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:
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
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?
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Latest score: The People 1, Goldman Sachs 0
The Securities and Exchange Commission has charged Goldman Sachs with civil fraud, alleging that GS cheated investors who bought securities linked with subprime mortgages. It's about time. Is there anyone who seriously thinks that Goldman Sachs didn't do it? I'm waiting for the SEC to file more charges against the many criminal participants in the subprime mortgage meltdown that caused worldwide financial terror. Let justice prevail.
Here are a couple current links to the breaking news on CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/goldman_sachs_questions.fortune/index.htm
[ UPDATE: As of April 21, 2010, here's a ProPublica link that mentions Merrill Lynch and "failing to disclose" and "risky CDO" in the same sentence: http://www.propublica.org/feature/merrill-lynch-did-a-deal-precisely-like-goldmans-suit-asserts ]
Why isn't there more public anger about the bankers and mortgage lenders and the backroom quants who recklessly gambled with other people's money and ended up causing so much heartbreak to hundreds of millions of people around the globe? Why isn't this the top headline day after day? Why are so many people apparently willing to quietly tolerate the fact that most of the bad guys who committed this horror have held onto their millions and billions in profit and have stayed out of jail?
Do you know somebody who had a hand in this unethical, destructive binge of risk-taking? Have you made a point of telling someone that you are not well pleased?
[UPDATE: As of June 9, 2010, here's a contribution from a friend, the author of this only slightly wacky piece is known only as Nurse Noose:
GOLDMAN SELLS A WHATZIT
In the land of Maglop, just south of Canack
A rich man named Goldman McSachy-McGlack
Arrived into town with a large golden sack
It was stuffed full of whatzits and slung on his back
The foos that inhabit the land of Maglop
Watched as McSachy-McGlack set up shop
The new shop was chic, it was shiny, compelling
"What are you selling?" the foos started yelling
McSachy-McGlack smiled and answered the foos:
"Come see for yourself, you've got nothing to lose."
Inside the shop, there was box upon box
And each box was locked up with five golden locks
"What is it?" they asked, their eyes bright with greed
"It's a whatzit, that's what, and it's just what you need"
"What does it do?" asked young Cindy-lu Foo
"Well" said McSachy-McGlack "I'll tell you"
"It makes the poor rich, and it makes the rich richer
And the richest more richester, now get the picture?
Just buy one or two, put them under your bed
And leave them alone, get them out of your head
And then sell them back, and worse comes to worst
They will be worth ten times what they cost you at first"
"But" he continued "there's one caveat"
The impatient foos said in unison "what?"
"The whatzit will work only if it stays locked"
"What's in a whatzit?" the older foos mocked
"It doesn't concern you, just don't open the box
Keep it under your bed, and don't unlock the locks"
"I'll take one" said one foo "I'll take three or four"
"I'll take a dozen" "put me down for a score!"
Each foo soon had his own whatzit stash
And each knew that soon they'd be rolling in cash
So they bought foo-mobiles and they mortgaged their huts
They had foo boob jobs and foo liposucked butts
What happened next? Well, what do you think?
The whatzits, one-by-one, started to stink
They reeked to high heaven, all icky and rank
Like bungle-beast farts, that's how much they stank
The foos plugged their noses, they cursed and they swore
Til Cindy-lu Foo couldn't take anymore
She took out her whatzit and unlocked the locks
She took a deep breath and she opened the box
What was inside? Well I've got the scoop:
Each whatzit was stuffed full of snorgle-pig poop
When word got around, every foo would lament
"My whatzit portfolio aint' worth a cent!"
They soon lost their jobs, and then lost their houses
They started to drink, they were beating their spouses
By the time they were left with no foo-pot to piss in
Goldman McSachy-McGlack turned up missin'
What happened then? It just keeps getting better
Taped to his boarded up shop was a letter
"I'm sorry you're left with nary a cent
But look on the bright side! I've made a mint!
See, to tell you the truth (and I know the truth hurts)
I placed a side bet that the Foos lose their shirts."
"The moral" it said "you should know now by heart:
A foo and his money are destined to part"
Here are a couple current links to the breaking news on CNN:
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/sec.goldman.fortune/index.htm
http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/goldman_sachs_questions.fortune/index.htm
[ UPDATE: As of April 21, 2010, here's a ProPublica link that mentions Merrill Lynch and "failing to disclose" and "risky CDO" in the same sentence: http://www.propublica.org/feature/merrill-lynch-did-a-deal-precisely-like-goldmans-suit-asserts ]
Why isn't there more public anger about the bankers and mortgage lenders and the backroom quants who recklessly gambled with other people's money and ended up causing so much heartbreak to hundreds of millions of people around the globe? Why isn't this the top headline day after day? Why are so many people apparently willing to quietly tolerate the fact that most of the bad guys who committed this horror have held onto their millions and billions in profit and have stayed out of jail?
Do you know somebody who had a hand in this unethical, destructive binge of risk-taking? Have you made a point of telling someone that you are not well pleased?
[UPDATE: As of June 9, 2010, here's a contribution from a friend, the author of this only slightly wacky piece is known only as Nurse Noose:
GOLDMAN SELLS A WHATZIT
In the land of Maglop, just south of Canack
A rich man named Goldman McSachy-McGlack
Arrived into town with a large golden sack
It was stuffed full of whatzits and slung on his back
The foos that inhabit the land of Maglop
Watched as McSachy-McGlack set up shop
The new shop was chic, it was shiny, compelling
"What are you selling?" the foos started yelling
McSachy-McGlack smiled and answered the foos:
"Come see for yourself, you've got nothing to lose."
Inside the shop, there was box upon box
And each box was locked up with five golden locks
"What is it?" they asked, their eyes bright with greed
"It's a whatzit, that's what, and it's just what you need"
"What does it do?" asked young Cindy-lu Foo
"Well" said McSachy-McGlack "I'll tell you"
"It makes the poor rich, and it makes the rich richer
And the richest more richester, now get the picture?
Just buy one or two, put them under your bed
And leave them alone, get them out of your head
And then sell them back, and worse comes to worst
They will be worth ten times what they cost you at first"
"But" he continued "there's one caveat"
The impatient foos said in unison "what?"
"The whatzit will work only if it stays locked"
"What's in a whatzit?" the older foos mocked
"It doesn't concern you, just don't open the box
Keep it under your bed, and don't unlock the locks"
"I'll take one" said one foo "I'll take three or four"
"I'll take a dozen" "put me down for a score!"
Each foo soon had his own whatzit stash
And each knew that soon they'd be rolling in cash
So they bought foo-mobiles and they mortgaged their huts
They had foo boob jobs and foo liposucked butts
What happened next? Well, what do you think?
The whatzits, one-by-one, started to stink
They reeked to high heaven, all icky and rank
Like bungle-beast farts, that's how much they stank
The foos plugged their noses, they cursed and they swore
Til Cindy-lu Foo couldn't take anymore
She took out her whatzit and unlocked the locks
She took a deep breath and she opened the box
What was inside? Well I've got the scoop:
Each whatzit was stuffed full of snorgle-pig poop
When word got around, every foo would lament
"My whatzit portfolio aint' worth a cent!"
They soon lost their jobs, and then lost their houses
They started to drink, they were beating their spouses
By the time they were left with no foo-pot to piss in
Goldman McSachy-McGlack turned up missin'
What happened then? It just keeps getting better
Taped to his boarded up shop was a letter
"I'm sorry you're left with nary a cent
But look on the bright side! I've made a mint!
See, to tell you the truth (and I know the truth hurts)
I placed a side bet that the Foos lose their shirts."
"The moral" it said "you should know now by heart:
A foo and his money are destined to part"
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Are You A Great Manager?
This started out as another one of those "Top 10 Ideas For...." but I whittled it down to three, for your delectation.
This was distributed by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), see their website: http://www.ascd.org/
and originally appeared on Edutopia http://www.edutopia.org/maine-project-learning-ideas-school-leadership as "Ten Big Ideas of School Leadership" by middle school principal Mike McCarthy.
I'm pretty sure Mike is pretty much on track, and his take on leadership is motivational and instructive for leaders or wannabe leaders in any organization. A few samples:
6) Take Responsibility for the Good and the Bad
If the problems in your school or organization lie below you and the solutions lie above you, then you have rendered yourself irrelevant. The genius of school lies within the school. The solutions to problems are almost always right in front of you.
I think of it this way: If you think only the folks below you are causing all the problems, and you also think only the guys above you can fix ‘em, what does the boss or your subordinates need you for?
7) You Have the Ultimate Responsibility
Have very clear expectations. Make sure people have the knowledge, resources, and time to accomplish what you expect. This shows respect. As much as possible, give people the autonomy to manage their own work, budget, time, and curriculum. Autonomy is the goal, though you still have to inspect.
I think of it this way: Be the boss, mostly by setting the tone, setting the example, sometimes setting the boundaries, setting the aiming stake in the right place, setting the time for the next team meeting, setting the “But We’ve Always Done It This Way” rule book on fire, etc………..and every so often check to make sure that nobody has set the factory on fire….
9) Consensus is Overrated
Twenty percent of people will be against anything. When you realize this, you avoid compromising what really should be done because you stop watering things down. If you always try to reach consensus, you are being led by the 20 percent.
I've found that most students--and most folks--usually think that “consensus” means that everyone has to agree. No, no, no. I embrace the idea that “consensus” means that every member of the group either stout-heartedly endorses the idea or at least acknowledges that she can live with it and support it as a reasonable alternative to her own favored decision/plan/concept. And yes, it’s true that sometimes the group or the boss must say to the high-principled or defiant holdout: “we respect your view and your input, but we’ve talked it through, we’re gonna do it a different way, and you need to support that.”
This was distributed by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), see their website: http://www.ascd.org/
and originally appeared on Edutopia http://www.edutopia.org/maine-project-learning-ideas-school-leadership as "Ten Big Ideas of School Leadership" by middle school principal Mike McCarthy.
I'm pretty sure Mike is pretty much on track, and his take on leadership is motivational and instructive for leaders or wannabe leaders in any organization. A few samples:
6) Take Responsibility for the Good and the Bad
If the problems in your school or organization lie below you and the solutions lie above you, then you have rendered yourself irrelevant. The genius of school lies within the school. The solutions to problems are almost always right in front of you.
I think of it this way: If you think only the folks below you are causing all the problems, and you also think only the guys above you can fix ‘em, what does the boss or your subordinates need you for?
7) You Have the Ultimate Responsibility
Have very clear expectations. Make sure people have the knowledge, resources, and time to accomplish what you expect. This shows respect. As much as possible, give people the autonomy to manage their own work, budget, time, and curriculum. Autonomy is the goal, though you still have to inspect.
I think of it this way: Be the boss, mostly by setting the tone, setting the example, sometimes setting the boundaries, setting the aiming stake in the right place, setting the time for the next team meeting, setting the “But We’ve Always Done It This Way” rule book on fire, etc………..and every so often check to make sure that nobody has set the factory on fire….
9) Consensus is Overrated
Twenty percent of people will be against anything. When you realize this, you avoid compromising what really should be done because you stop watering things down. If you always try to reach consensus, you are being led by the 20 percent.
I've found that most students--and most folks--usually think that “consensus” means that everyone has to agree. No, no, no. I embrace the idea that “consensus” means that every member of the group either stout-heartedly endorses the idea or at least acknowledges that she can live with it and support it as a reasonable alternative to her own favored decision/plan/concept. And yes, it’s true that sometimes the group or the boss must say to the high-principled or defiant holdout: “we respect your view and your input, but we’ve talked it through, we’re gonna do it a different way, and you need to support that.”
Copyright © Richard Carl
Subber 2010 All rights reserved.
The Only Good GPA Is A Higher GPA....
Loyola Law School in Los Angeles will raise previously posted final grades for current students and for alumni going back to 2004. A grade of B will be raised to B+, A- will be raised to A and so on.
See this Apr 1, 2010, post by The Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/article/A-California-Law-School-Will/64949/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Loyola's Dean, Victor Gold, said the old grades didn't reflect Loyola's "academic rigor," he put it this way: "We concluded that the grading curve was sending incorrect information about our students, and, frankly, it was putting them at an unfair competitive disadvantage in a pretty tough job market."
I read the dean's rationale for what he's doing, here are a few possible inferences:
“We concluded that the grading curve was sending incorrect information about our students.”
Perhaps he meant this: Our students weren’t smart enough to pick other schools that give higher grades.
“Mr. Gold announced the faculty's approval of the new grading system.”
Perhaps he meant this: Our faculty suddenly realized they’ve been doing the grading all wrong.
“We're not trying to make them look better than other comparable students at other schools. We just want them to be on an even playing field."
Perhaps he meant this: We’re pretty sure that no prospective employers will find out that we have done this.
Now, I’m very sympathetic to the great difficulty of finding a job these days………so what’s Loyola Law School gonna do if some of the other 19 California law schools decide to bump their grades up a bit?
...and by the way, as of June 17, 2010, check my web page at:
http://moravian.academia.edu/RichardSubber
See this Apr 1, 2010, post by The Chronicle of Higher Education:
http://chronicle.com/article/A-California-Law-School-Will/64949/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Loyola's Dean, Victor Gold, said the old grades didn't reflect Loyola's "academic rigor," he put it this way: "We concluded that the grading curve was sending incorrect information about our students, and, frankly, it was putting them at an unfair competitive disadvantage in a pretty tough job market."
I read the dean's rationale for what he's doing, here are a few possible inferences:
“We concluded that the grading curve was sending incorrect information about our students.”
Perhaps he meant this: Our students weren’t smart enough to pick other schools that give higher grades.
“Mr. Gold announced the faculty's approval of the new grading system.”
Perhaps he meant this: Our faculty suddenly realized they’ve been doing the grading all wrong.
“We're not trying to make them look better than other comparable students at other schools. We just want them to be on an even playing field."
Perhaps he meant this: We’re pretty sure that no prospective employers will find out that we have done this.
Now, I’m very sympathetic to the great difficulty of finding a job these days………so what’s Loyola Law School gonna do if some of the other 19 California law schools decide to bump their grades up a bit?
...and by the way, as of June 17, 2010, check my web page at:
http://moravian.academia.edu/RichardSubber
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Liberal or Conservative? That's too simple....
Woe is us. Sound-bite media, sound-bite politics. It's too easy and it's a deadening distraction to ask or answer the question: are you a Liberal or a Conservative? For those of us who suspect that we are very much too discriminating to be "lumped in" with one motley crowd or the other, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press comes to the rescue.
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/
The Pew folks have used their extensive and time-tested research to identify 9 "typologies" in the political spectrum (if you're a country boy like me, think "mutually exclusive categories" and you're in like Flynn).
Use the link above to answer a few questions (really, it takes a minute or two) and get Pew researchers' feedback on where you stand in the lineup: Liberal, Conservative Democrat, Social Conservative, you get the picture. There's considerable, easy to understand detail about what makes each group different from the others...probably you won't be too surprised.
You may be surprised AFTER you understand more fully why you belong to one of Pew's typologies.....you may be surprised when you realize that you understand more intuitively and in more empirical detail why it's downright dumb for the news media and our elected political representatives to talk blithely and belligerently about "Liberals" and "Conservatives." These two popularly named, deeply misunderstood and more or less undefined groups of people too often act out their fantasy that vilifying the other group is a downright satisfying way to express their beliefs and advance their cause....let's stop pretending that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are useful categories.
Go to the Pew Research Center site (link is above) and clarify your understanding of where you really stand, and find out who you're NOT in bed with, politically speaking...
http://typology.people-press.org/typology/
The Pew folks have used their extensive and time-tested research to identify 9 "typologies" in the political spectrum (if you're a country boy like me, think "mutually exclusive categories" and you're in like Flynn).
Use the link above to answer a few questions (really, it takes a minute or two) and get Pew researchers' feedback on where you stand in the lineup: Liberal, Conservative Democrat, Social Conservative, you get the picture. There's considerable, easy to understand detail about what makes each group different from the others...probably you won't be too surprised.
You may be surprised AFTER you understand more fully why you belong to one of Pew's typologies.....you may be surprised when you realize that you understand more intuitively and in more empirical detail why it's downright dumb for the news media and our elected political representatives to talk blithely and belligerently about "Liberals" and "Conservatives." These two popularly named, deeply misunderstood and more or less undefined groups of people too often act out their fantasy that vilifying the other group is a downright satisfying way to express their beliefs and advance their cause....let's stop pretending that "Liberal" and "Conservative" are useful categories.
Go to the Pew Research Center site (link is above) and clarify your understanding of where you really stand, and find out who you're NOT in bed with, politically speaking...
Sunday, March 14, 2010
No Child Left Behind redux...
I care very much about improving education, and I mean the whole spectrum: elementary, secondary and college level. I tend to support the notion of national standards for the public education system, but I hasten to mention that I feel strong ambivalence about it as I read more of the pros and cons: see this Washington Post piece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031000024.html
So I'm gonna stay tuned as closely as I can in tracking the new education proposal: see this item from The Slate http://slatest.slate.com/id/2247825/?wpisrc=newsletter
I assume in some astral plane it’s just dandy to hope that every HS grad will be “college ready” but here on the planet we love I think that’s a goal that is a really deadly distraction………..it just ain’t possible that every single 18-yr-old 1) wants to go to college 2) is capable of doing college work 3) has parents who can foot the bill 4) etc etc……………with the possible exception of all the kids at Lake Wobegon
Ain’t enough colleges to handle our annual high school output, many or most colleges most likely wouldn’t offer admission to the bottom half of your local high school senior class, ain’t enough Pell grants, etc etc
Why do we need to confuse the issue by suggesting that the purpose of public education is making everybody ready for college? I’m in favor of reaching an actionable consensus that the purpose of public education is to produce high school graduates. See this item from USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-16-1Acollegeforall16_CV_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031000024.html
So I'm gonna stay tuned as closely as I can in tracking the new education proposal: see this item from The Slate http://slatest.slate.com/id/2247825/?wpisrc=newsletter
I assume in some astral plane it’s just dandy to hope that every HS grad will be “college ready” but here on the planet we love I think that’s a goal that is a really deadly distraction………..it just ain’t possible that every single 18-yr-old 1) wants to go to college 2) is capable of doing college work 3) has parents who can foot the bill 4) etc etc……………with the possible exception of all the kids at Lake Wobegon
Ain’t enough colleges to handle our annual high school output, many or most colleges most likely wouldn’t offer admission to the bottom half of your local high school senior class, ain’t enough Pell grants, etc etc
Why do we need to confuse the issue by suggesting that the purpose of public education is making everybody ready for college? I’m in favor of reaching an actionable consensus that the purpose of public education is to produce high school graduates. See this item from USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-03-16-1Acollegeforall16_CV_N.htm
Friday, March 5, 2010
Any Health Care Reform Will Do.....
See the piece below by Diane Jones at The Chronicle of Higher Education,
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Putting-Lipstick-on-the/21612/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
certainly a comprehensive commentary without most of the media-hyped "sound bite" objections.............in fact, I support the current push to pass the health reform legislation, most certainly not because I believe it's the best or even a well-rounded step to address the very huge, very expensive health care problems, but almost exclusively (and desperately) because I strongly agree with Diane Jones' last sentence:
"And let's be honest about the fact that we might not be able to tackle all of these problems in a single piece of legislation, or within a single presidential term ... or even two."
I'm sickened by the grotesque, self-serving posturing on both sides of the aisle in Congress on this health care reform legislation, we have a rapidly growing monster that's going to eat Chicago and then every other city in the country if we don't tame the beast, and there seems to be little enlightened concept of serving the long-term overall public interest in the hallowed halls of Congress................
Oooops, I think I let a doctrinaire edge show through there, I'm flogging myself back into the cage........I'll try softly humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic....thanks for listening, I feel better now...
http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Putting-Lipstick-on-the/21612/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
certainly a comprehensive commentary without most of the media-hyped "sound bite" objections.............in fact, I support the current push to pass the health reform legislation, most certainly not because I believe it's the best or even a well-rounded step to address the very huge, very expensive health care problems, but almost exclusively (and desperately) because I strongly agree with Diane Jones' last sentence:
"And let's be honest about the fact that we might not be able to tackle all of these problems in a single piece of legislation, or within a single presidential term ... or even two."
I'm sickened by the grotesque, self-serving posturing on both sides of the aisle in Congress on this health care reform legislation, we have a rapidly growing monster that's going to eat Chicago and then every other city in the country if we don't tame the beast, and there seems to be little enlightened concept of serving the long-term overall public interest in the hallowed halls of Congress................
Oooops, I think I let a doctrinaire edge show through there, I'm flogging myself back into the cage........I'll try softly humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic....thanks for listening, I feel better now...
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Those Millennials: Leaders of tomorrow?
Regardless of your political persuasion, check out this Feb. 25 piece by E. J. Dionne in The Washington Post: "Under-30 Americans: The Next New Dealers"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022404264.html
Bless those young Millennials, they're doing their own thing on the political scene and in the workplace.
They are not the leaders of tomorrow. The people who are in charge now are the leaders of tomorrow, because those with power do not willingly give it up.
If you desperately want to change something, almost certainly you don't have the power to do so.
Start connecting with people who share your desires and your vision, and build a networked base of power to do something about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/24/AR2010022404264.html
Bless those young Millennials, they're doing their own thing on the political scene and in the workplace.
They are not the leaders of tomorrow. The people who are in charge now are the leaders of tomorrow, because those with power do not willingly give it up.
If you desperately want to change something, almost certainly you don't have the power to do so.
Start connecting with people who share your desires and your vision, and build a networked base of power to do something about it.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Dear Charlie Munger, Thanks but no thanks...
Charlie, thanks but no thanks for a rather pedestrian piece [ Charlie's remarks on slate.com ] with oh-so-thinly-veiled references to current real-world events and people, it's not particularly helpful to lecture us on the disastrous results of allowing ignorant CEOs to allow their ethically-challenged backroom quants to gamble in the nether world of derivatives with everyone else's money......
Why did you plug the date "2012" in there? You give no specific prediction, and I would have been surprised if you had.........
If you meant this piece to sway the opinions of folks who don't already know what you're talking about and who don't already agree with you, you wasted your time.
Your commentary is not particularly droll nor is it particularly enlightening nor is it particularly memorable...
Please stick to helping Warren run Berkshire Hathaway....
Your friend
Rick
Why did you plug the date "2012" in there? You give no specific prediction, and I would have been surprised if you had.........
If you meant this piece to sway the opinions of folks who don't already know what you're talking about and who don't already agree with you, you wasted your time.
Your commentary is not particularly droll nor is it particularly enlightening nor is it particularly memorable...
Please stick to helping Warren run Berkshire Hathaway....
Your friend
Rick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)