This morning I went along with Janett to her doctor's apppointment. It was a routine visit and they discussed changes in prescriptions. The doctor's office is in Algonquin and happens to be close to a mall with a Butera's grocery store. Algonquin isn't fancy but its a little up scale from Elgin, and this Butera's was formerly a Piggly Wiggly, and the store is nice and not over 10 years old. So I mentioned to Janett that maybe we should drop by the Butera's, since this was the one Butera at which I had a chance of getting her to shop. Well, no, she didn't think we needed anything. I was a little disappointed to miss the chance to get cold cuts and sliced cheese for half of what they charge at Jewel, Dominicks, or even Meyers. But she's been doing a good job with the household budget and I have to defer in these matters, so we went on about our business.
Then a little after five she dropped by downstairs to tell me she was going to help Steffie shop for some go-to-work clothes for a temporary position that had opened up at the church. (Good luck Steffo!)
Well, she's never actually forebidden me from doing a little shopping at our local Butera's. So when I left the office I hopped in the car and headed straight for that den of grocerial iniquity, that open pit of dirty floors and stale-date-challenged provender. I couldn't help it.
But driving the few blocks to the store I realized that it could be argued that we might not really need any sandwich meat or cheese slices, and I dare not risk over stocking and exposing myself to the "You're not saving money if I end up throwing it away" reproach, and I began to shift my objective toward a quick hot ready to eat meal from the deli counter, Yeah, that was the ticket!
Providentially, the first special island in the produce department offered a selection of Racine Bakery Kolacky's for which Janett is known to have a weak spot. Good find. Three and half dollars, and worth every penny. Then some house brand hot dog buns and a package of Scott Peterson franks for 99 cents each. Who could resist - 8 meals for under two dollars. But when I got to the hot entree counter the lady had started cleaning up and the selecton was limited to Mexican (boiled?) beef, or cabbage rolls for 4.99 per pound. I debated with myself, confused and not hopeful of a really good outcome, and then I noticed some cello wrapped containers on the counter top. Some of the day's leftovers at even further reduced prices. Well it wasn't batter fried tilapia or barbecued ribs but it was cheap food.
So I grabbed one of each; chicken nuggets (1 1/4 lb for .97) jalapeno poppers (1 1/4 lb for 1.50) and six egg rolls for 2.10, even though that necessitated the expenditure of an additional dollar and a half for sweet and sour sauce. On the way to the register I did pick up sliced Deluxe American cheeze for $5. But that usually happens, partly because I see it as a desirable commodity and also as a blow struck against the purveyors of the ubiquitious "processed cheese food"
There you have it, a virtual cornucopia for $16. Oh, and at the register, as further justification for this little excursion, I also picked up a quick pick for tomorrow's mega million game. If we win tomorrow night any lingering unhappiness over my behavior will be washed away in a tidal wave of money,
Now I'm home. I ate some chicken nuggets and jalapeno poppers but there's a lot left. I'm saving the egg rolls to enjoy with my little sweetie. But I'm kind of nervous that the phone's going to ring at any second and it will be Janett asking if I want her to bring home McDonalds.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Gates and Crowley
My brother Mike and I have been exchanging Facebook comments about Officer Crowley and Professor Gates. I just posted there this link to a Time Magazine article on the arrest. Mike is upset with President Obama, I'm upset with the police officer. I'll quote the central part from the Time article: "In classically phony police talk, Crowley refers to "[Gates'] continued tumultuous behavior." When cops write that way, you know they have nothing. What is tumultuous behavior? Here's what it isn't: he brandished a knife in a threatening manner, he punched and kicked, he clenched his fist in a threatening manner, he threw a wrench or, in the Gates house, maybe a book. If the subject does any of those things, cops always write it out with precision. When they've got nothing, they use phrases that mean nothing. Phrases like tumultuous behavior.
Unless you confess to a crime,or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here — cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.
We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped."
I don't like police manhandling citizens and cuffing them for a ride to the station because they don't like people telling them they're being a**-**les. I think it's your inalienable right to tell them so if you believe it (but until we get this thing straightened out I don't suggest you try it.)
PS I may change my photo again. Janett doesn't like the new one 'cause my hair's smushed down.
Unless you confess to a crime,or threaten to commit a crime, there is nothing you can say to a cop that makes it legal for him to arrest you. You can tell him he is stupid, you can tell him he is ugly, you can call him racist, you can say anything you might feel like saying about his mother. He has taken an oath to listen to all of that and ignore it. That is the real teachable moment here — cops are paid to be professionals, but even the best of them are human and can make stupid mistakes.
We have an uncomfortable choice with Sergeant Crowley. Either he doesn't know what disorderly conduct is or Crowley simply decided to show Gates who's boss the only way he knew how at the time — by whipping out his handcuffs and abusing his power to arrest. Police make the latter choice in this country every day, knowing that the charges are going to have to be dropped."
I don't like police manhandling citizens and cuffing them for a ride to the station because they don't like people telling them they're being a**-**les. I think it's your inalienable right to tell them so if you believe it (but until we get this thing straightened out I don't suggest you try it.)
PS I may change my photo again. Janett doesn't like the new one 'cause my hair's smushed down.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Jason
Jason is our oldest son. He came along with Janett, and has always been her protector, even though he sometimes seems to think she lacks a practical grasp on reality. He seems to feel that way about his sisters and fiancee, Domenica, as well. We can't figure that out because we always suppose boys acquire their attitudes toward women from their fathers, and I pretty much respect women and think they're very sound as a rule.
Not withstanding that little attitude thing, Jase has always been very loving, and it's too bad that he's had to put up with a lot. For one thing since childhood he's had a condition called Polyarteritis nodosa. My layman's understanding is that it's an auto immune defect. The symptoms in Jason's case are sores on his calves and ankles that can start from a little bruise and don't heal, but grow deeper and wider. We went to the hospital today because he was receiving treatment from a wound specialist. We all hope the treatment is beneficial, and wish "Dee" well in coping with Jase during the prescribed 30 days off work and off the leg.
Jason is not husky but is pretty strong, a hard worker and virtually unable to sit still for more than five minutes. When exasperated he shouts a lot. Maybe we could get Dee some earplugs as a "gag" gift. One likely benefit is that Jason and little Joey will become really proficient at all the electronic games in the family room and will be happy to share a month of dad and son companionship.
Love and best wishes to Jase, Dee, and Joey.
.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
I don't know if young people like Roy Orbison
But here's a clip from the late sixties, Interesting 'cause it looks like Bruce Springsteen and Elvis Costello were playing guitar in the orchestra. We all have to start somewhere.
If you do like Roy Orbison, here's my favorite, Blue Bayou
If you do like Roy Orbison, here's my favorite, Blue Bayou
Monday, July 20, 2009
Please excuse my not posting...
I have no excuse, really. But I have had things going on. Like Noah and I planning a visit to Dean and Jim's mid-August. And Janett taking tests to become certified as a Quick Books Pro Advisor. And getting the check in the mail for the reunion coming up on the 15th of August.
Last time (or the time just before) I was an optimistic bear, because of the broken head and shoulders on the S&P and the Dow closing below it's 200 day moving average, I did buy a put on CAKE (Cheesecake Factory) Which then went up a couple dollars. Fortunately because they were cheap I also bought puts on Diodes and Coach which fell a little, So I broke even that week, except I didn't cover my $60 in commissions. And as always I nurture resentment, this time toward the people I envision gorging themselves on overpriced cheesecake, while the malls tumble to the ground around them.
And Saturday Steffie needed to break out of her routine so she and Janett took Owen shopping while Mally and I hung out. "Well, actually" as Mally would say, hanging out with Mally sounds more laid back than it really is. First he came to the office to supervise and evaluate staff performance. A check after your name indicates you did something well, an "X", not so well. Ageo and I did better than Jose, but I sucked up to Mally a lot, to the point where he began to look at me, a little suspiciously every time I complemented a method or manner. Still I got my checks.
Then we walked to the tiny neighborhood grocery where they sell prepared Mexican food (can you say menudo) as well as grocery staples. Malachy selected a big bag of marshmallows, like his mommy used to buy.
We then went across the street to a play park and played at being pirates with the jungle gym being our ship and the marshmallows our provisions. Mally ate quite a few marshmallows. I could see why Steffie doesn't try to keep them in stock at home. But he politely asked if he could have another each time, say every five minutes for the hour we were there.
Then home again, and more pirate play including drawing treasure maps. Mine was pretty good, even including a little pirate ship which Malachy told me looked more like a duck to him. So we began another game. I was the country cousin and lived on a farm, the porch where I could smoke and he was the city cousin and owned a grocery store, which we simulated by spreading groceries on the kitchen counters. Fortunately Steffie and Mom got back about then and Steffie had us put on a movie to watch and we napped on the futon while the movie played. When we woke up it was time for another walk, to the little store again by a different route. This time we picked up a large bottle of Fanta orange pop. When we got home and had a cold drink Steffie was saying it was about time to go home, which would have been OK with me, but then Noah called and said he could drop by. Steffie was happy to stay and wait. As it turned out Noah was a godsend introducing an energy level to the play more agreeable to the sugar-fried Malachy than my depleted enthusiasm.
But the visit was nice and I know how lucky we are to be close to the children, even though I was too tired to blog over the weekend. Dinner time, see you later.
Last time (or the time just before) I was an optimistic bear, because of the broken head and shoulders on the S&P and the Dow closing below it's 200 day moving average, I did buy a put on CAKE (Cheesecake Factory) Which then went up a couple dollars. Fortunately because they were cheap I also bought puts on Diodes and Coach which fell a little, So I broke even that week, except I didn't cover my $60 in commissions. And as always I nurture resentment, this time toward the people I envision gorging themselves on overpriced cheesecake, while the malls tumble to the ground around them.
And Saturday Steffie needed to break out of her routine so she and Janett took Owen shopping while Mally and I hung out. "Well, actually" as Mally would say, hanging out with Mally sounds more laid back than it really is. First he came to the office to supervise and evaluate staff performance. A check after your name indicates you did something well, an "X", not so well. Ageo and I did better than Jose, but I sucked up to Mally a lot, to the point where he began to look at me, a little suspiciously every time I complemented a method or manner. Still I got my checks.
Then we walked to the tiny neighborhood grocery where they sell prepared Mexican food (can you say menudo) as well as grocery staples. Malachy selected a big bag of marshmallows, like his mommy used to buy.
We then went across the street to a play park and played at being pirates with the jungle gym being our ship and the marshmallows our provisions. Mally ate quite a few marshmallows. I could see why Steffie doesn't try to keep them in stock at home. But he politely asked if he could have another each time, say every five minutes for the hour we were there.
Then home again, and more pirate play including drawing treasure maps. Mine was pretty good, even including a little pirate ship which Malachy told me looked more like a duck to him. So we began another game. I was the country cousin and lived on a farm, the porch where I could smoke and he was the city cousin and owned a grocery store, which we simulated by spreading groceries on the kitchen counters. Fortunately Steffie and Mom got back about then and Steffie had us put on a movie to watch and we napped on the futon while the movie played. When we woke up it was time for another walk, to the little store again by a different route. This time we picked up a large bottle of Fanta orange pop. When we got home and had a cold drink Steffie was saying it was about time to go home, which would have been OK with me, but then Noah called and said he could drop by. Steffie was happy to stay and wait. As it turned out Noah was a godsend introducing an energy level to the play more agreeable to the sugar-fried Malachy than my depleted enthusiasm.
But the visit was nice and I know how lucky we are to be close to the children, even though I was too tired to blog over the weekend. Dinner time, see you later.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
"...to manipulate the market in unfair ways."
Let's get this software back to Goldman Sachs whom we can all trust to use it to manipulate the market in only fair ways.
Friday, July 10, 2009
At two with nature...
I remembered, as Facebooking a comment on a photo of Ross at the beach, that "at two with nature" was how Dorothy Parker once described herself. If people remember New York's Algonquin Hotel today, it is as the setting for Rosemary's Baby or the place where John Lennon got shot. But in my grandfather's time, Dorothy Parker and other urbane litterati had a lunch club that met there. They acted as though they thought they were the cleverest people in the world, and maybe they did, and maybe they were.
I thought you might not know, so I googled her name and copied this little biographical sketch from the American Associaston of Authors and Writers.
Dorothy Parker
On August 23, 1893, an extraordinary event exploded across the universe. On that day, the indomitable, wise-cracking Dorothy Rothschild Parker decided to join the party.
Parker was born and raised in West End, New Jersey, to a Jewish father and a Scottish mother who died when her daughter was only five. The loss initially devastated her, although in time she grew to rely more heavily on her father, who had amassed a small fortune in the garment industry. Father and daughter soon developed a strong bond, and Parker shared with him all of the secrets and joys that only a young child can know. Two years later, he married a strict Roman Catholic woman, and trouble loomed in paradise.
Parker disliked her step-mother intensely, and the feeling was mutual. As a young girl, she was enrolled at a Catholic school for girls in Manhattan, later transferring to Miss Dana's Boarding School. Her father told school authorities that she was Episcopalian, although her dark Jewishness marked her as an outsider. She maintained that image of herself--dark, brooding, alone--and in the face of early alienation and disappointment, she developed a biting and irreverent sense of humor to help her cope with her loneliness. Late in life, she described herself as "one of those awful children who wrote verses."
Despite her earliest literary inclinations, Parker left school suddenly at the age of fourteen, never to return, to take care of her ill father, who had once again become a widower.
When her father died in 1913, Parker moved to New York City to seek a better life. She wrote by day and earned money playing the piano at the Manhattan School of Dance by night. Few people who knew her then would have guessed that she would work herself up to become a legendary figure in New York's literary scene, as well as one of the most talked about, revered, and feared critics in literary history.
Parker began selling poetry to the prestigious Vogue magazine at the age of 19 and soon accepted an editorial position there. From 1917 to 1920, she also worked as a freelance critic for Vanity Fair and formed, along with Robert Benchley and Robert Sherwood, the nucleus of a group they dubbed the Algonquin Round Table, an informal luncheon clique held at New York City's Algonquin Hotel on Forty-Fourth Street. Other Round Table members included writers Ring Lardner, James Thurber, and Harold Ross, who created the New Yorker magazine.
Ross said later that he borrowed the tone of voice for his magazine--irreverent, witty, and sarcastic--from those early meetings. Parker was the only female member of the club and often the only woman in attendance.
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Roumania. - from Comment
Parker began her literary career shortly after World War I during an era when slick magazines were one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the country. The best writers of the day relied heavily on sarcasm, adopting a sophisticated, wise-cracking tone of voice. Parker soon proved that she could be just as sassy as any man.
An enigma of the day, she stood barely four feet-eleven inches tall. She loved to drink, she loved to dance, she loved to smoke, she loved to swear. And she loved to fall in love with men who didn't love her back. Drama critic Alexander Woollcott described her as "A blend of Little Nell and Lady Macbeth." Parker replied, "[I'm] just a little Jewish girl, trying to be cute."
In 1920, Parker was fired from Vanity Fair because her drama reviews had become too harsh and heartless, so she decided to put her cutting-edge cynicism to work in her first book of poems, Enough Rope, which became a national bestseller when it hit the shelves in 1926. Perfectly suited to the role of the Queen of the Flappers, she bobbed her hair, endured several extra-marital affairs, suffered frequent bouts with alcoholism, and attempted suicide on three (or possibly four, but who was counting?) occasions. Through it all, she somehow managed to maintain the high quality of her writing.
She managed, too, despite her cynicism, to take a lifelong if intermittent interest in political activism. One of those projects would affect her for the remainder of her life. It was her "pet" project, or so she called it--a demand for the release of two Italian immigrants who had been arrested for murder. She brought the project to the Algonquin where she engaged the other members of the club in heated debate. She felt strongly that long-time political anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti had been set up to take the rap for a crime they didn't commit, and she worked diligently at getting their death sentence overturned. She enticed several other celebrities into joining her, and she was arrested while marching with Robert Benchley and Heywood Broun for the Italians' release.
It was only one of her political crusades that included going to Spain to work against Franco in the Spanish Civil War (the "proudest thing" she ever did), organizing Hollywood screenwriters into a protective guild, and getting blacklisted by the House on Un-American Activities Committee for her leftist social views.
But Parker the Activist had to reconcile herself to Parker the working girl; and, in 1927, she joined the staff of The New Yorker magazine where she wrote book reviews under the pen name, Constant Reader. While she was there, she became famous for her two-line quip,
Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses.
Independent and feisty, Parker--by now an established author--followed up her first book with Sunset Guns (1928) and Death and Taxes (1931), which were collected in Collected Poems: Not So Deep as a Well (1936). Her works in verse were sardonic, dry, and elegantly written commentaries on lost love or on the shallowness of modern life.
Why is it no one sent me yet
One perfect limousine, do you suppose?
Ah, no, it's always just my luck to get
One perfect rose.
Parker's short stories, which were collected in After Such Pleasures (1932) and Here Lies (1939), illuminated her deep knowledge and understanding of human nature. Among her best-known tales are A Big Blonde and A Telephone Call.
During the 1930s, Parker moved with her second husband, Alan Campbell, to Hollywood where she worked as a screenwriter on A Star Is Born (1937), directed by William Wellman and starring Janet Gaynor, Fredric March, and Adolphe Menjou. She received An Academy Award for the screenplay, along with Campbell and Robert Carson. She also collaborated with Peter Vierter and Joan Harrison on Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur (1940).
But her success in Hollywood failed to quench her thirst for sardonic wit, much to the chagrin of many big-name celebrities of the day. Once, after meeting Joan Crawford, who was married at the time to Franchot Tone, Parker said, "You can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." Of the acting talents of Katherine Hepburn, she wrote, "She ran the whole gamut of emotions, from A to B."
When Parker turned 70, she said, "If I had any decency, I'd be dead. Most of my friends are." She also said, "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words."
Much of Parker's best writing was collected in the Portable Dorothy Parker, which has been in print since 1944. Of the first ten Portables published by Viking, only the Portable Shakespeare and the Portable Bible have sold as well and as steadily.
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live. - from Resume
Besides her witty limericks, Parker contributed several words and phrases to America's pop vernacular, including bobbed (hairstyle: 1915), queer (homosexual: 1929), bundle of nerves (1915), it's a small world (1915), and what the hell (colloquial: 1923), not to mention the ubiquitous high society, one-night stand, and, appropriately enough, wisecrack.
Dorothy Parker, who once said, "I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true" and "People are more fun than anybody," penned her last sardonic quip on June 7, 1967. She died alone and broken in the New York hotel she had helped to make famous and that had become her final home.
I thought you might not know, so I googled her name and copied this little biographical sketch from the American Associaston of Authors and Writers.
Dorothy Parker
On August 23, 1893, an extraordinary event exploded across the universe. On that day, the indomitable, wise-cracking Dorothy Rothschild Parker decided to join the party.
Parker was born and raised in West End, New Jersey, to a Jewish father and a Scottish mother who died when her daughter was only five. The loss initially devastated her, although in time she grew to rely more heavily on her father, who had amassed a small fortune in the garment industry. Father and daughter soon developed a strong bond, and Parker shared with him all of the secrets and joys that only a young child can know. Two years later, he married a strict Roman Catholic woman, and trouble loomed in paradise.
Parker disliked her step-mother intensely, and the feeling was mutual. As a young girl, she was enrolled at a Catholic school for girls in Manhattan, later transferring to Miss Dana's Boarding School. Her father told school authorities that she was Episcopalian, although her dark Jewishness marked her as an outsider. She maintained that image of herself--dark, brooding, alone--and in the face of early alienation and disappointment, she developed a biting and irreverent sense of humor to help her cope with her loneliness. Late in life, she described herself as "one of those awful children who wrote verses."
Despite her earliest literary inclinations, Parker left school suddenly at the age of fourteen, never to return, to take care of her ill father, who had once again become a widower.
When her father died in 1913, Parker moved to New York City to seek a better life. She wrote by day and earned money playing the piano at the Manhattan School of Dance by night. Few people who knew her then would have guessed that she would work herself up to become a legendary figure in New York's literary scene, as well as one of the most talked about, revered, and feared critics in literary history.
Parker began selling poetry to the prestigious Vogue magazine at the age of 19 and soon accepted an editorial position there. From 1917 to 1920, she also worked as a freelance critic for Vanity Fair and formed, along with Robert Benchley and Robert Sherwood, the nucleus of a group they dubbed the Algonquin Round Table, an informal luncheon clique held at New York City's Algonquin Hotel on Forty-Fourth Street. Other Round Table members included writers Ring Lardner, James Thurber, and Harold Ross, who created the New Yorker magazine.
Ross said later that he borrowed the tone of voice for his magazine--irreverent, witty, and sarcastic--from those early meetings. Parker was the only female member of the club and often the only woman in attendance.
Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
A medley of extemporanea;
And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
And I am Marie of Roumania. - from Comment
Parker began her literary career shortly after World War I during an era when slick magazines were one of the most popular forms of entertainment in the country. The best writers of the day relied heavily on sarcasm, adopting a sophisticated, wise-cracking tone of voice. Parker soon proved that she could be just as sassy as any man.
An enigma of the day, she stood barely four feet-eleven inches tall. She loved to drink, she loved to dance, she loved to smoke, she loved to swear. And she loved to fall in love with men who didn't love her back. Drama critic Alexander Woollcott described her as "A blend of Little Nell and Lady Macbeth." Parker replied, "[I'm] just a little Jewish girl, trying to be cute."
In 1920, Parker was fired from Vanity Fair because her drama reviews had become too harsh and heartless, so she decided to put her cutting-edge cynicism to work in her first book of poems, Enough Rope, which became a national bestseller when it hit the shelves in 1926. Perfectly suited to the role of the Queen of the Flappers, she bobbed her hair, endured several extra-marital affairs, suffered frequent bouts with alcoholism, and attempted suicide on three (or possibly four, but who was counting?) occasions. Through it all, she somehow managed to maintain the high quality of her writing.
She managed, too, despite her cynicism, to take a lifelong if intermittent interest in political activism. One of those projects would affect her for the remainder of her life. It was her "pet" project, or so she called it--a demand for the release of two Italian immigrants who had been arrested for murder. She brought the project to the Algonquin where she engaged the other members of the club in heated debate. She felt strongly that long-time political anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti had been set up to take the rap for a crime they didn't commit, and she worked diligently at getting their death sentence overturned. She enticed several other celebrities into joining her, and she was arrested while marching with Robert Benchley and Heywood Broun for the Italians' release.
It was only one of her political crusades that included going to Spain to work against Franco in the Spanish Civil War (the "proudest thing" she ever did), organizing Hollywood screenwriters into a protective guild, and getting blacklisted by the House on Un-American Activities Committee for her leftist social views.
But Parker the Activist had to reconcile herself to Parker the working girl; and, in 1927, she joined the staff of The New Yorker magazine where she wrote book reviews under the pen name, Constant Reader. While she was there, she became famous for her two-line quip,
Men seldom make passes
At girls who wear glasses.
Independent and feisty, Parker--by now an established author--followed up her first book with Sunset Guns (1928) and Death and Taxes (1931), which were collected in Collected Poems: Not So Deep as a Well (1936). Her works in verse were sardonic, dry, and elegantly written commentaries on lost love or on the shallowness of modern life.
Why is it no one sent me yet
One perfect limousine, do you suppose?
Ah, no, it's always just my luck to get
One perfect rose.
Parker's short stories, which were collected in After Such Pleasures (1932) and Here Lies (1939), illuminated her deep knowledge and understanding of human nature. Among her best-known tales are A Big Blonde and A Telephone Call.
During the 1930s, Parker moved with her second husband, Alan Campbell, to Hollywood where she worked as a screenwriter on A Star Is Born (1937), directed by William Wellman and starring Janet Gaynor, Fredric March, and Adolphe Menjou. She received An Academy Award for the screenplay, along with Campbell and Robert Carson. She also collaborated with Peter Vierter and Joan Harrison on Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur (1940).
But her success in Hollywood failed to quench her thirst for sardonic wit, much to the chagrin of many big-name celebrities of the day. Once, after meeting Joan Crawford, who was married at the time to Franchot Tone, Parker said, "You can take a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." Of the acting talents of Katherine Hepburn, she wrote, "She ran the whole gamut of emotions, from A to B."
When Parker turned 70, she said, "If I had any decency, I'd be dead. Most of my friends are." She also said, "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words."
Much of Parker's best writing was collected in the Portable Dorothy Parker, which has been in print since 1944. Of the first ten Portables published by Viking, only the Portable Shakespeare and the Portable Bible have sold as well and as steadily.
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live. - from Resume
Besides her witty limericks, Parker contributed several words and phrases to America's pop vernacular, including bobbed (hairstyle: 1915), queer (homosexual: 1929), bundle of nerves (1915), it's a small world (1915), and what the hell (colloquial: 1923), not to mention the ubiquitous high society, one-night stand, and, appropriately enough, wisecrack.
Dorothy Parker, who once said, "I don't care what is written about me so long as it isn't true" and "People are more fun than anybody," penned her last sardonic quip on June 7, 1967. She died alone and broken in the New York hotel she had helped to make famous and that had become her final home.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
I'm not too proud to admit
that I can't figure out what's going on in the capital markets. It helps a little bit that the experts are also clueless. This article gives us a sense of the prevailing uncertainty.
Here's a telling quote.
"Trying to figure out what the financial end game is, beyond simple Armageddon, is probably impossible. Right now many conflicting issues don’t make fundamental long-term sense. This is a very complicated maze. However, being lost inside while searching for enlightenment seems a worthy task."
Here's a scary but plausible quote from further down in the article.
"The financial industry is fundamentally doomed. Anticipate a large scale event that uses shock doctrine to control and manipulate people’s minds. Since WW II the ability to master groups and make them susceptible to brainwashing has been perfected. A massive bank collapse could be the catalytic event used to marginalize and control societies in a new direction."
Show of Hands: Who thinks they're practicing their "massive event" technique now, using Michael Jackson's death to perfect their skills?
Here's a telling quote.
"Trying to figure out what the financial end game is, beyond simple Armageddon, is probably impossible. Right now many conflicting issues don’t make fundamental long-term sense. This is a very complicated maze. However, being lost inside while searching for enlightenment seems a worthy task."
Here's a scary but plausible quote from further down in the article.
"The financial industry is fundamentally doomed. Anticipate a large scale event that uses shock doctrine to control and manipulate people’s minds. Since WW II the ability to master groups and make them susceptible to brainwashing has been perfected. A massive bank collapse could be the catalytic event used to marginalize and control societies in a new direction."
Show of Hands: Who thinks they're practicing their "massive event" technique now, using Michael Jackson's death to perfect their skills?
Monday, July 06, 2009
Random thoughts
Besides classic mysteries on 11 and 20, The Closer seems to be the only show Janett and I currently enjoy.
I went short a couple of cheapies (brought puts) Cheesecake Factory and Diodes. I'll try to pick up a put on Coach tomorrow. Guess? would have been OK, but we'll see.
Brother John is back in NYC. I never had a brother who lives im NYC before.
Not giving Obama a lot of thought. Stii supportive and hopeful, but politicians may prove ineffectual and irrelevant to the resolution of our problems.
I went short a couple of cheapies (brought puts) Cheesecake Factory and Diodes. I'll try to pick up a put on Coach tomorrow. Guess? would have been OK, but we'll see.
Brother John is back in NYC. I never had a brother who lives im NYC before.
Not giving Obama a lot of thought. Stii supportive and hopeful, but politicians may prove ineffectual and irrelevant to the resolution of our problems.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Happy July 4th
We had a really nice day, kicking off the celebrations with the Elgin Independence day Parade at 9AM. Mally and Mark were marching with Master Kim's Karate school and were resplendent in their martial art whites. Kim, Ross and I were very proud of them, as I assume was Owen, but Owen was wide eyed at everything and didn't seem to take special notice of his familial connection to the marchers.
Janett didn't attend. She was home making party preparations, including some barbecuing, and did really well. She'd gotten prepared for today over the last couple days, including making a big batch of pasta salad, her summer specialty. It has noodles bigger than macaroni (rigatoni?) al dente, and baby peas, and little chunks of cheddar cheese, and mayonnaise, and red wine vinegar and finely blended onions, celery, and green pepper. The secret ingredient? a little tarragon.
I love that stuff, I mean the dish, not just the tarragon.
We had to hurry a little because Mark was taking Steffy and the boys to Iowa to visit family and wanted to get there in time to attend festivities before fireworks. We were also celebrating Kim's birthday a few days in advance because she and Ross are going to Michigan on her birthday and will stay a few days. Janett made a butter pecan cake and frosted it with pecan coconut frosting. Fun. Kim and Ross stayed a while after Steffy and Mark left, but all were gone by 1:30. They had plans for Taste of Lombard(!?) and fireworks this evening.
Janett had plans to kick back and enjoy some quiet restful solitude, but we were saved by Louie and Julie, who'd had to cancel their pool day due to clouds and a little rain, and dropped by. I had leftovers from the grill, but Louie preferred chips and salsa, and birthday cake. Julie scarcely nibbled, maybe saving herself for a cookout they would attend this evening.
Jason, Dee and Joey were missed in their absence as were Noah and Lauren. But the nicest thing about these kind of parties, speaking as a parent, is the sense that the children married people whom they love and have happiness.
It's just past nine now and Janett is back at her QuickBooks tutorials (somebody has to get certified, and she's our tech guru.)
I'm a lucky guy.
PS I'm looking at Guess? as a short for Monday. Any opinions? Feed back around here is "aren't you the guy who shorted Darden during Lobster Fest?"
Janett didn't attend. She was home making party preparations, including some barbecuing, and did really well. She'd gotten prepared for today over the last couple days, including making a big batch of pasta salad, her summer specialty. It has noodles bigger than macaroni (rigatoni?) al dente, and baby peas, and little chunks of cheddar cheese, and mayonnaise, and red wine vinegar and finely blended onions, celery, and green pepper. The secret ingredient? a little tarragon.
I love that stuff, I mean the dish, not just the tarragon.
We had to hurry a little because Mark was taking Steffy and the boys to Iowa to visit family and wanted to get there in time to attend festivities before fireworks. We were also celebrating Kim's birthday a few days in advance because she and Ross are going to Michigan on her birthday and will stay a few days. Janett made a butter pecan cake and frosted it with pecan coconut frosting. Fun. Kim and Ross stayed a while after Steffy and Mark left, but all were gone by 1:30. They had plans for Taste of Lombard(!?) and fireworks this evening.
Janett had plans to kick back and enjoy some quiet restful solitude, but we were saved by Louie and Julie, who'd had to cancel their pool day due to clouds and a little rain, and dropped by. I had leftovers from the grill, but Louie preferred chips and salsa, and birthday cake. Julie scarcely nibbled, maybe saving herself for a cookout they would attend this evening.
Jason, Dee and Joey were missed in their absence as were Noah and Lauren. But the nicest thing about these kind of parties, speaking as a parent, is the sense that the children married people whom they love and have happiness.
It's just past nine now and Janett is back at her QuickBooks tutorials (somebody has to get certified, and she's our tech guru.)
I'm a lucky guy.
PS I'm looking at Guess? as a short for Monday. Any opinions? Feed back around here is "aren't you the guy who shorted Darden during Lobster Fest?"
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Standard deviations
As is usually the case with posted images, clicking on it will show it larger on another screen.
I know I said the Dow could go to 10,500 or higher and I was staying away from the market and not going to be going short anytime soon, but I can't help looking and observed something interesting tonight. Computers are pretty good at plotting trend lines and standard deviations, so an innocent bystander like me can press a couple buttons and make uninformed observations. Using linear regression one can plot trend lines through a lot of data. Something like 68% of the data points will fall within one standard deviation of the trend line. Something like 95% of the data points will fall within 2 standard deviations of the trend line. So, I plotted a trend line going back to the high on the Dow in late '07. The image I've attached only goes back 9 mo, to show better definition, but the trend line does have a longer history. Anyway the rally we've been "enjoying" has moved the market from the bottom of a two standard deviation channel to the top of a two deviation channel, and for the last couple of weeks the Dow has been bumping against the long term, downward sloping top.
A 1.5 standard deviation channel better fits the data for the rally we've been in since March. The Dow is currently grinding against the bottom of this channel. So which will it be? Breaking below the rally channel to stay in the long range downtrend or breaking above the long term trend to sustain the rally channel. Can't do both and it's time to make up it's mind.
I'm still just watching, but I'm getting edgy.
PS The S&P chart looks about the same.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
On C-Span this morning
a guest was an economist I think named Peter Marici, from (I think) the University of Maryland. He seemed very direct, and down to earth. Seemed to blame politicians more than bankers and businessmen for mishandling the economy. He seemed more sympathetic towards Bernanke and the Fed Reserve Bank than toward Geithner and Summers in the administration. I object to his weak critique of the bankers as merely short-sighted and making honest mistakes, as compared to politicians who are irresponsible and concerned only with the next election. He, fails for one thing, to observe that the "short sighted" bankers and businessmen engaged in intense and expensive lobbying and bribed the congressmen through their election campaign contributions to change the laws to enable the bankers to make "short-sighted mistakes". I grew more suspicious of his folksiness as he continued.
One thing he alluded to that was news to me that there is a plan developing to have the Federal Government guarantee state issued debts. I have't thought through the implications, but they're huge.
One thing he alluded to that was news to me that there is a plan developing to have the Federal Government guarantee state issued debts. I have't thought through the implications, but they're huge.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
As we have done in the past, now that the weather is nice,
I've begun walking Mally the two blocks from his home to Armando's Grocery. He's surprised that is seems much easier walk now (his legs must be twice as long as they used to be). We like to look over the produce department and pick out fruit that look good, sometimes exotic things we're not really able to identify or even classify, sometimes special requests: Crystal says Owen likes avocados. We talk about stuff on the way there and back pretty much as equals, though at intersections he puts his hand in mine and allows me to guide him. Like about the music store that used to be next to the grocery store where he would stop in and abandon himself to dance to Latin rhythms, and how the pretty girl there was always happy to see him. After reminiscing for a moment he said that was one of his two saddest memories, second to falling down and skinning his knee. After another pause he remarked that actually that had occurred several times. I told him I thought that the music store should be a happy memory. He said sad because it's not there anymore.
But in the store, he's in charge. A bell pepper for Mommy, watermelon for Daddy, a peach for Poppo, an orange for him. I proposed a carton of chocolate ice cream, which sounded good to him till we got to the freezer and he decided he'd prefer the twelve pack of ice cream sandwiches. We argued a bit, but he answered all my objections. Luckily, he agreed to a compromise, and we got six. He'd been more insistent when buying yogurt for Mommy. I thought one thick and creamy strawberry would be nice. He said she'd prefer the six pack of smaller containers which looked to me like they had the Trix rabbit or some similar cartoon on them. I questioned him but he wouldn't be dissuaded . When we got home, it turned out that he was right.
I wouldn't say he's at an awkward stage, but he's growing out of his toddler cuteness and hopes to be taken seriously. When I was one among nine, I was happy just to be noticed from time to time. i think his way is a greater challenge.
But in the store, he's in charge. A bell pepper for Mommy, watermelon for Daddy, a peach for Poppo, an orange for him. I proposed a carton of chocolate ice cream, which sounded good to him till we got to the freezer and he decided he'd prefer the twelve pack of ice cream sandwiches. We argued a bit, but he answered all my objections. Luckily, he agreed to a compromise, and we got six. He'd been more insistent when buying yogurt for Mommy. I thought one thick and creamy strawberry would be nice. He said she'd prefer the six pack of smaller containers which looked to me like they had the Trix rabbit or some similar cartoon on them. I questioned him but he wouldn't be dissuaded . When we got home, it turned out that he was right.
I wouldn't say he's at an awkward stage, but he's growing out of his toddler cuteness and hopes to be taken seriously. When I was one among nine, I was happy just to be noticed from time to time. i think his way is a greater challenge.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Just found this wisdom on Facebook
Dave DeBaeremaeker at 9:38am June 23
remember what they say: hard work pays off tomorrow, but procrastination pays off right now
Figures dont lie, but liars can figure
Kim questioned my assumption that Ahmadinejad was accurately reported to have won election last week in Iran by a 2 to 1 majority. I still believe that to be the case, but here's intelligence officer type analysis from the Washington times that suggests the numbers were cooked.
The Devil Is in the Digits
By Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco
Saturday, June 20, 2009; 12:02 AM
Since the declaration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory in Iran's presidential election, accusations of fraud have swelled. Against expectations from pollsters and pundits alike, Ahmadinejad did surprisingly well in urban areas, including Tehran -- where he is thought to be highly unpopular -- and even Tabriz, the capital city of opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi's native East Azarbaijan province.
Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. Eyebrows have been raised further by the relative consistency in Ahmadinejad's vote share across Iran's provinces, in spite of wide provincial variation in past elections.
These pieces of the story point in the direction of fraud, to be sure. They have led experts to speculate that the election results released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior had been altered behind closed doors. But we don't have to rely on suggestive evidence alone. We can use statistics more systematically to show that this is likely what happened. Here's how.
We'll concentrate on vote counts -- the number of votes received by different candidates in different provinces -- and in particular the last and second-to-last digits of these numbers. For example, if a candidate received 14,579 votes in a province (Mr. Karroubi's actual vote count in Isfahan), we'll focus on digits 7 and 9.
This may seem strange, because these digits usually don't change who wins. In fact, last digits in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election. They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud. For example, an election in which a majority of provincial vote counts ended in 5 would surely raise red flags.
Why would fraudulent numbers look any different? The reason is that humans are bad at making up numbers. Cognitive psychologists have found that study participants in lab experiments asked to write sequences of random digits will tend to select some digits more frequently than others.
So what can we make of Iran's election results? We used the results released by the Ministry of the Interior and published on the web site of Press TV, a news channel funded by Iran's government. The ministry provided data for 29 provinces, and we examined the number of votes each of the four main candidates -- Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai -- is reported to have received in each of the provinces -- a total of 116 numbers.
The numbers look suspicious. We find too many 7s and not enough 5s in the last digit. We expect each digit (0, 1, 2, and so on) to appear at the end of 10 percent of the vote counts. But in Iran's provincial results, the digit 7 appears 17 percent of the time, and only 4 percent of the results end in the number 5. Two such departures from the average -- a spike of 17 percent or more in one digit and a drop to 4 percent or less in another -- are extremely unlikely. Fewer than four in a hundred non-fraudulent elections would produce such numbers.
As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections.
But that's not all. Psychologists have also found that humans have trouble generating non-adjacent digits (such as 64 or 17, as opposed to 23) as frequently as one would expect in a sequence of random numbers. To check for deviations of this type, we examined the pairs of last and second-to-last digits in Iran's vote counts. On average, if the results had not been manipulated, 70 percent of these pairs should consist of distinct, non-adjacent digits.
Not so in the data from Iran: Only 62 percent of the pairs contain non-adjacent digits. This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent. And while our first test -- variation in last-digit frequencies -- suggests that Rezai's vote counts are the most irregular, the lack of non-adjacent digits is most striking in the results reported for Ahmadinejad.
Each of these two tests provides strong evidence that the numbers released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior were manipulated. But taken together, they leave very little room for reasonable doubt. The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot.
Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, Ph.D. candidates in political science at Columbia University, will be assistant professors in New York University's Wilf Family Department of Politics this fall.
The Devil Is in the Digits
By Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco
Saturday, June 20, 2009; 12:02 AM
Since the declaration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide victory in Iran's presidential election, accusations of fraud have swelled. Against expectations from pollsters and pundits alike, Ahmadinejad did surprisingly well in urban areas, including Tehran -- where he is thought to be highly unpopular -- and even Tabriz, the capital city of opposition candidate Mir Hussein Mousavi's native East Azarbaijan province.
Others have pointed to the surprisingly poor performance of Mehdi Karroubi, another reform candidate, and particularly in his home province of Lorestan, where conservative candidates fared poorly in 2005, but where Ahmadinejad allegedly captured 71 percent of the vote. Eyebrows have been raised further by the relative consistency in Ahmadinejad's vote share across Iran's provinces, in spite of wide provincial variation in past elections.
These pieces of the story point in the direction of fraud, to be sure. They have led experts to speculate that the election results released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior had been altered behind closed doors. But we don't have to rely on suggestive evidence alone. We can use statistics more systematically to show that this is likely what happened. Here's how.
We'll concentrate on vote counts -- the number of votes received by different candidates in different provinces -- and in particular the last and second-to-last digits of these numbers. For example, if a candidate received 14,579 votes in a province (Mr. Karroubi's actual vote count in Isfahan), we'll focus on digits 7 and 9.
This may seem strange, because these digits usually don't change who wins. In fact, last digits in a fair election don't tell us anything about the candidates, the make-up of the electorate or the context of the election. They are random noise in the sense that a fair vote count is as likely to end in 1 as it is to end in 2, 3, 4, or any other numeral. But that's exactly why they can serve as a litmus test for election fraud. For example, an election in which a majority of provincial vote counts ended in 5 would surely raise red flags.
Why would fraudulent numbers look any different? The reason is that humans are bad at making up numbers. Cognitive psychologists have found that study participants in lab experiments asked to write sequences of random digits will tend to select some digits more frequently than others.
So what can we make of Iran's election results? We used the results released by the Ministry of the Interior and published on the web site of Press TV, a news channel funded by Iran's government. The ministry provided data for 29 provinces, and we examined the number of votes each of the four main candidates -- Ahmadinejad, Mousavi, Karroubi and Mohsen Rezai -- is reported to have received in each of the provinces -- a total of 116 numbers.
The numbers look suspicious. We find too many 7s and not enough 5s in the last digit. We expect each digit (0, 1, 2, and so on) to appear at the end of 10 percent of the vote counts. But in Iran's provincial results, the digit 7 appears 17 percent of the time, and only 4 percent of the results end in the number 5. Two such departures from the average -- a spike of 17 percent or more in one digit and a drop to 4 percent or less in another -- are extremely unlikely. Fewer than four in a hundred non-fraudulent elections would produce such numbers.
As a point of comparison, we can analyze the state-by-state vote counts for John McCain and Barack Obama in last year's U.S. presidential election. The frequencies of last digits in these election returns never rise above 14 percent or fall below 6 percent, a pattern we would expect to see in seventy out of a hundred fair elections.
But that's not all. Psychologists have also found that humans have trouble generating non-adjacent digits (such as 64 or 17, as opposed to 23) as frequently as one would expect in a sequence of random numbers. To check for deviations of this type, we examined the pairs of last and second-to-last digits in Iran's vote counts. On average, if the results had not been manipulated, 70 percent of these pairs should consist of distinct, non-adjacent digits.
Not so in the data from Iran: Only 62 percent of the pairs contain non-adjacent digits. This may not sound so different from 70 percent, but the probability that a fair election would produce a difference this large is less than 4.2 percent. And while our first test -- variation in last-digit frequencies -- suggests that Rezai's vote counts are the most irregular, the lack of non-adjacent digits is most striking in the results reported for Ahmadinejad.
Each of these two tests provides strong evidence that the numbers released by Iran's Ministry of the Interior were manipulated. But taken together, they leave very little room for reasonable doubt. The probability that a fair election would produce both too few non-adjacent digits and the suspicious deviations in last-digit frequencies described earlier is less than .005. In other words, a bet that the numbers are clean is a one in two-hundred long shot.
Bernd Beber and Alexandra Scacco, Ph.D. candidates in political science at Columbia University, will be assistant professors in New York University's Wilf Family Department of Politics this fall.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
this Iran election thing
appears to me to be another country mouse vs city cousin thing. While we all find it easier to identify with the city mice who supported the candidate receiving 1/3 of the vote (which was very much in line with pre-election polling), the country mice comprise a majority of the electorate and voted for Ahmadenijad, in the words of the little ones who Art Linkletter used to ask why they loved their mothers on his daily TV show, "because she buys me things." Fact is the rural poor need to have things bought for them, but the educated urbanites feel the country's revenues could be better spent supporting a growth economy that would offer them better employment.
Question is whether the Supreme Leader and the Council of Experts have a vested interest in maintaining the rural poor in their difficult plight in order to preserve a power base of conservative Shiites. I guess it's reasonable to assume that the conservative clerics do wish to maintain and reward the folks who support their "traditional values" message, and they are probably wary of the educated city folks.
The critical factor is the women, who are, under the law, second-class citizens, but who have aspirations of professional and political equality. Again, these educated hopeful women are city mice. It is not likely the other candidate Mousavi has rock star status among the women since in an earlier term as Prime Minister he was very comfortable accomodating the clerics and was not noticably a reformer. It seems that it was Mousavi's wife, a former university chancellor, who sparked the women's hopes of a better future with outspoken campaign speeches. The appearance of a candidates spouse at campaign events in itself was a departure from the norm, and her speaking forcefully at the events gave educated Iranian women hope for change.
I don't think, however that the demonstrators really believe the election was stolen. They're angry that their candidate lost, but acting out in the streets because your candidate lost an election 2 to 1 does not fit into a valid model for a democracy. I think Obama realizes that, and has not been able to call for the rejection of a legitimately elected president. I'm sure he hopes, as do we all, that Islam will somehow grow out of the anachronistic tendency to diminish women's rights and opportunities, but he knows an assault on the imans would be counterproductive.
He wishes to maintain any possible opportunities for constructive dialogue with Iran regarding assistance they can provide in Afghanistan and the possibility of curtailing the Iranian nuclear programs. Since it is the Israelis who hope Obama's recent overtures to Islam will fail to produce beneficial results, and resentful Republicans who are calling on him to reject the results of the election and repudiate Ahmadenijad, I can only hope his cautious balancing act works out in the best interest of all concerned.
Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Question is whether the Supreme Leader and the Council of Experts have a vested interest in maintaining the rural poor in their difficult plight in order to preserve a power base of conservative Shiites. I guess it's reasonable to assume that the conservative clerics do wish to maintain and reward the folks who support their "traditional values" message, and they are probably wary of the educated city folks.
The critical factor is the women, who are, under the law, second-class citizens, but who have aspirations of professional and political equality. Again, these educated hopeful women are city mice. It is not likely the other candidate Mousavi has rock star status among the women since in an earlier term as Prime Minister he was very comfortable accomodating the clerics and was not noticably a reformer. It seems that it was Mousavi's wife, a former university chancellor, who sparked the women's hopes of a better future with outspoken campaign speeches. The appearance of a candidates spouse at campaign events in itself was a departure from the norm, and her speaking forcefully at the events gave educated Iranian women hope for change.
I don't think, however that the demonstrators really believe the election was stolen. They're angry that their candidate lost, but acting out in the streets because your candidate lost an election 2 to 1 does not fit into a valid model for a democracy. I think Obama realizes that, and has not been able to call for the rejection of a legitimately elected president. I'm sure he hopes, as do we all, that Islam will somehow grow out of the anachronistic tendency to diminish women's rights and opportunities, but he knows an assault on the imans would be counterproductive.
He wishes to maintain any possible opportunities for constructive dialogue with Iran regarding assistance they can provide in Afghanistan and the possibility of curtailing the Iranian nuclear programs. Since it is the Israelis who hope Obama's recent overtures to Islam will fail to produce beneficial results, and resentful Republicans who are calling on him to reject the results of the election and repudiate Ahmadenijad, I can only hope his cautious balancing act works out in the best interest of all concerned.
Nobody said it was going to be easy.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Beautiful day
Wasn't it? Janett couldn't sleep last night and I got her up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. She showed resolve and a helpful spirit, coming down to the office to insure Jose and I didn't mess up setting up the payroll for a new client on Quickbooks.
We were invited to a 2PM birthday party for co-worker Evelyn's five I mean six year old daughter Lanie at Randall Oaks, a park I drive by often but seldom stop. Around 1, while we were still working, Louie called and said he was at Randall Oaks for the KofC picnic. Wow! Small world. Good for me - bad for Janett who'd begun thinking in terms of a a courtesy visit to Lanie's party and a quick return home for much needed rest.
I began scaling back my plans, finally to a 15 minute stay with each group, but Janett grew resistant to the idea of going at all. Perhaps she didn't trust me to conform to a scaled down plan. So, I went alone, which happens not uncommonly, when I've exhausted Janett. But the park was nice and I enjoyed seeing Louie and his young adult children, can't really call them kids anymore. Well, I guess we can. The birthday party was wonderful. Lanie was radiant and Evelyn vital and vivacious as ever, engaging fiercely in the water balloon melee. The food was excellent. The poor KofC'ers didn't know what they were missing. Evelyn offered to prepare Janett a plate, but salad, beans, rice, beefsteak with onions and peppers and falling-off-the-bone chicken in red sauce did not promise to travel well on a paper picnic plate, so I compromised with a piece of birthday cake and a couple of slices of watermelon. I think Janett was pleased with the selection and said the cake was particularly good which I didn't know because I'd eaten too much of the main course to try to confront desert.
Janett's retired now (at 8:30PM). Kim just called to say she, Steffy, and the boys were returning from church and could swing by for a visit. Janett groggily declined-but that's OK. We'll see them and accept best Father's Day wishes tomorrow at Jason and Dee's where we'll celebrate Joey's birthday. my life is a mad social whirl.
We were invited to a 2PM birthday party for co-worker Evelyn's five I mean six year old daughter Lanie at Randall Oaks, a park I drive by often but seldom stop. Around 1, while we were still working, Louie called and said he was at Randall Oaks for the KofC picnic. Wow! Small world. Good for me - bad for Janett who'd begun thinking in terms of a a courtesy visit to Lanie's party and a quick return home for much needed rest.
I began scaling back my plans, finally to a 15 minute stay with each group, but Janett grew resistant to the idea of going at all. Perhaps she didn't trust me to conform to a scaled down plan. So, I went alone, which happens not uncommonly, when I've exhausted Janett. But the park was nice and I enjoyed seeing Louie and his young adult children, can't really call them kids anymore. Well, I guess we can. The birthday party was wonderful. Lanie was radiant and Evelyn vital and vivacious as ever, engaging fiercely in the water balloon melee. The food was excellent. The poor KofC'ers didn't know what they were missing. Evelyn offered to prepare Janett a plate, but salad, beans, rice, beefsteak with onions and peppers and falling-off-the-bone chicken in red sauce did not promise to travel well on a paper picnic plate, so I compromised with a piece of birthday cake and a couple of slices of watermelon. I think Janett was pleased with the selection and said the cake was particularly good which I didn't know because I'd eaten too much of the main course to try to confront desert.
Janett's retired now (at 8:30PM). Kim just called to say she, Steffy, and the boys were returning from church and could swing by for a visit. Janett groggily declined-but that's OK. We'll see them and accept best Father's Day wishes tomorrow at Jason and Dee's where we'll celebrate Joey's birthday. my life is a mad social whirl.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Did you hear about the two Japanese guys
arrested by Italian police at the Swiss border trying to smuggle $134 billon dollars in US Treasury bonds into Switzerland in a false bottom suitcase? It hasn't been a big news item. Why not? Here's a link to the original story in Asia News, but there has not been a lot of coverage in the week since the original report.
If these bonds were in a denomination of $1000 there would have been 135 million of them. That would have been some humongous suitcase. But no, these bonds were in denominations of $500 million and even a billion dollars each. Since darned few investors have a billion dollars to invest at any given moment, these bonds were presumably printed to faciltate transactions between governments or central banks.
Italian authorities says they're investigating to determine whether the bonds are counterfeit. There have been rumors of the North Korean government investing in high tech counterfeiting enterprises. Maybe, but I don't think so. I mean if you were in a position to buy a billion dollar bond, you're probably smart enough to validate their authenticity. Of course, sometimes counterfeit bonds have been used to post as collateral for a big loan, and maybe scrutiny was less strenuous than in the event of a sale. But at this kind of value I doubt procedures would be lax.
So the fun part of the story is the the speculation about whose bonds they are. First guess would be the Japanese (or some other Asian government) treasury trying to to dump dollars in Switzerland through channels that would be untraceable. If there was more coverage of the story, maybe clever conspiracy theorists could come up with scenarios even more intriguing. The government dumping theory, though, is interesting enough in its implications.
If these bonds were in a denomination of $1000 there would have been 135 million of them. That would have been some humongous suitcase. But no, these bonds were in denominations of $500 million and even a billion dollars each. Since darned few investors have a billion dollars to invest at any given moment, these bonds were presumably printed to faciltate transactions between governments or central banks.
Italian authorities says they're investigating to determine whether the bonds are counterfeit. There have been rumors of the North Korean government investing in high tech counterfeiting enterprises. Maybe, but I don't think so. I mean if you were in a position to buy a billion dollar bond, you're probably smart enough to validate their authenticity. Of course, sometimes counterfeit bonds have been used to post as collateral for a big loan, and maybe scrutiny was less strenuous than in the event of a sale. But at this kind of value I doubt procedures would be lax.
So the fun part of the story is the the speculation about whose bonds they are. First guess would be the Japanese (or some other Asian government) treasury trying to to dump dollars in Switzerland through channels that would be untraceable. If there was more coverage of the story, maybe clever conspiracy theorists could come up with scenarios even more intriguing. The government dumping theory, though, is interesting enough in its implications.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Homesick? Get your home town news here!
(Unless you come from N Dakota or Wyoming.) Julie sent this link. No comments please on superimposing the red and blue map.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
I'm going to work, Heres something for you.
My vituperations against Geithner, Bernancke and the Goldman Sachs crowd are not intended obscure the fact that other causes lie at the root of the economic meltdown. This article addresses the macroeconomics. In order to entice you to read it, I will not condense or summarize it.
I hope everyone is having a nice day.
I hope everyone is having a nice day.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
You know I support Obama, but wonder why he's
relying on the same old crowd at Treasury and the Fed.
Here's an article fron the New York Times today.
The Economy Is Still at the Brink
By SANDY B. LEWIS and WILLIAM D. COHAN
Published: June 7, 2009
WHETHER at a fund-raising dinner for wealthy supporters in Beverly Hills, or at an Air Force base in Nevada, or at Charlie Rose’s table in New York City, President Obama is conducting an all-out campaign to try to make us feel a whole lot better about the economy as quickly as possible. “It’s safe to say we have stepped back from the brink, that there is some calm that didn’t exist before,” he told donors at the Beverly Hilton Hotel late last month.
Mr. Obama thinks that the way to revive the economy is to restore confidence in it. If the mood is right, the capital will flow. But this belief is dangerously misguided. We are sympathetic to the extraordinary challenge the president faces, but if we’ve learned anything at all two years into the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, it is that a capital-markets system this dependent on public confidence is a shockingly inadequate foundation upon which to rest our economy.
We have both spent large chunks of our lives working on Wall Street, absorbing its ethic and mores. We’re concerned that nothing has really been fixed. We’re doubly concerned that people appear to feel the worst of the storm is over — and in this, they are aided and abetted by a hugely popular and charismatic president and by the fact that the Dow has increased by 35 percent or so since Mr. Obama started to lay out his economic plans in March. But wishing for improvement and managing by the Dow’s swings are a fool’s game. (Disclosure: One of us, Mr. Lewis, was convicted on federal charges of stock manipulation in 1989, pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001 and had his lifetime trading ban overturned by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006; documents relating to the case can be found at sblewis.net.)
The storm is not over, not by a long shot. Huge structural flaws remain in the architecture of our financial system, and many of the fixes that the Obama administration has proposed will do little to address them and may make them worse. At another fund-raising event, for Senator Harry Reid, President Obama said: “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face. But we are determined to answer the call to meet those challenges, to cast aside the old arguments and overcome the stubborn divisions and move forward as one people and one nation .... It will take time but I promise you, I promise you, I’ll always tell you the truth about the challenges we face.”
Keeping that statement in mind — as well as an abiding faith in the importance of properly functioning capital markets — we have come up with a set of questions meant to challenge a popular president, with vast majorities in Congress, to find the flaws in the system, to figure out what’s being done to fix them and to get to the truth about the difficulties we face as we set out to restore the proper functioning of our markets and our standing in the world.
Here's an article fron the New York Times today.
The Economy Is Still at the Brink
By SANDY B. LEWIS and WILLIAM D. COHAN
Published: June 7, 2009
WHETHER at a fund-raising dinner for wealthy supporters in Beverly Hills, or at an Air Force base in Nevada, or at Charlie Rose’s table in New York City, President Obama is conducting an all-out campaign to try to make us feel a whole lot better about the economy as quickly as possible. “It’s safe to say we have stepped back from the brink, that there is some calm that didn’t exist before,” he told donors at the Beverly Hilton Hotel late last month.
Mr. Obama thinks that the way to revive the economy is to restore confidence in it. If the mood is right, the capital will flow. But this belief is dangerously misguided. We are sympathetic to the extraordinary challenge the president faces, but if we’ve learned anything at all two years into the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, it is that a capital-markets system this dependent on public confidence is a shockingly inadequate foundation upon which to rest our economy.
We have both spent large chunks of our lives working on Wall Street, absorbing its ethic and mores. We’re concerned that nothing has really been fixed. We’re doubly concerned that people appear to feel the worst of the storm is over — and in this, they are aided and abetted by a hugely popular and charismatic president and by the fact that the Dow has increased by 35 percent or so since Mr. Obama started to lay out his economic plans in March. But wishing for improvement and managing by the Dow’s swings are a fool’s game. (Disclosure: One of us, Mr. Lewis, was convicted on federal charges of stock manipulation in 1989, pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001 and had his lifetime trading ban overturned by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2006; documents relating to the case can be found at sblewis.net.)
The storm is not over, not by a long shot. Huge structural flaws remain in the architecture of our financial system, and many of the fixes that the Obama administration has proposed will do little to address them and may make them worse. At another fund-raising event, for Senator Harry Reid, President Obama said: “We didn’t ask for the challenges that we face. But we are determined to answer the call to meet those challenges, to cast aside the old arguments and overcome the stubborn divisions and move forward as one people and one nation .... It will take time but I promise you, I promise you, I’ll always tell you the truth about the challenges we face.”
Keeping that statement in mind — as well as an abiding faith in the importance of properly functioning capital markets — we have come up with a set of questions meant to challenge a popular president, with vast majorities in Congress, to find the flaws in the system, to figure out what’s being done to fix them and to get to the truth about the difficulties we face as we set out to restore the proper functioning of our markets and our standing in the world.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Not So Fun
In my March 11th post on Phillip Purcell I questioned Mr Pandit's veracity.
I'm not the only one. This is from a Bloomberg news article.
Bank Profits From Accounting Rules Masking Looming Loan Losses
By Yalman Onaran
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Big banks in the U.S. say they’re on the mend. The five largest were profitable in the first quarter, rebounding from record losses for the industry in the fourth quarter. Share prices have jumped, with the KBW Bank Index doubling since March 6.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, after “stress testing” 19 banks on their ability to withstand a worsening economy, declared in early May that Americans can be confident in the banks’ stability and resilience. Wells Fargo & Co. and Morgan Stanley were among banks raising $43 billion in new capital since then through share sales.
“With our capital and assets, stressed as they have been, we can go back to focusing all our attention on managing our business and restoring value,” Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit said after Geithner’s examinations were completed.
The revival may be short-lived. Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are.
The government probably wants to win time for the banks, keeping them alive as they struggle to earn their way out of the mess, says economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University in New York. The danger is that weak banks will remain reluctant to lend, hobbling President Barack Obama’s efforts to pull the economy out of recession.
‘Bogus’ Profit
Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on the pig."
This is just part of a good article. It's linked above if you want more.
Also, it's part of my "sour grapes" rationale for losing money on my last 4 options trades. If the banks aren't lending the money what are they doing with it. I think they must be giving it to investment companies to run the market up to show some profits for the quarter. Once Mr Smith decides it's safe to go back into the market and recoup some losses, they'll be happy to sell to him at inflated prices.
Jimmy Rogers, commodity trader extrordinaire says for nearly the first time in his trading career, he's not short any stocks, because this newly printed "money" being pushed into the market could run the market up to 15 or 20 thousand on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. He's not sure, but he can't take the chance on shorting. So he's buying commodity futures, on the hunch the same inflationary pressures raising the Dow will affect commodities, but the demand for commodities won't dry up overnight the way the buyers in the stock market will when the time comes.
I'm not sure the market will rise over 10,500. I mean, have people completely forgotten about price earning multiples and balance sheets? But my put buying is temporarily suspended.
I'm not the only one. This is from a Bloomberg news article.
Bank Profits From Accounting Rules Masking Looming Loan Losses
By Yalman Onaran
June 5 (Bloomberg) -- Big banks in the U.S. say they’re on the mend. The five largest were profitable in the first quarter, rebounding from record losses for the industry in the fourth quarter. Share prices have jumped, with the KBW Bank Index doubling since March 6.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, after “stress testing” 19 banks on their ability to withstand a worsening economy, declared in early May that Americans can be confident in the banks’ stability and resilience. Wells Fargo & Co. and Morgan Stanley were among banks raising $43 billion in new capital since then through share sales.
“With our capital and assets, stressed as they have been, we can go back to focusing all our attention on managing our business and restoring value,” Citigroup Inc. Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit said after Geithner’s examinations were completed.
The revival may be short-lived. Analysts who have examined the quarterly profits and government tests say that accounting rule changes and rosy assumptions are making the institutions look healthier than they are.
The government probably wants to win time for the banks, keeping them alive as they struggle to earn their way out of the mess, says economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University in New York. The danger is that weak banks will remain reluctant to lend, hobbling President Barack Obama’s efforts to pull the economy out of recession.
‘Bogus’ Profit
Citigroup’s $1.6 billion in first-quarter profit would vanish if accounting were more stringent, says Martin Weiss of Weiss Research Inc. in Jupiter, Florida. “The big banks’ profits were totally bogus,” says Weiss, whose 38-year-old firm rates financial companies. “The new accounting rules, the stress tests: They’re all part of a major effort to put lipstick on the pig."
This is just part of a good article. It's linked above if you want more.
Also, it's part of my "sour grapes" rationale for losing money on my last 4 options trades. If the banks aren't lending the money what are they doing with it. I think they must be giving it to investment companies to run the market up to show some profits for the quarter. Once Mr Smith decides it's safe to go back into the market and recoup some losses, they'll be happy to sell to him at inflated prices.
Jimmy Rogers, commodity trader extrordinaire says for nearly the first time in his trading career, he's not short any stocks, because this newly printed "money" being pushed into the market could run the market up to 15 or 20 thousand on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. He's not sure, but he can't take the chance on shorting. So he's buying commodity futures, on the hunch the same inflationary pressures raising the Dow will affect commodities, but the demand for commodities won't dry up overnight the way the buyers in the stock market will when the time comes.
I'm not sure the market will rise over 10,500. I mean, have people completely forgotten about price earning multiples and balance sheets? But my put buying is temporarily suspended.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Fun
We went to Owen's first B-Day party yesterday, and everything was delightful. After a gray chill morning the sun came out big time and it was very comfortable in Steffy and Mark's yard. The party had a pirate theme, so there was buccaneer paraphernalia everywhere, and folks with pseudo-pirate garb, and a lot of "Aargh, maties" We got there a little early so Janett could help with the prep. Owen heard my voice in the other room after being put down for a nap and decided he's rather be carried around than sleep, so by the end of the day he was cashed but happy. Malachy was more attuned to the party's motif, and enjoyed it, although, when he didn't win the "Pin the Patch on the Pirate Game" he said that it was a bad party and he was leaving. He went to the kitchen table to color, but was coaxed back to the yard a little later. Stephy made cupcakes for the children and with the leftover batter made a small cake so owen could be helped to blow out a candle. He then mangled the little cake, and had to leave the party for a brief clean up.
And here's Mally getting all romantic:
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Rough Sailing Ahead
"The Worst Is Yet to Come": If You're Not Petrified, You're Not Paying Attention
Posted May 15, 2009 09:31am EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Recession, Banking, Autos, Housing
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, DDR, XLF, GM, RWR
The green shoots story took a bit of hit this week between data on April retail sales, weekly jobless claims and foreclosures. But the whole concept of the economy finding its footing was "preposterous" to begin with, says Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates. "We're in a complete mess and the consumer is smart enough to know it," says Davidowitz, whose firm does consulting for the retail industry. "If the consumer isn't petrified, he or she is a damn fool."
Davidowitz, who is nothing if not opinionated (and colorful), paints a very grim picture: "The worst is yet to come with consumers and banks," he says. "This country is going into a 10-year decline. Living standards will never be the same."
This outlook is based on the following main points:
With the unemployment rate rising into double digits - and that's not counting the millions of "underemployed" Americans - consumers are hitting the breaks, which is having a huge impact, given consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.
Rising unemployment and the $8 trillion negative wealth effect of housing mean more Americans will default on not just mortgages but student loans and auto loans and credit card debt.
More consumer loan defaults will hit banks, which are also threatened by what Davidowitz calls a "depression" in commercial real estate, noting the recent bankruptcy of General Growth Properties and distressed sales by Developers Diversified and other REITs.
As for all the hullabaloo about the stress tests, he says they were a sham and part of a "con game to get private money to finance these institutions because [Treasury] can't get more money from Congress. It's the ‘greater fool' theory."
"We're now in Barack Obama's world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy and we're bailing everyone out," says Daviowitz, who opposes bailouts for financials and automakers alike. "The bailout money is in the sewer and gone."
Posted May 15, 2009 09:31am EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Recession, Banking, Autos, Housing
Related: ^DJI, ^GSPC, DDR, XLF, GM, RWR
The green shoots story took a bit of hit this week between data on April retail sales, weekly jobless claims and foreclosures. But the whole concept of the economy finding its footing was "preposterous" to begin with, says Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates. "We're in a complete mess and the consumer is smart enough to know it," says Davidowitz, whose firm does consulting for the retail industry. "If the consumer isn't petrified, he or she is a damn fool."
Davidowitz, who is nothing if not opinionated (and colorful), paints a very grim picture: "The worst is yet to come with consumers and banks," he says. "This country is going into a 10-year decline. Living standards will never be the same."
This outlook is based on the following main points:
With the unemployment rate rising into double digits - and that's not counting the millions of "underemployed" Americans - consumers are hitting the breaks, which is having a huge impact, given consumer spending accounts for about 70% of economic activity.
Rising unemployment and the $8 trillion negative wealth effect of housing mean more Americans will default on not just mortgages but student loans and auto loans and credit card debt.
More consumer loan defaults will hit banks, which are also threatened by what Davidowitz calls a "depression" in commercial real estate, noting the recent bankruptcy of General Growth Properties and distressed sales by Developers Diversified and other REITs.
As for all the hullabaloo about the stress tests, he says they were a sham and part of a "con game to get private money to finance these institutions because [Treasury] can't get more money from Congress. It's the ‘greater fool' theory."
"We're now in Barack Obama's world where money goes into the most inefficient parts of the economy and we're bailing everyone out," says Daviowitz, who opposes bailouts for financials and automakers alike. "The bailout money is in the sewer and gone."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Still in posting purgatory.
But enough about me let's talk about you for awhile.
Jason is now 37, and working more hours than a lot of electrical subs right now.
Dee's indispensable role with her employer seems to be providing job security. She threw Jase a very nice party last Sunday.
Val may decide to take the summer off to be with the kids and go back to work in the fall.
John is pleased his company is spending on equipment at the site he manages. That makes one feel a little more secure.
Nate and Angie were in town for Sue's dad's funeral while J and I were in GA, so we didn't get an update from them. Hope all is well. We're sorry for the loss.
Ross is interviewing, but took off for a couple weeks off to visit family in NC
Kimmy is where she's happiest - with Ross, and the trip may pay a big dividend in the form of Ross's Mom's old Yukon which runs a lot better than that KIA or whatever parked in the drive in Lombard.
Steffy is worn and torn, stressed and fatigued by the two little boys, and wants to have a little girl. (?) Busy right now preparing for Owen's 1st Bday party.
Mark's survived a couple cuts at the church and is working a lot of hours, and is a very good daddy.
Noah's been posting to Facebook and even his blog, which shows how sociable he can be when not doubled down with work and school.
And Lauren, Well, heh, heh, Lauren has some big news to share, in it's own good time.
wink wink nudge nudge.
Jeff Samardzija got sent back to Iowa by the Cubs just before they went on their recent skid: and let that be a lesson to them.
Love to all.
Jason is now 37, and working more hours than a lot of electrical subs right now.
Dee's indispensable role with her employer seems to be providing job security. She threw Jase a very nice party last Sunday.
Val may decide to take the summer off to be with the kids and go back to work in the fall.
John is pleased his company is spending on equipment at the site he manages. That makes one feel a little more secure.
Nate and Angie were in town for Sue's dad's funeral while J and I were in GA, so we didn't get an update from them. Hope all is well. We're sorry for the loss.
Ross is interviewing, but took off for a couple weeks off to visit family in NC
Kimmy is where she's happiest - with Ross, and the trip may pay a big dividend in the form of Ross's Mom's old Yukon which runs a lot better than that KIA or whatever parked in the drive in Lombard.
Steffy is worn and torn, stressed and fatigued by the two little boys, and wants to have a little girl. (?) Busy right now preparing for Owen's 1st Bday party.
Mark's survived a couple cuts at the church and is working a lot of hours, and is a very good daddy.
Noah's been posting to Facebook and even his blog, which shows how sociable he can be when not doubled down with work and school.
And Lauren, Well, heh, heh, Lauren has some big news to share, in it's own good time.
wink wink nudge nudge.
Jeff Samardzija got sent back to Iowa by the Cubs just before they went on their recent skid: and let that be a lesson to them.
Love to all.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Spirit
I also appreciated Tim's quoting CS Lewis, something like, You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body."
My soul didn't get the lift I was seeking at Willow yesterday. Nancy Beech spoke about the value of friendship, and the diminunition of our sense of friendship is this digital age. All very good, but not what I was looking for yesterday. Still, maybe she was saying what I needed to hear, in the sense that what might be lacking for me is a Christian fellowship with whom to interact and grow, from whom to receive encouragement and criticism. That's the thing about going to church, what you're looking for isn't always what you need.
Julie emailed me this link which yielded these pictures. Touching story.
My soul didn't get the lift I was seeking at Willow yesterday. Nancy Beech spoke about the value of friendship, and the diminunition of our sense of friendship is this digital age. All very good, but not what I was looking for yesterday. Still, maybe she was saying what I needed to hear, in the sense that what might be lacking for me is a Christian fellowship with whom to interact and grow, from whom to receive encouragement and criticism. That's the thing about going to church, what you're looking for isn't always what you need.
Julie emailed me this link which yielded these pictures. Touching story.
I googled the punch line from the the joke on Tim's
Facebook page, "With all this horse shit, there must be a pony in here somewhere."
This was the funnest link I found, a pagan 12 stepper.
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS AND THE NEO-PAGAN
by: "the Bard"
GODDESS: Grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change,
the COURAGE to change the things I can,
and the WISDOM to know the difference.....!
-the Serenity Prayer
*
Aw, f**k it!
-Serenity Prayer (short form)
*
(DISCLAIMER: the opinions in this article are my own, and should not, and
must not, be taken as necessarily the opinions of AA as a whole. AA does
NOT endorse ANY specific religious belief. To quote the standard definition:
"AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or
institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses or
opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other
alcoholics to achieve sobriety." GOT THAT?)
*
JUSTIFICATION 101
Taoists say, "Shit happens."
Buddhists say, "If shit happens, it's not really shit."
Zen says, "What is the sound of shit happening?"
Hindus say, "This shit happened before."
Muslims say, "If shit happens, Allah wills it."
Protestants say, "If shit happens, let it happen to someone else."
Catholics say, "If shit happens, you deserve it."
Fundies say, "If shit happens, the Devil did it!"
Jews say, "Why does shit always happen to us?"
Baha'is say, "If shit happens, it's a Spiritual Experience!"
Wiccans say, "There's gotta be a pony in here someplace!"
*
Alcoholics don't take lovers...they take hostages.
*
"Hi! My name's "the Bard," and I'm a grateful alcoholic and Recovering
Anglican."
(Hi, Bard!)
Now, for those lucky ones of you that are reading this who are -not-
drunks.....maybe none of this applies to you, tho you could perhaps learn
something from it. Just bear in mind that if you haven't "been there," then
you don't truly understand what it's like. Try to bear with us; we're not
finished yet...
*
Probably the best way to start is to talk about the Twelve Steps of
AA....and comment on them from a Pagan point of view. Being Pagan doesn't
make us any better that anyone else, but it does affect our view of the
Universe. Being alcoholics, however, we will tend to do what every other
alky does, and start logic-chopping and complicating even the simplest things
into utterly unrecognizable impossibilties...and when we do -that- we can
say to ourselves, "It's too hard for me. I can't do that."
Keep it SIMPLE, stupid!
A question to think about: To properly work magick, you must be in
full possession of your faculties. You think you can work magick -drunk-?
HAH! That's kinda like giving an armed nuke to a three-year old child.....
Maybe it'll work out OK, and then again.......odds are pretty good that you'll
get a BIG hole in the ground REAL soon!
Another question to think about: do you wonder, sometimes, if you
maybe -are- an alcoholic? Well, ole hoss, if you gotta wonder about it, then
you probably are.......alcoholism is a DISEASE. It is -not- an immoral defect
in you. It is NOT a "failing." It is simply a disease, and there is NO cure.
There is, however, a way to recover from it. Read on!
*
STEP ONE: We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives
had become unmanageable.
This one is pretty obvious, and doesn't need a lot of comment. It
applies the same to the Fundie as it does to the Pagan. If you
just can't handle alcohol, you just can't handle it. Period.
STEP TWO: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore
us to sanity.
What is the Goddess/God -but- a "power" greater than ourselves?
There IS a "Higher Power." Call it what you will. Call it God,
call it Goddess, call it Ralph, if you wanna, but it IS there,
and surrendering your EGO to it is necessary for it to work.
Brad Hicks said that "Nothing so chokes Magick as EGO," and he
was right!
STEP THREE: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care
of God, as we understood Him.
Now, PAY ATTENTION! It says "as we understood.." Yeah, it says
"God" and "Him." So what? This was written to reach out to people.
Ya want it to say "Goddess" and "Her?" FINE! Say it that way to
yourself. I know a guy that said "Ralph" and "It." Worked fine!
-Don't- get hung up in semantics. You got an agenda, take it
somewhere else. You bring it into AA, and you'll stay drunk.
I notice that fella in the third row right is having problems with
the semantics here...he's associating "God" (or "Higher Power")
with that Big Fella with the Long White Beard that sits up in the
Great White Throne of Judgement and writes down everything bad you
do so He can punish you for it. I thought we had thrown out that
concept of the Punishing God! We ain't talking Fundie here, boy!
By "ego" I do not mean your free will. This you have. This you will
always have. I mean surrendering that part of you that sits in the
corner and screams defiance at an uncaring world. The "child-self,"
if you will. "Child" is selfish, uncaring, and manipulative. These
are things we need to recover -from-. "Child" will manipulate by many
techniques, one of which being "people pleasing." (We need to recover
from -that-, too.)
Besides, if you are a practicing alky, your "will" consists mainly of
finding a way to get drunk. Pbflth! That ain't "will." That's an
addiction.
STEP FOUR: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
OOPS! Here's a hard one! That icky buzzword "moral!" I hear a
LOT from Wiccans about the differences between "morals" and
"ethics." Frankly, if the actions/attitudes are harmful, then they
can be called immoral/unethical. "An ye harm NONE, do what ye will."
If your actions hurt someone, YOU need to realize it, and admit it.
See the next step. Logic-chopping at this point will only get you
into trouble. If you wanna read "ethics" for "morals," go right
ahead....just be honest with yourself. As a practicing alky, you've
lied to yourself long enough.
STEP FIVE: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the
exact nature of our wrongs.
So tell the Goddess (or Ralph) your problems with dealing with
life, liberty and the pursuit of tapioca pudding. Tell it to
yourself, too. GET A SPONSOR and talk to them about it. Pretty
simple, really.
STEP SIX: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
character.
Talk to your sponsor about this one. The Goddess (or Ralph) will
do it, if you can get out from behind your own EGO long enough to
let it happen....
STEP SEVEN: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Notice it says..."humbly." Contrary to the belief of -every-
single alky I've ever known, we are NOT the Center Of The
Universe.
As amazing as it may sound, the Goddess runs the Multi-verse quite
well on Her own. -You- can't even handle alcohol on your own, so
what makes you think you can run the Multi-verse?
STEP EIGHT: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to
make amends to them all.
Yeah, I know, Karma has taken care of it. But that's on the level
of the whole Multi-verse. Make your list. This helps you to admit
to yourself (see the steps above) just where you were being a jerk.
Notice also it says "...became willing..." This does not mean "made
amends." It means you are WILLING, sincerely willing, to make those
amends. Karma has already stomped on you, if you think about it, but
for your own growth you MUST cop to this.
STEP NINE: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when
to do so would injure them or others.
This is pretty obvious, don't you think? You got questions about
this, ask your sponsor.
STEP TEN: Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong
promptly admitted it.
"I thought I had made a misteak once, but I was wrong."
(Good epitaph for anyone who died drunk! You die drunk, you stay
drunk next time around, until you get the message...you wanna do
that, go right ahead. Call me when you become teachable.)
It's always pretty hard to admit to making a mistake...Wiccans and
other neo-Pagans are no different than anyone else about that one.
STEP ELEVEN: Sought thru prayer and meditation to improve our conscious
contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for
knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out.
No problem here for Pagans, is there? I mean after all, isn't
this exactly what we're trying to do in the first place? You
ain't gonna do diddely-squat with magick without the Higher
Power, anyway.....and this step is a doggone good lesson in
what real magick -really- is all about. Think about it for a
while.
It is your Will that wants you to get sober. It is your EGO that
keeps you drinking, along with the physical "allergy." Take that
EGO, that spoiled child-self, and turn it over to the Goddess. Or
Ralph.
STEP TWELVE: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps,
we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice
these principles in all our affairs.
So whattya think I'm -doing- here ?
*
Just for funsies, let's look at those steps in -reverse-......
***************************************************************
THE 12 STEPS IN REVERSE
SUCCESSFUL RULES FOR THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF THE ALCOHOLIC
1. I stated that I could handle liquor and/or drugs, and I was master
of my fate.
2. Firmly believed that I was entirely rational and sane in every
respect.
3. Made a decision to run my own life and be successful in all my
undertakings.
4. Made a searching and thorough inventory of my fellow man and found
him wanting.
5. Admitted to no one, including God and myself, that there was
anything wrong with me.
6. Sought through alcohol and/or drugs to overcome my responsibilities
and escape the realities of life.
7. Got drunk/stoned to remove these shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons who had harmed me, whether imaginary or
real, and swore to get even.
9. Got even whenever possible, except when to do so would injure me.
10. Continued to find fault with the world and with the people in it,
and when I was right, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through conniving and hypocrisy to improve myself
materially at the expense of my fellow man as I misunderstood him,
asking only for the means to get and stay drunk or stoned and escape
from reality.
12. After having a complete moral, physical and financial breakdown, I
tried to drag those who were dear to me down to my level, and to
practice these reasonings in all my affairs.
*******************************************************************
Well?
It may be that you are still a practicing alcoholic. You are still
drinking and drugging and making everyone around you miserable. I won't
preach to you. If that's what you want to do, then that's fine with me.
That's -your- problem, not mine. I am dealing with -me-, today, not with
you.
When you hit bottom, whatever that may be to you, whether it is
winding up in the drunk tank, or squatting in a corner with DT's, or
being thrown thru the roof of a car at 65 MPH (and surviving it), or having
blackouts, or losing everything you have, or, Goddess forbid, killing some
one else with your car.....and the Goddess FINALLY gets your attention,
then remember that AA is out there, and CAN help you.
Call your local Central Office, and get the location, date and
time of a meeting near you. If you need a ride to it, they'll be glad to
help out. Get a copy of the Big Book, and read it.
Go to meetings. Read the Big Book. You don't even have to -say-
anything in meetings. Just sit there and listen for a while, if that's
what you feel you need to do.....but GO TO THE DAMN MEETINGS!
This is being published, initially, over BBSes. Your local BBS,
if it is FIDONET, may carry the RECOVERY echo. It is available on the
backbone, and can be brought in by your local SysOp. Ask for it. Read it.
It's for -you-.
*
Blessed Be!
Sober, one day at a time:
-the Bard
Yule, 1990 CE
This was the funnest link I found, a pagan 12 stepper.
ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS AND THE NEO-PAGAN
by: "the Bard"
GODDESS: Grant me the SERENITY to accept the things I cannot change,
the COURAGE to change the things I can,
and the WISDOM to know the difference.....!
-the Serenity Prayer
*
Aw, f**k it!
-Serenity Prayer (short form)
*
(DISCLAIMER: the opinions in this article are my own, and should not, and
must not, be taken as necessarily the opinions of AA as a whole. AA does
NOT endorse ANY specific religious belief. To quote the standard definition:
"AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or
institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses or
opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other
alcoholics to achieve sobriety." GOT THAT?)
*
JUSTIFICATION 101
Taoists say, "Shit happens."
Buddhists say, "If shit happens, it's not really shit."
Zen says, "What is the sound of shit happening?"
Hindus say, "This shit happened before."
Muslims say, "If shit happens, Allah wills it."
Protestants say, "If shit happens, let it happen to someone else."
Catholics say, "If shit happens, you deserve it."
Fundies say, "If shit happens, the Devil did it!"
Jews say, "Why does shit always happen to us?"
Baha'is say, "If shit happens, it's a Spiritual Experience!"
Wiccans say, "There's gotta be a pony in here someplace!"
*
Alcoholics don't take lovers...they take hostages.
*
"Hi! My name's "the Bard," and I'm a grateful alcoholic and Recovering
Anglican."
(Hi, Bard!)
Now, for those lucky ones of you that are reading this who are -not-
drunks.....maybe none of this applies to you, tho you could perhaps learn
something from it. Just bear in mind that if you haven't "been there," then
you don't truly understand what it's like. Try to bear with us; we're not
finished yet...
*
Probably the best way to start is to talk about the Twelve Steps of
AA....and comment on them from a Pagan point of view. Being Pagan doesn't
make us any better that anyone else, but it does affect our view of the
Universe. Being alcoholics, however, we will tend to do what every other
alky does, and start logic-chopping and complicating even the simplest things
into utterly unrecognizable impossibilties...and when we do -that- we can
say to ourselves, "It's too hard for me. I can't do that."
Keep it SIMPLE, stupid!
A question to think about: To properly work magick, you must be in
full possession of your faculties. You think you can work magick -drunk-?
HAH! That's kinda like giving an armed nuke to a three-year old child.....
Maybe it'll work out OK, and then again.......odds are pretty good that you'll
get a BIG hole in the ground REAL soon!
Another question to think about: do you wonder, sometimes, if you
maybe -are- an alcoholic? Well, ole hoss, if you gotta wonder about it, then
you probably are.......alcoholism is a DISEASE. It is -not- an immoral defect
in you. It is NOT a "failing." It is simply a disease, and there is NO cure.
There is, however, a way to recover from it. Read on!
*
STEP ONE: We admitted that we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives
had become unmanageable.
This one is pretty obvious, and doesn't need a lot of comment. It
applies the same to the Fundie as it does to the Pagan. If you
just can't handle alcohol, you just can't handle it. Period.
STEP TWO: Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore
us to sanity.
What is the Goddess/God -but- a "power" greater than ourselves?
There IS a "Higher Power." Call it what you will. Call it God,
call it Goddess, call it Ralph, if you wanna, but it IS there,
and surrendering your EGO to it is necessary for it to work.
Brad Hicks said that "Nothing so chokes Magick as EGO," and he
was right!
STEP THREE: Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care
of God, as we understood Him.
Now, PAY ATTENTION! It says "as we understood.." Yeah, it says
"God" and "Him." So what? This was written to reach out to people.
Ya want it to say "Goddess" and "Her?" FINE! Say it that way to
yourself. I know a guy that said "Ralph" and "It." Worked fine!
-Don't- get hung up in semantics. You got an agenda, take it
somewhere else. You bring it into AA, and you'll stay drunk.
I notice that fella in the third row right is having problems with
the semantics here...he's associating "God" (or "Higher Power")
with that Big Fella with the Long White Beard that sits up in the
Great White Throne of Judgement and writes down everything bad you
do so He can punish you for it. I thought we had thrown out that
concept of the Punishing God! We ain't talking Fundie here, boy!
By "ego" I do not mean your free will. This you have. This you will
always have. I mean surrendering that part of you that sits in the
corner and screams defiance at an uncaring world. The "child-self,"
if you will. "Child" is selfish, uncaring, and manipulative. These
are things we need to recover -from-. "Child" will manipulate by many
techniques, one of which being "people pleasing." (We need to recover
from -that-, too.)
Besides, if you are a practicing alky, your "will" consists mainly of
finding a way to get drunk. Pbflth! That ain't "will." That's an
addiction.
STEP FOUR: Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
OOPS! Here's a hard one! That icky buzzword "moral!" I hear a
LOT from Wiccans about the differences between "morals" and
"ethics." Frankly, if the actions/attitudes are harmful, then they
can be called immoral/unethical. "An ye harm NONE, do what ye will."
If your actions hurt someone, YOU need to realize it, and admit it.
See the next step. Logic-chopping at this point will only get you
into trouble. If you wanna read "ethics" for "morals," go right
ahead....just be honest with yourself. As a practicing alky, you've
lied to yourself long enough.
STEP FIVE: Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the
exact nature of our wrongs.
So tell the Goddess (or Ralph) your problems with dealing with
life, liberty and the pursuit of tapioca pudding. Tell it to
yourself, too. GET A SPONSOR and talk to them about it. Pretty
simple, really.
STEP SIX: Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of
character.
Talk to your sponsor about this one. The Goddess (or Ralph) will
do it, if you can get out from behind your own EGO long enough to
let it happen....
STEP SEVEN: Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
Notice it says..."humbly." Contrary to the belief of -every-
single alky I've ever known, we are NOT the Center Of The
Universe.
As amazing as it may sound, the Goddess runs the Multi-verse quite
well on Her own. -You- can't even handle alcohol on your own, so
what makes you think you can run the Multi-verse?
STEP EIGHT: Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to
make amends to them all.
Yeah, I know, Karma has taken care of it. But that's on the level
of the whole Multi-verse. Make your list. This helps you to admit
to yourself (see the steps above) just where you were being a jerk.
Notice also it says "...became willing..." This does not mean "made
amends." It means you are WILLING, sincerely willing, to make those
amends. Karma has already stomped on you, if you think about it, but
for your own growth you MUST cop to this.
STEP NINE: Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when
to do so would injure them or others.
This is pretty obvious, don't you think? You got questions about
this, ask your sponsor.
STEP TEN: Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong
promptly admitted it.
"I thought I had made a misteak once, but I was wrong."
(Good epitaph for anyone who died drunk! You die drunk, you stay
drunk next time around, until you get the message...you wanna do
that, go right ahead. Call me when you become teachable.)
It's always pretty hard to admit to making a mistake...Wiccans and
other neo-Pagans are no different than anyone else about that one.
STEP ELEVEN: Sought thru prayer and meditation to improve our conscious
contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for
knowledge of His Will for us and the power to carry that out.
No problem here for Pagans, is there? I mean after all, isn't
this exactly what we're trying to do in the first place? You
ain't gonna do diddely-squat with magick without the Higher
Power, anyway.....and this step is a doggone good lesson in
what real magick -really- is all about. Think about it for a
while.
It is your Will that wants you to get sober. It is your EGO that
keeps you drinking, along with the physical "allergy." Take that
EGO, that spoiled child-self, and turn it over to the Goddess. Or
Ralph.
STEP TWELVE: Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps,
we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice
these principles in all our affairs.
So whattya think I'm -doing- here ?
*
Just for funsies, let's look at those steps in -reverse-......
***************************************************************
THE 12 STEPS IN REVERSE
SUCCESSFUL RULES FOR THE SELF-DESTRUCTION OF THE ALCOHOLIC
1. I stated that I could handle liquor and/or drugs, and I was master
of my fate.
2. Firmly believed that I was entirely rational and sane in every
respect.
3. Made a decision to run my own life and be successful in all my
undertakings.
4. Made a searching and thorough inventory of my fellow man and found
him wanting.
5. Admitted to no one, including God and myself, that there was
anything wrong with me.
6. Sought through alcohol and/or drugs to overcome my responsibilities
and escape the realities of life.
7. Got drunk/stoned to remove these shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons who had harmed me, whether imaginary or
real, and swore to get even.
9. Got even whenever possible, except when to do so would injure me.
10. Continued to find fault with the world and with the people in it,
and when I was right, promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through conniving and hypocrisy to improve myself
materially at the expense of my fellow man as I misunderstood him,
asking only for the means to get and stay drunk or stoned and escape
from reality.
12. After having a complete moral, physical and financial breakdown, I
tried to drag those who were dear to me down to my level, and to
practice these reasonings in all my affairs.
*******************************************************************
Well?
It may be that you are still a practicing alcoholic. You are still
drinking and drugging and making everyone around you miserable. I won't
preach to you. If that's what you want to do, then that's fine with me.
That's -your- problem, not mine. I am dealing with -me-, today, not with
you.
When you hit bottom, whatever that may be to you, whether it is
winding up in the drunk tank, or squatting in a corner with DT's, or
being thrown thru the roof of a car at 65 MPH (and surviving it), or having
blackouts, or losing everything you have, or, Goddess forbid, killing some
one else with your car.....and the Goddess FINALLY gets your attention,
then remember that AA is out there, and CAN help you.
Call your local Central Office, and get the location, date and
time of a meeting near you. If you need a ride to it, they'll be glad to
help out. Get a copy of the Big Book, and read it.
Go to meetings. Read the Big Book. You don't even have to -say-
anything in meetings. Just sit there and listen for a while, if that's
what you feel you need to do.....but GO TO THE DAMN MEETINGS!
This is being published, initially, over BBSes. Your local BBS,
if it is FIDONET, may carry the RECOVERY echo. It is available on the
backbone, and can be brought in by your local SysOp. Ask for it. Read it.
It's for -you-.
*
Blessed Be!
Sober, one day at a time:
-the Bard
Yule, 1990 CE
Saturday, May 23, 2009
MMDW
Memorial Day week-end. I just spoke with Jose. His wife has plans for him today so we're not opening the office again till Tuesday AM. Sweet.
I was looking at the article I posted yesterday. I selected it for the interesting chart of the HUI. an index of 25 mining stocks. I previously glanced over the author's reference to a previous article. I'll try to find that article and maybe post it. Right now I'm just considering the author's illustrative factoids that the entire population of the world could fit standing up in the city of Detroit, in townhouses in the state of Texas (4 persons per townhouse), or in Australia with 4 persons sharing each acre. I'm going for the Australia option, and putting in dibs now on beachfront in Sidney.
This idea is unintentionally tangential to the concept or redistribution of resources. Suppose you could oversee a pooling of all the wealth in the world, including personal assets such as automobiles, apparel, and furnishings, and all financial assets including cash on hand and in accounts as well as real estate holdings, stocks and other equity interests and bonds or other receivables, (net of debt) and then redistribute the wealth ratably to each and all the persons in the world. -Obviously, you'd have to safeguard with tax legislation against the table being tilted to allow the wealth to flow back into the hands of the clever few within a generation. Also, I know some of us suspect there would be those who would idly dissipate their gratuitous wealth (me, for instance). We'd have to pass a law against that as well.
But my question is how much wealth per person; parent, grandparent, child, whoever would you exempt from the initial confiscation?
I intended this to be purely a philosophical enquiry, but in case you're interested here are some world-wide statistics. This study done for 2000 shows that 2% of adults own over 50% of the world's wealth. I'm confident the imbalance is even more profound now.
I was looking at the article I posted yesterday. I selected it for the interesting chart of the HUI. an index of 25 mining stocks. I previously glanced over the author's reference to a previous article. I'll try to find that article and maybe post it. Right now I'm just considering the author's illustrative factoids that the entire population of the world could fit standing up in the city of Detroit, in townhouses in the state of Texas (4 persons per townhouse), or in Australia with 4 persons sharing each acre. I'm going for the Australia option, and putting in dibs now on beachfront in Sidney.
This idea is unintentionally tangential to the concept or redistribution of resources. Suppose you could oversee a pooling of all the wealth in the world, including personal assets such as automobiles, apparel, and furnishings, and all financial assets including cash on hand and in accounts as well as real estate holdings, stocks and other equity interests and bonds or other receivables, (net of debt) and then redistribute the wealth ratably to each and all the persons in the world. -Obviously, you'd have to safeguard with tax legislation against the table being tilted to allow the wealth to flow back into the hands of the clever few within a generation. Also, I know some of us suspect there would be those who would idly dissipate their gratuitous wealth (me, for instance). We'd have to pass a law against that as well.
But my question is how much wealth per person; parent, grandparent, child, whoever would you exempt from the initial confiscation?
I intended this to be purely a philosophical enquiry, but in case you're interested here are some world-wide statistics. This study done for 2000 shows that 2% of adults own over 50% of the world's wealth. I'm confident the imbalance is even more profound now.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Gold - again
My post yesterday got me to thinking, so I went to Financial Sense (see links) which I don't think I've visited 3 times in the last year. Sure enough, gold is warming up.
All Eyes Are On Huey!
by Peter Degraaf | May 12, 2009
The HUI index is poised to break out above 350. The importance of this breakout is evident in the following chart.
Featured is the daily HUI index of gold and silver stocks.
In the event of a breakout at the green arrow (which now appears to be underway), the result will be a very strong ‘up-move’ as all that pent-up demand below 350 becomes unstuck.
The pattern is an inverted ‘head and shoulders’ formation with the neckline at 350.
The RSI and MACD are positive (green lines).
Assuming the breakout succeeds - the target is 550!
On the fundamental side, we have a US government deficit that is clearly out of control.
In the words of William Black, associate professor of Economics at the University of Missouri: “We have ‘failed bankers’ giving advice to ’failed regulators’ on how to deal with ‘failed assets’”.
The US Budget Office estimates the 2009 budget deficit at 1.8 trillion dollars or four times the 2008 record deficit. We’re talking ‘monetary inflation in spades’! While it can be said that it takes time for monetary inflation to turn into price inflation, you can be sure that more and more investors are going to anticipate whopping price inflation.
Such price inflation will result in increased demand for gold and silver, and the stock of companies that produce gold and silver.
Even at 1.8 trillion dollars, the US Budget Office is making certain assumptions regarding tax receipts.
It is the ‘nature of the beast’ that during a recession, not only do tax receipts decline, but the demands on government on the part of unemployed persons increase dramatically.
Think of the letter “Y”, with the tops of the Y rising steadily. One side is less revenue and the other side is increased demands. ‘Never the twain shall meet.’
In my last article I lamented the fact that Mr. Obama made it a priority to sign legislation that exports abortion to foreign countries at American taxpayer expense.
I pointed this out to show that the President is not a compassionate individual. After all he chose death over life! He has voted for abortions right up to the 9th month after conception. Abortion is the scourge of a society. It eliminates the very people who will be needed to support the aging population. Honestly now do you really wish that your mother had decided to abort you?
Historically, when the birthrate falls below 2.5 children per couple, that society is slowly doomed to extinction, except for immigration!
The current US rate is about 2.1 children per couple, with some sources claiming a rate even lower than that. The reason 2.1 children per couple is not sufficient is because a certain number of children die before marriage, and others never marry. Therefore the number soon drops below the magic ‘2’.
As an aside, the Muslim clergymen understand this principle and they encourage a high birth rate, while forbidding abortions.
I received a lot of E-mails as a result of my observation. Most of them agreed with my position, but a few did not. Among the people who disagreed, were some who are worried that we are becoming overpopulated.
It is for these people that I present the following facts:
All of the human beings alive today can stand up in the city of Detroit!
All of the human beings alive today, grouped into fours can have a townhouse in Texas!
All of the human beings alive today, grouped by four can have a home with an acre of land in Australia!
Some of you are worried we will run out of resources.
In the mid 19th century, people were worried that the world was running out of whale oil. Then in 1858 someone in Oil Springs Ontario Canada, dug the first commercial oil well, to be followed a year later by the oil discovery at Titusville, PA.
The world is not likely to ever run out of resources. Even crude oil, which is today being used up 5 times faster than new discoveries are made, is actually a constantly renewing resource. No doubt we will have to switch from one resource to another, but that is what makes life exciting, and it creates opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Copyright © 2009 Peter Degraaf
Editorial Archive
All Eyes Are On Huey!
by Peter Degraaf | May 12, 2009
The HUI index is poised to break out above 350. The importance of this breakout is evident in the following chart.
Featured is the daily HUI index of gold and silver stocks.
In the event of a breakout at the green arrow (which now appears to be underway), the result will be a very strong ‘up-move’ as all that pent-up demand below 350 becomes unstuck.
The pattern is an inverted ‘head and shoulders’ formation with the neckline at 350.
The RSI and MACD are positive (green lines).
Assuming the breakout succeeds - the target is 550!
On the fundamental side, we have a US government deficit that is clearly out of control.
In the words of William Black, associate professor of Economics at the University of Missouri: “We have ‘failed bankers’ giving advice to ’failed regulators’ on how to deal with ‘failed assets’”.
The US Budget Office estimates the 2009 budget deficit at 1.8 trillion dollars or four times the 2008 record deficit. We’re talking ‘monetary inflation in spades’! While it can be said that it takes time for monetary inflation to turn into price inflation, you can be sure that more and more investors are going to anticipate whopping price inflation.
Such price inflation will result in increased demand for gold and silver, and the stock of companies that produce gold and silver.
Even at 1.8 trillion dollars, the US Budget Office is making certain assumptions regarding tax receipts.
It is the ‘nature of the beast’ that during a recession, not only do tax receipts decline, but the demands on government on the part of unemployed persons increase dramatically.
Think of the letter “Y”, with the tops of the Y rising steadily. One side is less revenue and the other side is increased demands. ‘Never the twain shall meet.’
In my last article I lamented the fact that Mr. Obama made it a priority to sign legislation that exports abortion to foreign countries at American taxpayer expense.
I pointed this out to show that the President is not a compassionate individual. After all he chose death over life! He has voted for abortions right up to the 9th month after conception. Abortion is the scourge of a society. It eliminates the very people who will be needed to support the aging population. Honestly now do you really wish that your mother had decided to abort you?
Historically, when the birthrate falls below 2.5 children per couple, that society is slowly doomed to extinction, except for immigration!
The current US rate is about 2.1 children per couple, with some sources claiming a rate even lower than that. The reason 2.1 children per couple is not sufficient is because a certain number of children die before marriage, and others never marry. Therefore the number soon drops below the magic ‘2’.
As an aside, the Muslim clergymen understand this principle and they encourage a high birth rate, while forbidding abortions.
I received a lot of E-mails as a result of my observation. Most of them agreed with my position, but a few did not. Among the people who disagreed, were some who are worried that we are becoming overpopulated.
It is for these people that I present the following facts:
All of the human beings alive today can stand up in the city of Detroit!
All of the human beings alive today, grouped into fours can have a townhouse in Texas!
All of the human beings alive today, grouped by four can have a home with an acre of land in Australia!
Some of you are worried we will run out of resources.
In the mid 19th century, people were worried that the world was running out of whale oil. Then in 1858 someone in Oil Springs Ontario Canada, dug the first commercial oil well, to be followed a year later by the oil discovery at Titusville, PA.
The world is not likely to ever run out of resources. Even crude oil, which is today being used up 5 times faster than new discoveries are made, is actually a constantly renewing resource. No doubt we will have to switch from one resource to another, but that is what makes life exciting, and it creates opportunities for entrepreneurs.
Copyright © 2009 Peter Degraaf
Editorial Archive
Thursday, May 21, 2009
What does it all mean?
You can read this article or not.
It would probably just confuse you as much as it has me.
The Federal Reserve Bank has loaned 2 trillion dollars since September 2008.
These loans are distinct from the $700 billion TARP "bail out", and is tracked and managed even worse than the TARP funds have been. The Fed doesn't want to say who they loaned the money to, or what collateral they received, or how that collateral was valued. See clip
Basic accounting is for a bank to record loans made as the bank's assets, and customers deposits as the bank's liabilities. If the two trillion dollars are Fed Reserve Bank assets, what are the offsetting liabilities?
I feel naive in asking, but aren't the Fed's liabilities the federal reserve notes we all carry around and use as currency and consider to be money? Traditionally, I thought fed printed reserve notes (currency) to buy treasury notes from the banks. Doing so increased the currency in circulation and would drive interest rates down. Alternatively, the fed could sell treasuries in the open market, reducing the money supply and causing interest rates to rise. I thought that was the way it was supposed to work.
The Fed was supposed to influence interest rates while keeping an eye on inflationary effects of these market transactions. Too much currency pumped into the banking system would keep interest rates low but lead to inflation. Once people realized the purchasing power of their money was being reduced by the increase in the supply of money (more money chasing the same amount of goods would increase price levels), they would prefer to hold other assets than currency, and if they did keep money on deposit in their accounts they would demand to receive higher interest rates in return. So simultaneously keeping interest rates and inflation as low as possible was the job of the Fed Reserve Bank.
The Fed also managed the reserves the banks were required to keep on deposit with the Federal Reserve Bank. This reserve was to be used to loan to a bank in case a transitory financial crisis caused a run on the bank by its depositors. That way the bank wouldn't have to call in loans to pay off depositors.
Janett is telling me it's time to run an errand, so let me wrap it up for now by saying the Fed used to print money and hold Treasuries to back up the value of the currency printed. What we're seeing now seems to be the Fed printing vast, huge, immense amounts of currency to bail out the banks and accepting absolute garbage as collateral.
Later...I haven't figured out what happens when the banks tell the Fed "We can't pay you back, so I guess you can keep the garbage."
PS Incidentally, news reports that some banks are willing and able to pay back the TARP funds to the Treasury, and hope to escape ongoing scrutiny once the TARP funds are repaid, probably have more to do with the Fed's surreptitious loans to the banks than it does with banks having "recovered"
The two trillion dollars figures out to be $7,500 per man, woman and child in the country. I don't think we're all going to receive equivalent benefits, but will probably pay some proportionate cost. The idea apparently is to get the banks off the hook for all the bad loans they profited in making and, through the Fed, to pass the cost along to the citizens.
PS If these loans were made to the banks to cover losses on mortgage securities, how will losses on consumer credit, car loans. student loans, corporate debt and governmental debt be taken off banks' books as the impending defaults occur? Just push that all onto the Fed's books as well? I don't understand what it means if the Federal Reserve Bank is bankrupt except that the currency must ultimately be recognized as worthless. Which takes us back to where we were three or four years ago when I was explaining why I saw gold as a good investment.
It would probably just confuse you as much as it has me.
The Federal Reserve Bank has loaned 2 trillion dollars since September 2008.
These loans are distinct from the $700 billion TARP "bail out", and is tracked and managed even worse than the TARP funds have been. The Fed doesn't want to say who they loaned the money to, or what collateral they received, or how that collateral was valued. See clip
Basic accounting is for a bank to record loans made as the bank's assets, and customers deposits as the bank's liabilities. If the two trillion dollars are Fed Reserve Bank assets, what are the offsetting liabilities?
I feel naive in asking, but aren't the Fed's liabilities the federal reserve notes we all carry around and use as currency and consider to be money? Traditionally, I thought fed printed reserve notes (currency) to buy treasury notes from the banks. Doing so increased the currency in circulation and would drive interest rates down. Alternatively, the fed could sell treasuries in the open market, reducing the money supply and causing interest rates to rise. I thought that was the way it was supposed to work.
The Fed was supposed to influence interest rates while keeping an eye on inflationary effects of these market transactions. Too much currency pumped into the banking system would keep interest rates low but lead to inflation. Once people realized the purchasing power of their money was being reduced by the increase in the supply of money (more money chasing the same amount of goods would increase price levels), they would prefer to hold other assets than currency, and if they did keep money on deposit in their accounts they would demand to receive higher interest rates in return. So simultaneously keeping interest rates and inflation as low as possible was the job of the Fed Reserve Bank.
The Fed also managed the reserves the banks were required to keep on deposit with the Federal Reserve Bank. This reserve was to be used to loan to a bank in case a transitory financial crisis caused a run on the bank by its depositors. That way the bank wouldn't have to call in loans to pay off depositors.
Janett is telling me it's time to run an errand, so let me wrap it up for now by saying the Fed used to print money and hold Treasuries to back up the value of the currency printed. What we're seeing now seems to be the Fed printing vast, huge, immense amounts of currency to bail out the banks and accepting absolute garbage as collateral.
Later...I haven't figured out what happens when the banks tell the Fed "We can't pay you back, so I guess you can keep the garbage."
PS Incidentally, news reports that some banks are willing and able to pay back the TARP funds to the Treasury, and hope to escape ongoing scrutiny once the TARP funds are repaid, probably have more to do with the Fed's surreptitious loans to the banks than it does with banks having "recovered"
The two trillion dollars figures out to be $7,500 per man, woman and child in the country. I don't think we're all going to receive equivalent benefits, but will probably pay some proportionate cost. The idea apparently is to get the banks off the hook for all the bad loans they profited in making and, through the Fed, to pass the cost along to the citizens.
PS If these loans were made to the banks to cover losses on mortgage securities, how will losses on consumer credit, car loans. student loans, corporate debt and governmental debt be taken off banks' books as the impending defaults occur? Just push that all onto the Fed's books as well? I don't understand what it means if the Federal Reserve Bank is bankrupt except that the currency must ultimately be recognized as worthless. Which takes us back to where we were three or four years ago when I was explaining why I saw gold as a good investment.
Monday, May 18, 2009
I had a little trouble getting my blog groove back after
the recent hiatus but I had a few thoughts to share this morning so I was going to try. However my blog writing page doesn't look right. The input box is much larger and the toolbar is gone. There are entry fields for URL and MIME Type under the heading Enclosure which leave me feeling clueless. How can I attach pictures or links without the toolbar? Down below there are little instructions about using Control B and Control I which don't work. and I'd prefer the toolbar regardless.
(Comment was saved to note pad Sunday and posted Monday when things were back to normal)
Anyway, here's what I was going to discuss
In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae -- exploding stars visible over great distances -- to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing -- a discovery which has since "shaken astronomy to its core" (Astronomy, October 1999).
This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday."
After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists -- including the mathematician Stephen Hawking -- predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact "a day without yesterday." 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang by Mark Midbon, Commonweal (March 24, 2000): 18-19.
Lemaitre proposed the big bang theory in 1927. Einstein first rejected, then grudgingly accepted the theory. In fact the term "big bang" was coined by a Cambridge physicist in the 40's who was proposing an alternative theory. Lemaitre's paper was titled "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity (radial velocity: Velocity along the line of sight toward or away from the observer) of extragalactic nebulae". Big Bang does roll off the tongue a little more easily. By 1966 at the time of Lemaitre's death it was almost universally accepted, but until the 1998 observations physicists were reluctant to accept Lemaitre's conclusion that the Big Bang was a one time event.
When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said it was too preliminary to be taken seriously. Later, he changed his mind. "I have now had more time to consider the observations, and they look quite good," he told Astronomy magazine (October 1999). "This led me to reconsider my theoretical prejudices."
(Comment was saved to note pad Sunday and posted Monday when things were back to normal)
Anyway, here's what I was going to discuss
In the winter of 1998, two separate teams of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae -- exploding stars visible over great distances -- to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing -- a discovery which has since "shaken astronomy to its core" (Astronomy, October 1999).
This discovery would have come as no surprise to Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang. Lemaitre described the beginning of the universe as a burst of fireworks, comparing galaxies to the burning embers spreading out in a growing sphere from the center of the burst. He believed this burst of fireworks was the beginning of time, taking place on "a day without yesterday."
After decades of struggle, other scientists came to accept the Big Bang as fact. But while most scientists -- including the mathematician Stephen Hawking -- predicted that gravity would eventually slow down the expansion of the universe and make the universe fall back toward its center, Lemaitre believed that the universe would keep expanding. He argued that the Big Bang was a unique event, while other scientists believed that the universe would shrink to the point of another Big Bang, and so on. The observations made in Berkeley supported Lemaitre's contention that the Big Bang was in fact "a day without yesterday." 'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang by Mark Midbon, Commonweal (March 24, 2000): 18-19.
Lemaitre proposed the big bang theory in 1927. Einstein first rejected, then grudgingly accepted the theory. In fact the term "big bang" was coined by a Cambridge physicist in the 40's who was proposing an alternative theory. Lemaitre's paper was titled "A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity (radial velocity: Velocity along the line of sight toward or away from the observer) of extragalactic nebulae". Big Bang does roll off the tongue a little more easily. By 1966 at the time of Lemaitre's death it was almost universally accepted, but until the 1998 observations physicists were reluctant to accept Lemaitre's conclusion that the Big Bang was a one time event.
When word of the 1998 Berkeley discovery that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate first reached Stephen Hawking, he said it was too preliminary to be taken seriously. Later, he changed his mind. "I have now had more time to consider the observations, and they look quite good," he told Astronomy magazine (October 1999). "This led me to reconsider my theoretical prejudices."
Monday, May 04, 2009
Chickie
The electricity failed one night at Janett's sister in law, Sally's place here in Georgia. A coyote took advantage of the darkness to break into the coop and kill a couple chicken's including Sally's favorite. It struck Janett that a baby chick would be a nice gift for Sally, so we went to a feedstore Saturday evening and grand daughter Hannah picked out a chick.
We neglected to ask what kind of chick we were purchasing. I later googled to try to find a breed description that matched our little traveling companion. From McMurray Hatchery I got this description and picture.
BLACK STAR: A wonderful brown egg layer that will weigh a little over 5 lbs. The females are black with gold hackle and breast feathers and are egg laying machines.
One commenter said Hello! I just wanted to take the time to comment on the Black Star. I have one who is now two years old named Beamer. I grew up with chickens as pets, but she is truly unique! She follows me everywhere, comes when I call her and even sits on my lap. I would recommend this breed to anyone interested in raising a great pet. She's also a terrific egg-layer, which is a plus! Katie Glassmoyer Greenville, SC
Boy, we may have found an excellent chick for Sally. Too bad they can't be house-broken.
We neglected to ask what kind of chick we were purchasing. I later googled to try to find a breed description that matched our little traveling companion. From McMurray Hatchery I got this description and picture.
BLACK STAR: A wonderful brown egg layer that will weigh a little over 5 lbs. The females are black with gold hackle and breast feathers and are egg laying machines.
One commenter said Hello! I just wanted to take the time to comment on the Black Star. I have one who is now two years old named Beamer. I grew up with chickens as pets, but she is truly unique! She follows me everywhere, comes when I call her and even sits on my lap. I would recommend this breed to anyone interested in raising a great pet. She's also a terrific egg-layer, which is a plus! Katie Glassmoyer Greenville, SC
Boy, we may have found an excellent chick for Sally. Too bad they can't be house-broken.
At Jekyll Island we saw a resort building named
Sans Souci which translates to "without care". The building contained six apartments, two on each floor. The original tenants included J P Morgan and John D. Rockerfeller. There were other houses on the island, not quite mansions, but fancier than most of our ideas of cottages.
The name may ring a bell because Frederick the Great of Prussia had built a palace called Sanssouci in Potsdam, near Berlin in the eighteenth century. The snapshot of Sanssouci doesnt really do it justice.
One commentator said The south facing garden façade. Frederick the Great ignored his architect's advice to place the piano nobile* upon a low ground floor. As a result, the palace failed to take maximum advantage of its location. Its windows are devoid of views, and seen from its lower terraces it appears to be more of an orangery than a palace. But other views of this palace and other buildings there bring to mind the term "rococco" for their ornateness.
*The piano nobile is the principal floor of a large house, usually built in one of the styles of classical renaissance architecture.
The name may ring a bell because Frederick the Great of Prussia had built a palace called Sanssouci in Potsdam, near Berlin in the eighteenth century. The snapshot of Sanssouci doesnt really do it justice.
One commentator said The south facing garden façade. Frederick the Great ignored his architect's advice to place the piano nobile* upon a low ground floor. As a result, the palace failed to take maximum advantage of its location. Its windows are devoid of views, and seen from its lower terraces it appears to be more of an orangery than a palace. But other views of this palace and other buildings there bring to mind the term "rococco" for their ornateness.
*The piano nobile is the principal floor of a large house, usually built in one of the styles of classical renaissance architecture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
