted, you set a good example for your family, your neighbors, your friends and your co-workers, and for the people of Texas, who may have posted the lowest election turnout rate in the Nov. 2 election: it seems that barely 1 out of 3 Texans who were eligible to vote actually went to the polls. And Gov. Perry's victory?....he got votes from less than 18% of Texan voters...
See http://www.cnn.com/ election results: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/main.results/#val=G
See this data set created by Prof. Michael McDonald at George Mason University: http://elections.gmu.edu/index.html
Nationwide, it looks like barely 42% of eligible voters went to the polls. This means that in any tight races, less than 25% of eligible voters decided the winner.
This is not the way democracy is supposed to work. And, to tell the truth, democracy isn't really working when the voter turnout reveals that less than half of us are voting. Next spring, urge your family, friends and associates to vote in the primary election. As an American, do the right thing. You owe it to yourself.
Saturday, August 14, 2010
71% -- but it's no landslide
Media hype: there's less to it than meets the eye. When is 669,033 not that much of a big deal? What if we had a landslide victory but not too many voters showed up? Yup, the media cut loose on August 4..........."Proposition C Passes Overwhelmingly" in Missouri! Missouri voters, 71% to 29%, made a splash as they approved a primary ballot initiative aimed at amending Missouri law to prevent the federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance and also shield Missourians from punishment if they don't buy health insurance. Perhaps a quixotic crowd-pleaser.....the fate of this initiative in any court challenge is unknown. See this coverage:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html
So. Missouri speaks. Missouri hates the federal health care legislation. The people have spoken. It's the big Mo for opponents of health care reforms. More evidence that America doesn't want the feds taking over health care. It's obvious, right?
Well, hold on a sec. The voice of democracy, yes, yes, but who's talking? About 669,000 Missourians voted for Proposition C, and about 272,000 voted against it. Pretty lopsided. See these results:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/ballotissueresults.asp?eid=283
But wait: the adult population of Missouri is over 4.5 million, so only about 15% of Missouri adults voted for Proposition C. Hardly a landslide when you look at it that way.....and keep in mind that almost 80% of voting age adults in the state didn't bother to vote on Prop C one way or the other....
How about another frame of reference? Missouri voted (by a razor-thin margin) for McCain in the 2008 election. In Missouri's August 3 primary election, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic voters almost 2-to-1, whereas across the U.S. registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans.
With the lopsided GOP turnout in Missouri, it would have been real news if Prop C had been defeated, and so the 71% "landslide" is just a yawner.....and it surely isn't a compelling proxy for the overall views of the American electorate.
So, Missouri Republicans did their thing with Prop C..........what's the big ____ deal?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c-564c-5c70-8d90-dfd25ae6de56.html
So. Missouri speaks. Missouri hates the federal health care legislation. The people have spoken. It's the big Mo for opponents of health care reforms. More evidence that America doesn't want the feds taking over health care. It's obvious, right?
Well, hold on a sec. The voice of democracy, yes, yes, but who's talking? About 669,000 Missourians voted for Proposition C, and about 272,000 voted against it. Pretty lopsided. See these results:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/enrweb/ballotissueresults.asp?eid=283
But wait: the adult population of Missouri is over 4.5 million, so only about 15% of Missouri adults voted for Proposition C. Hardly a landslide when you look at it that way.....and keep in mind that almost 80% of voting age adults in the state didn't bother to vote on Prop C one way or the other....
How about another frame of reference? Missouri voted (by a razor-thin margin) for McCain in the 2008 election. In Missouri's August 3 primary election, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic voters almost 2-to-1, whereas across the U.S. registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans.
With the lopsided GOP turnout in Missouri, it would have been real news if Prop C had been defeated, and so the 71% "landslide" is just a yawner.....and it surely isn't a compelling proxy for the overall views of the American electorate.
So, Missouri Republicans did their thing with Prop C..........what's the big ____ deal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)