I meant to title this oxymoron or paradox. The day after the House originally rejected the Bailout Bill I heard a republican congressman on the radio explain why he voted against the bill. His reasons included that he thought other means could provide aid to banks without actually just writing them a government check (even though a large portion of the final/amended bill that was signed and passed today). While I agree that there are some other measures to provide some degree of aid, they cannot resolve everything (don't go calling me out on the fact that I said bailing out the banks is bad. It is bad and always was - but it may be the only solution to prevent banks from having to unwind their positions during the chaos and emotional exaggeration - but it still stinks).
So this congressman was going on and on about other ways to help the banks. He rattled off a number of things matter-of-factly, as if to imply that they were so readily available and feasible. The radio show host asked him to explain just one of the ideas, which had to do with modifying the mark-to-market rules (incidentally this idea really does stink because it proposes to change accounting rules/laws to make them help banks out. Essentially it suggests that we should allow a company to say something is worth X dollars when market buyers will only pay a much lower price for it. This is akin to me at my garage sale trying to convince someone that my discman is worth 80 bucks since that is what I paid for it in 1997. And either way, whenever you have to change laws/accounting rules to make something look better, you know something is awry) as he would to an old lady standing in line with him at the grocery store. The congressman said he "really didn't understand it well enough to explain it."
Well that's terrific. Great plan. Contest and cry about the ideas others have (as ridiculous as they may be) while proposing something you lack the ability to comprehend let alone educate others about? You're incompetence is staggering! Do you expect that you can overhear your banker friend talking at church on Sunday about some principle and then just go running around declaring it public policy? The fact that people like this pile can sit there in Congress, vote against bills without knowing anything about the issues, and then complain that a democrat Speaker of the House's partisan drove you to such childish antics is preposterous! Could there really have been congressmen there who waited to make their voting decision with regard to the bailout bill until Pelosi got up to speak (right before the vote on the bill)? What are you guys in third grade? What a bunch of cry-babies.
And then they had audacity last night of patting themselves on the back and complimenting their eventual peacemaking that led to a bipartisan conglomerate bailout bill of poop. Great job guys. Hate to break it to you, but while your vanity consumes you as you throw shakas and wink at yourselves in the mirror, banks may just barely avert complete unraveling before a severe recession and inevitable inflation humbles the economy even more and more long-term improvements and adjustments enable the system to finally heal itself.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Monday, September 22, 2008
Why The Plan(s) to Bail Out the Banks Is Bad
Besides the obvious added debt the government (the taxpayer) will incur, there are two aspects of the plan(s) that reek like the crap that's creating it. As I understand it, Republicans are for one principle provision while the Democrats are for the same one Republicans are plus one more. These two provisions are as follows:
1) The government's bail-out (i.e. delivery of fabricated dollars backed by the "integrity of the government" or "Insert Eastern Country of Choice Here's" increasing control over America through the purchase of U.S. Treasuries) will give the government "contingent stock" in the companies. In other words, they will be able to own and/or exercise control over the company and may actually possess shares of the companies stock.
2) Relief/Debt Forgiveness extended toward individual property owners on the verge of foreclosing on their homes. This relief (likely made in the form of the government again printing monopoly money and paying it to the banks on behalf of said property owners) is made with the goal of halting the devaluation of so many of these securitized loans on the balance sheets of these banks (causing the banks to be required to obtain more capital to meet reserves and other regulatory requirements as they lose money/value). As more people "make their mortgage payments," fewer of the securities become worthless and thereby do not need to be written down.
Both aspects of this plan are BAD BAD BAD. The fact that Republicans are only on board with half of this absurdity does not excuse them from being completely incompetent. Democrats, you are simply out of your minds.
Provision #1 is garbage and very un-American and uncharacteristic of a capitalistic society (to the extent we remain so). The big no-no here is giving the government ownership in companies--for free. And that is a big "for free" because the money used to fund it isn't coming out of senators' pockets. It is, as aforementioned, spontaneously combusted in the secret laboratories below the Capitol. Need I remind us all that the small percentage of government expenditures that is not created in thin air comes from the taxpayers--so they get to steal our money to get eventual ownership in the largest financial institutions in the world.
While we're singing the tune of "government ownership" let's break down what that means: the government will likely (they say contingent on certain factors) own the majority of the companies they aid. What a strange concept to us as Americans! The government will actually own or possess effective control over these companies--meaning it will influence decision making and (gasp) potentially run the companies--and we all know how effective the government is at managing anything.
People should be enraged that the government may end up owning companies they should own (since they're all publicly traded companies and the general public owned or was able to own them through the purchase of stock). My guess is that the aid the government provides could dilute some of the ownership--which is why I say "should own" (people will still be able to own the stock). But they should be mad because the government has no hint of a decent track record when it comes to spending other people's money and managing business ventures in any sense of the word. Government officials are horrendously poor executors. Oftentimes they know nothing about the business they run (why do you think they got into politics? it's not like they were doing anything impressive in the business world). And we're all going to fund these politicians in their quest to control multi-national companies (through taxes). Didn't we already learn that communism doesn't work?
Provision #2 should make every person who hasn't yet been kicked out of their house furious. Rather than hold people accountable for their own mistakes (which I admit were in some cases fueled by commission-hungry loan officers and the government's inability to realize how ridiculous extending such credit was) we provide them with a figurative tourniquet as we save them from utter destruction by severing any potential for a lesson on responsibility or unchecked greed as well as severing the livelihood of the solvent, consistently paying homeowners through an implicit surcharge of their prudence. But, in the eyes of the Dems, we must do it to curb the foreclosures and thereby reduce the number of write-downs for the banks. So ridiculous. This "solution" takes us right back to the ills that created the problem in the first place: greed and lack of accountability.
The responsibility for the failure among these super-power banks, while it certainly rests in the hands of unscrupulous CEOs who continue to negotiate/demand contemptible severance packages in spite of the years of destruction and unbridled ravenousness, ultimately rests on the general public and culture of society. We have bred entitled, lazy, thoughtless, naive, and selfish babies. Average people, while they cannot be expected to know everything (and in our case, anything at all), must be expected to know their own limits--despite how hard a salesman pushes his product. We are in debt, the government's in debt, and our bank's are in debt. We are all to blame for this mess. And the worst part is the solution that has been proposed is just going to enhance these unfavorable qualities in the average Joe.
So what is the solution? I don't know. There obviously needs to be some sort of government involvement and aid or things will really spiral out of control (despite the free-market proponents' arguments in favor of an eventual market correction--remember, a partially regulated, partially free market can't be expected to behave like a free-market behaves--which has only behaved as such in theory). The problem is that we've got to learn our limits at the top and at the bottom of the barrel. We need to set up payment plans (as a government) to rid ourselves of national debt and we need to get budgets into the black. As individuals we need to pay down our own debts and learn to live without a few things. We need to punish corporate thieves and fraudsters but be careful with inventing too many new white-collar crimes. I strongly feel that some of the evils perpetrated companies only happen because consumers allow the opportunity to exist by virtue of their personal preferences, tendencies, and behaviors (this is the part where we as consumers can give them a metaphorical middle-finger by not buying into some of the crap they want to push onto us and games they play). Remember, if there is no market for crap, no one is going to provide it (basic economics). That said, we do need to bear down on corrupt misdeeds and corruption.
So those are my thoughts on the matter. I sincerely hope we can get this thing worked out. My career and some of my hobbies center around business and the capital markets. I have a passion for it and a personal stake in its success through my career and individual investing performance. I have hopes we can find the remedy.
1) The government's bail-out (i.e. delivery of fabricated dollars backed by the "integrity of the government" or "Insert Eastern Country of Choice Here's" increasing control over America through the purchase of U.S. Treasuries) will give the government "contingent stock" in the companies. In other words, they will be able to own and/or exercise control over the company and may actually possess shares of the companies stock.
2) Relief/Debt Forgiveness extended toward individual property owners on the verge of foreclosing on their homes. This relief (likely made in the form of the government again printing monopoly money and paying it to the banks on behalf of said property owners) is made with the goal of halting the devaluation of so many of these securitized loans on the balance sheets of these banks (causing the banks to be required to obtain more capital to meet reserves and other regulatory requirements as they lose money/value). As more people "make their mortgage payments," fewer of the securities become worthless and thereby do not need to be written down.
Both aspects of this plan are BAD BAD BAD. The fact that Republicans are only on board with half of this absurdity does not excuse them from being completely incompetent. Democrats, you are simply out of your minds.
Provision #1 is garbage and very un-American and uncharacteristic of a capitalistic society (to the extent we remain so). The big no-no here is giving the government ownership in companies--for free. And that is a big "for free" because the money used to fund it isn't coming out of senators' pockets. It is, as aforementioned, spontaneously combusted in the secret laboratories below the Capitol. Need I remind us all that the small percentage of government expenditures that is not created in thin air comes from the taxpayers--so they get to steal our money to get eventual ownership in the largest financial institutions in the world.
While we're singing the tune of "government ownership" let's break down what that means: the government will likely (they say contingent on certain factors) own the majority of the companies they aid. What a strange concept to us as Americans! The government will actually own or possess effective control over these companies--meaning it will influence decision making and (gasp) potentially run the companies--and we all know how effective the government is at managing anything.
People should be enraged that the government may end up owning companies they should own (since they're all publicly traded companies and the general public owned or was able to own them through the purchase of stock). My guess is that the aid the government provides could dilute some of the ownership--which is why I say "should own" (people will still be able to own the stock). But they should be mad because the government has no hint of a decent track record when it comes to spending other people's money and managing business ventures in any sense of the word. Government officials are horrendously poor executors. Oftentimes they know nothing about the business they run (why do you think they got into politics? it's not like they were doing anything impressive in the business world). And we're all going to fund these politicians in their quest to control multi-national companies (through taxes). Didn't we already learn that communism doesn't work?
Provision #2 should make every person who hasn't yet been kicked out of their house furious. Rather than hold people accountable for their own mistakes (which I admit were in some cases fueled by commission-hungry loan officers and the government's inability to realize how ridiculous extending such credit was) we provide them with a figurative tourniquet as we save them from utter destruction by severing any potential for a lesson on responsibility or unchecked greed as well as severing the livelihood of the solvent, consistently paying homeowners through an implicit surcharge of their prudence. But, in the eyes of the Dems, we must do it to curb the foreclosures and thereby reduce the number of write-downs for the banks. So ridiculous. This "solution" takes us right back to the ills that created the problem in the first place: greed and lack of accountability.
The responsibility for the failure among these super-power banks, while it certainly rests in the hands of unscrupulous CEOs who continue to negotiate/demand contemptible severance packages in spite of the years of destruction and unbridled ravenousness, ultimately rests on the general public and culture of society. We have bred entitled, lazy, thoughtless, naive, and selfish babies. Average people, while they cannot be expected to know everything (and in our case, anything at all), must be expected to know their own limits--despite how hard a salesman pushes his product. We are in debt, the government's in debt, and our bank's are in debt. We are all to blame for this mess. And the worst part is the solution that has been proposed is just going to enhance these unfavorable qualities in the average Joe.
So what is the solution? I don't know. There obviously needs to be some sort of government involvement and aid or things will really spiral out of control (despite the free-market proponents' arguments in favor of an eventual market correction--remember, a partially regulated, partially free market can't be expected to behave like a free-market behaves--which has only behaved as such in theory). The problem is that we've got to learn our limits at the top and at the bottom of the barrel. We need to set up payment plans (as a government) to rid ourselves of national debt and we need to get budgets into the black. As individuals we need to pay down our own debts and learn to live without a few things. We need to punish corporate thieves and fraudsters but be careful with inventing too many new white-collar crimes. I strongly feel that some of the evils perpetrated companies only happen because consumers allow the opportunity to exist by virtue of their personal preferences, tendencies, and behaviors (this is the part where we as consumers can give them a metaphorical middle-finger by not buying into some of the crap they want to push onto us and games they play). Remember, if there is no market for crap, no one is going to provide it (basic economics). That said, we do need to bear down on corrupt misdeeds and corruption.
So those are my thoughts on the matter. I sincerely hope we can get this thing worked out. My career and some of my hobbies center around business and the capital markets. I have a passion for it and a personal stake in its success through my career and individual investing performance. I have hopes we can find the remedy.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Hybrid - Randomness Beginning with Palin and Charlie Gibson
The following viewpoints and words actually come from a Google chat I had with a friend of mine. As I have thus far kept this blog anonymous in general (although the only people currently reading it know me personally), I will keep it for this entry and not divulge the identity of the person with whom I entered into this exchange. Let me just say he is intelligent and articulate, and many of these words are direct quotes of his while others are mine. I have copied and pasted and modified tenses and voice to conform it to the tone and style of Incoherent Ramblings.
If you didn't see Charlie Gibson interview Sarah Palin (not that he didn't go out of his way to try to make her feel dumb), you need to. She proves how incredibly incompetent she really is. When he busted out the Bush Doctrine question, you know he was thinking, "I'm going to make you look like the stupid hick that you are. you ready?" He's all, "what do you interpret it to be?" like a Jr. high teacher or something. Charlie set out to destroy her (I'm sure the Obama Campaign rewarded the network handsomely for his valiant effort) and nearly succeeded. The sad thing, independent of his vigilance to make her look like a bimbo, is the fact that we saw enough of her to realize that she has some definite bimbo qualities.
I read an interesting article in a local newspaper saying how Mormons might need to think twice about giving Republicans unquestioning faith and support. The author was talking about how we (Mormons) always give them votes (especially in UT) even though their primarily Evangelical base jacked our chances of actually participating in the government by putting in Huckabee to screw up Romney and then once again passing up on Romney for VP. Kinda funny when you think of it that way. It really makes all the buy-the-book conservatives in Utah look like complete morons with their unwavering support for McCain. They seriously jacked Romney so bad though. You know he's pissed too. He'll probably buy Huckabee's church and make it into a Staples. If I were Romney I would try to figure out a way to donate tons of money to Obama through some complicated layers of entities so that no one can trace it. Some people have said things like he should try to be a member of the cabinet...but what position? He's not econy enough for Sec of Treasury. I think he should go make a ton of money and never talk to anyone about politics again...leave the running of countries to corvette-driving, lecherous, unprincipled geezers. He's too calculated to be a smooth-talking slick willy. I still think he would do the job the best: cut the spending, fire a ton of people. do gnarly stuff - but it won't happen. I seriously wonder how it would be though if we got a true CEO to do the job (president)? Like a Jack Welch or someone who knows nothing about politics to just go in there and start firing people and cutting spending. "FBI, we're closing you're division. You're not giving us positive ROI. You're toast. Department of Defense, you need to cut either the Coast Guard or the Air Force." Anyone for Donald Trump for president (I am definitely joking. Trump's put more money into eventual bankrupt companies than Al Gore has into carbon credits to combat his private jet and castle in Tennessee).
If you didn't see Charlie Gibson interview Sarah Palin (not that he didn't go out of his way to try to make her feel dumb), you need to. She proves how incredibly incompetent she really is. When he busted out the Bush Doctrine question, you know he was thinking, "I'm going to make you look like the stupid hick that you are. you ready?" He's all, "what do you interpret it to be?" like a Jr. high teacher or something. Charlie set out to destroy her (I'm sure the Obama Campaign rewarded the network handsomely for his valiant effort) and nearly succeeded. The sad thing, independent of his vigilance to make her look like a bimbo, is the fact that we saw enough of her to realize that she has some definite bimbo qualities.
I read an interesting article in a local newspaper saying how Mormons might need to think twice about giving Republicans unquestioning faith and support. The author was talking about how we (Mormons) always give them votes (especially in UT) even though their primarily Evangelical base jacked our chances of actually participating in the government by putting in Huckabee to screw up Romney and then once again passing up on Romney for VP. Kinda funny when you think of it that way. It really makes all the buy-the-book conservatives in Utah look like complete morons with their unwavering support for McCain. They seriously jacked Romney so bad though. You know he's pissed too. He'll probably buy Huckabee's church and make it into a Staples. If I were Romney I would try to figure out a way to donate tons of money to Obama through some complicated layers of entities so that no one can trace it. Some people have said things like he should try to be a member of the cabinet...but what position? He's not econy enough for Sec of Treasury. I think he should go make a ton of money and never talk to anyone about politics again...leave the running of countries to corvette-driving, lecherous, unprincipled geezers. He's too calculated to be a smooth-talking slick willy. I still think he would do the job the best: cut the spending, fire a ton of people. do gnarly stuff - but it won't happen. I seriously wonder how it would be though if we got a true CEO to do the job (president)? Like a Jack Welch or someone who knows nothing about politics to just go in there and start firing people and cutting spending. "FBI, we're closing you're division. You're not giving us positive ROI. You're toast. Department of Defense, you need to cut either the Coast Guard or the Air Force." Anyone for Donald Trump for president (I am definitely joking. Trump's put more money into eventual bankrupt companies than Al Gore has into carbon credits to combat his private jet and castle in Tennessee).
Thursday, September 18, 2008
I Just Bought Lehman Brothers (the entire company)
Well we have had quite the week in the financial markets (really this has been going on for over a year). I am not sure if I should be happy I didn't decide go for investment banking jobs or be sad that my firm is losing all the investment banks it has as clients. Either way I'm affected by this, as we all are or will be. Our house's value dropped around 10-12 k in the past two weeks, a total of 30 in the past 6 or 7 months. Pretty gnarly. So much for me trying to time the market and get in low to make some money (in real estate). We'll be lucky to recover our investment at all. Maybe it will turn around - after the looming recession and all-but-certain diamond-de-valuing inflation to follow (or perhaps coincide). Yes, I'm sure glad the Fed thought it would help if it lowered the Federal Funds Rate to near-free-money levels again. Basic economics and money and banking classes have never taught that inflation is a likely side-effect to such maneuvers.
Meanwhile the spike in gas prices (despite the recent mild decline in them) has caused a frenzy of gas-guzzler sales, causing an over-supply of and ultra-low demand for Suburbans, Sequoias, Explorers and the like...and thus the prices are at all-time lows. Blue book values for some of these cars are half their scrap values : ). I've seen 35 - 40 K cars going for 16 to 17 K (with no more 40 than K miles). Pretty ridiculous...especially when the additional expense for gas DOES NOT outweigh the added cost of unloading one of these guzzlers on the market for pennies on the dollar, only to turn around and buy a $28,000 sedan with good gas mileage. But at least it feels cheaper this way! And at least we're helping save Mother Earth. Not I - I'm not buying, no I'm not consuming the pathetic dribble on the news media's chin. We're going to head out and buy one of these ridiculously undervalued chunks of metal and laugh at everyone in their Priuses. Then we're going to burn Styrofoam in our backyard and light ants on fire with aerosol hairspray.
No, I'm all for energy conservation, being wise stewards over the earth, pursuing alternative energy sources...but not in the hypocritical sense some would have us behave. After all, where does the electricity that powers hybrid cars come from? Hamster wheels? We need to pursue solar power, wind power, algae power, whatever other fuel we can invent, and we might as well burn up some oil if we can find it quickly.
But back to the markets, we are in for some rough times. It is time to eat all the mac and cheese and ramen we can - or at least stock up on it. Time to lose weight in an inexpensive way (no, not by exercising or with Weight Watchers' new promotion) : STARVATION. Time to steal all the soap and shampoo we can from hotels and our neighbors' bathrooms. Time to move to the 1 square of toilet paper per deposit method. Time to floss with your wife's hair, and then sell it to Britney Spears. Time to make the most of your milk by re-filling it with water when it's half empty.
I hope through some intelligent monetary policy (let's avoid the fiscal policy - leave the economy to those who know what they're talking about - not corrupt bureaucrats and senators) and some market adjustments we can survive it without losing all confidence in our banking system. I hate it though when people say things like, "it was too complex (the system); they need to get back to the basics of banking." I hate to break it to you, but banking is inherently inordinately complex. Just think of the idea, we're taking money deposited in our institutions and loaning it out/investing it somewhere else - meanwhile, we promise you we have your money still (when we really don't). You can't make something like that simple. Though I agree that we have erroneously been testing out too many theories through the real-world practice of banking. The practice of loan securitization (while it probably won't totally go away) will probably be limited significantly going forward. This will help prevent lenders from approving loans to people whose primary source of income is unemployment - or who don't have a job altogether. It will, however, put the banking system back to the way it use to be (which one could argue was inefficient because the risk was not diversified). Perhaps it could be continued to some extent with a requirement that the initiator of the loan be held accountable for a portion of the loan value (maybe this already exists, speak up banking experts!).
Either way, we're going to see an overhaul of the system, but I don't think it can be less complex. That's like saying the medical profession should simplify brain surgery. Until we get a rejuvenation of the markets, feel free to buy some penny stock and foreclosed homes.
Meanwhile the spike in gas prices (despite the recent mild decline in them) has caused a frenzy of gas-guzzler sales, causing an over-supply of and ultra-low demand for Suburbans, Sequoias, Explorers and the like...and thus the prices are at all-time lows. Blue book values for some of these cars are half their scrap values : ). I've seen 35 - 40 K cars going for 16 to 17 K (with no more 40 than K miles). Pretty ridiculous...especially when the additional expense for gas DOES NOT outweigh the added cost of unloading one of these guzzlers on the market for pennies on the dollar, only to turn around and buy a $28,000 sedan with good gas mileage. But at least it feels cheaper this way! And at least we're helping save Mother Earth. Not I - I'm not buying, no I'm not consuming the pathetic dribble on the news media's chin. We're going to head out and buy one of these ridiculously undervalued chunks of metal and laugh at everyone in their Priuses. Then we're going to burn Styrofoam in our backyard and light ants on fire with aerosol hairspray.
No, I'm all for energy conservation, being wise stewards over the earth, pursuing alternative energy sources...but not in the hypocritical sense some would have us behave. After all, where does the electricity that powers hybrid cars come from? Hamster wheels? We need to pursue solar power, wind power, algae power, whatever other fuel we can invent, and we might as well burn up some oil if we can find it quickly.
But back to the markets, we are in for some rough times. It is time to eat all the mac and cheese and ramen we can - or at least stock up on it. Time to lose weight in an inexpensive way (no, not by exercising or with Weight Watchers' new promotion) : STARVATION. Time to steal all the soap and shampoo we can from hotels and our neighbors' bathrooms. Time to move to the 1 square of toilet paper per deposit method. Time to floss with your wife's hair, and then sell it to Britney Spears. Time to make the most of your milk by re-filling it with water when it's half empty.
I hope through some intelligent monetary policy (let's avoid the fiscal policy - leave the economy to those who know what they're talking about - not corrupt bureaucrats and senators) and some market adjustments we can survive it without losing all confidence in our banking system. I hate it though when people say things like, "it was too complex (the system); they need to get back to the basics of banking." I hate to break it to you, but banking is inherently inordinately complex. Just think of the idea, we're taking money deposited in our institutions and loaning it out/investing it somewhere else - meanwhile, we promise you we have your money still (when we really don't). You can't make something like that simple. Though I agree that we have erroneously been testing out too many theories through the real-world practice of banking. The practice of loan securitization (while it probably won't totally go away) will probably be limited significantly going forward. This will help prevent lenders from approving loans to people whose primary source of income is unemployment - or who don't have a job altogether. It will, however, put the banking system back to the way it use to be (which one could argue was inefficient because the risk was not diversified). Perhaps it could be continued to some extent with a requirement that the initiator of the loan be held accountable for a portion of the loan value (maybe this already exists, speak up banking experts!).
Either way, we're going to see an overhaul of the system, but I don't think it can be less complex. That's like saying the medical profession should simplify brain surgery. Until we get a rejuvenation of the markets, feel free to buy some penny stock and foreclosed homes.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Feminism in the modern world
Ok. This post will likely upset some people. But it needs to be said. I read an article today in a noteworthy newspaper that discussed how a major medical school was not admitting as many women to the school as many other schools in the nation. It was discovered, after an in-depth investigation, that the reason was not that the school discriminates against women, but rather that a lower percentage of women apply to this school than most other schools. So it was actually the women who opted out of med school and pursuing the MD career path. This notion led to a discussion both within the article and within the comments readers have posted below the article about the role of women in the workplace and the home.
There were obvious feminist undertones. The general consensus was that women need to work to change these statistics and pursue med school and other advanced and time-demanding career paths. It was definitely an "I am woman here me roar" argument of women taking control and being ambitious in their educations and careers so as to thwart male dominance.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I believe women should get as much education as possible. My mom and my two sisters all have at the minimum a bachelor's degree. I'm also understanding of the many situations that require women to work (putting one's husband through school, death, divorce, injury/disease, and maintaining some sanity). But the reality of the matter is that just because something is old or traditional doesn't mean that it is wrong and not progressive (well maybe it's not progressive in the direct denotation - but maybe it doesn't need to be progressive because we got it right to begin with. After all, it's not like we're going to stop sleeping because it's been around for so long and it's time to move onto something new). There are reasons why women should eventually and ideally stay at home while their husbands (assuming a husband exists) go to work.
1) Kids like having a mom around, for the most part. I hate to break it to you feminists, but kids generally prefer their moms over the illegal-alien housekeeper or Oxycontin-stoned 23-year-old at the local daycare. Tough pill to swallow, I know.
2) If we are to talk about how it is important for women to pursue their passions and self-interests, then we must allow for the possibility that many women cite staying at home and running a household and raising a family as a passion/interest. My wife has spent most of her life working. Only now does she have a chance to quit her full-time job to be a stay-at-home mom. Let me tell you (in her own words), she is ecstatic to do so. Despite the talents and abilities she has an employee/professional, she prefers to do the mom-at-home thing. How peculiar! Her passion is to be at home! While it is possible that some women will prefer to work and pursue professional/vocational interests, that doesn't mean that will be true for most women--and I don't think it means that it what they should be passionate about.
3) If husbands are to be successful in their careers, they need to have a stable home-life that enables them to focus on their jobs while at their jobs. Juggling all of many home-life/child-rearing tasks while trying to dominate in one's professional can be challenging if not impossible, unless you're Danny Tanner from Full House (which only caused Bob Saget to go even more out of his way to swear during his stand up comedy to erase the image he created on that sitcom). When a husband gets home from work, he doesn't want to hear his wife go on and on about the latest merger that didn't go through or the case she's been struggling with down at the office. He wants her to be stoked out of her mind that he's home and that she can be with him. She is, after all, married to him--not to her work. He wants her to have the time and energy to give him the love and support he needs so that when he goes back to work he can be super-charged for the tasks that await him.
Related to this discussion of the women in the workplace/staying at home debate, I have another whopper to throw out: I think it's okay for employers to want to pay women less than their male counterparts, on average. I'm ready to get maced in the face. Feminists have push relentlessly for employers to pay them the same wages as their male counterparts (they are generally lower, FYI). I don't think they have much room to argue here.
Let's explore this issue. On average, most women will quit working after 27, as their families start to take off. On average, most women who work while having families need to take more time off to have babies (which drives up the cost of providing employee health insurance, by the way). Since most women do retain responsibility over running the home even as working professionals, they have more distractions and constraints on their time (and don't give me the argument that women are more effective at their work because juggling lots of duties and responsibilities makes people more proficient at those duties--that doesn't work, sorry). All of these facts scream EXPENSIVE and POOR INVESTMENT CHOICE to a manager. In effect, I think many employers effectively pay their women employees the same or more by virtue of these added costs. To pay men the same as women is a slap in the face to the hard-working, proficient, revenue-generating male employee who works day after day only to see his female colleagues take time off for babies, show up at 10 am after driving the carpool, and being inflexible with respect to working on Saturdays to do soccer games---and make the same as him! Especially since a man will receive little sympathy from the boss if he drives the carpool and engages in other such career-interferences. He'll invariably receive a less favorable evaluation and subsequent raise/promotion. The most important aspect of all of this is that women are simply more likely to leave the company sooner than men. So a company can invest all that money into training and grooming the "professional woman" only for her to suddenly realize she wants to raise a family and will need to leave the company--never mind the fact that she's next in line for the Chief Operating Officer position.
Feminists around the globe, please take your selfish whining elsewhere. Enjoy your lesbian relationships and serve as CEOs over the companies my company will buy out one day and fire you from and leave the child-rearing to the rest of us. We are content with the traditional image of a woman - she's way hotter this way. And we get way more attention this way. And if giving and receiving attention from guys like us doesn't appeal to you, there is a plethora of fags and hermits working on Friday nights at the office with you that you can hit up for a night out anytime.
My final serious upshot on this matter: everyone should be educated and trained and go to school. Certain circumstances require women to work. Go for it. Otherwise, leave it up to the guys.
There were obvious feminist undertones. The general consensus was that women need to work to change these statistics and pursue med school and other advanced and time-demanding career paths. It was definitely an "I am woman here me roar" argument of women taking control and being ambitious in their educations and careers so as to thwart male dominance.
Now I'll be the first to admit that I believe women should get as much education as possible. My mom and my two sisters all have at the minimum a bachelor's degree. I'm also understanding of the many situations that require women to work (putting one's husband through school, death, divorce, injury/disease, and maintaining some sanity). But the reality of the matter is that just because something is old or traditional doesn't mean that it is wrong and not progressive (well maybe it's not progressive in the direct denotation - but maybe it doesn't need to be progressive because we got it right to begin with. After all, it's not like we're going to stop sleeping because it's been around for so long and it's time to move onto something new). There are reasons why women should eventually and ideally stay at home while their husbands (assuming a husband exists) go to work.
1) Kids like having a mom around, for the most part. I hate to break it to you feminists, but kids generally prefer their moms over the illegal-alien housekeeper or Oxycontin-stoned 23-year-old at the local daycare. Tough pill to swallow, I know.
2) If we are to talk about how it is important for women to pursue their passions and self-interests, then we must allow for the possibility that many women cite staying at home and running a household and raising a family as a passion/interest. My wife has spent most of her life working. Only now does she have a chance to quit her full-time job to be a stay-at-home mom. Let me tell you (in her own words), she is ecstatic to do so. Despite the talents and abilities she has an employee/professional, she prefers to do the mom-at-home thing. How peculiar! Her passion is to be at home! While it is possible that some women will prefer to work and pursue professional/vocational interests, that doesn't mean that will be true for most women--and I don't think it means that it what they should be passionate about.
3) If husbands are to be successful in their careers, they need to have a stable home-life that enables them to focus on their jobs while at their jobs. Juggling all of many home-life/child-rearing tasks while trying to dominate in one's professional can be challenging if not impossible, unless you're Danny Tanner from Full House (which only caused Bob Saget to go even more out of his way to swear during his stand up comedy to erase the image he created on that sitcom). When a husband gets home from work, he doesn't want to hear his wife go on and on about the latest merger that didn't go through or the case she's been struggling with down at the office. He wants her to be stoked out of her mind that he's home and that she can be with him. She is, after all, married to him--not to her work. He wants her to have the time and energy to give him the love and support he needs so that when he goes back to work he can be super-charged for the tasks that await him.
Related to this discussion of the women in the workplace/staying at home debate, I have another whopper to throw out: I think it's okay for employers to want to pay women less than their male counterparts, on average. I'm ready to get maced in the face. Feminists have push relentlessly for employers to pay them the same wages as their male counterparts (they are generally lower, FYI). I don't think they have much room to argue here.
Let's explore this issue. On average, most women will quit working after 27, as their families start to take off. On average, most women who work while having families need to take more time off to have babies (which drives up the cost of providing employee health insurance, by the way). Since most women do retain responsibility over running the home even as working professionals, they have more distractions and constraints on their time (and don't give me the argument that women are more effective at their work because juggling lots of duties and responsibilities makes people more proficient at those duties--that doesn't work, sorry). All of these facts scream EXPENSIVE and POOR INVESTMENT CHOICE to a manager. In effect, I think many employers effectively pay their women employees the same or more by virtue of these added costs. To pay men the same as women is a slap in the face to the hard-working, proficient, revenue-generating male employee who works day after day only to see his female colleagues take time off for babies, show up at 10 am after driving the carpool, and being inflexible with respect to working on Saturdays to do soccer games---and make the same as him! Especially since a man will receive little sympathy from the boss if he drives the carpool and engages in other such career-interferences. He'll invariably receive a less favorable evaluation and subsequent raise/promotion. The most important aspect of all of this is that women are simply more likely to leave the company sooner than men. So a company can invest all that money into training and grooming the "professional woman" only for her to suddenly realize she wants to raise a family and will need to leave the company--never mind the fact that she's next in line for the Chief Operating Officer position.
Feminists around the globe, please take your selfish whining elsewhere. Enjoy your lesbian relationships and serve as CEOs over the companies my company will buy out one day and fire you from and leave the child-rearing to the rest of us. We are content with the traditional image of a woman - she's way hotter this way. And we get way more attention this way. And if giving and receiving attention from guys like us doesn't appeal to you, there is a plethora of fags and hermits working on Friday nights at the office with you that you can hit up for a night out anytime.
My final serious upshot on this matter: everyone should be educated and trained and go to school. Certain circumstances require women to work. Go for it. Otherwise, leave it up to the guys.
Using fear to Promote Political Views
What is with this political tactic of inciting fear to convince people not to vote for the candidate of the opposing party? I've heard both sides doing this. For example, the Conservative Talk Show Host method is to claim that Obama is a crazed liberal who will make deals with the leaders of terrorist groups and extremist nations while instituting full-fledged socialistic programs across the board following a rigid radical ideology. Democrats use the doomsday "polar ice caps will drown us" and "everyone on welfare will have their livelihood ripped from their grasp as republicans eliminate all social programs."
Making such allegations requires the acceptance of several falsehoods: 1) that our political candidates actually care about ideologies and not just about winning and getting into positions of power and fame. 2) that much will actually change with either "extreme liberal/conservative" in office. We've all heard before claims that a particular candidate will orchestrate a completely partisan regime upon entering office - and yet how many times do we end up having basically the same old same old? The difference between republicans and democrats in practice (not in ideology) is akin to the difference between the Lakers and the Celtics: different team colors, different players, different cities, but the same 'upstanding citizens' trying to avoid prison playing the same game. 3) that the current system of "scratch my back and I'll scratch your Bill on the floor of the House" isn't already corrupt as it is.
For the number of politicians that went to law school, it is despicable that they stoop to such elementary logic. Didn't they teach you about logical fallacies? We expect better than this, especially considering how so many of them got into Harvard/Stanford/Yale/Columbia through hard work and beating all odds and defying the norm of "rich get richer and privileged get privileged-er" (oh, wait, no).
We need to call them out when they use these scare tactics. Don't let yourself become another one of their marionettes.
Making such allegations requires the acceptance of several falsehoods: 1) that our political candidates actually care about ideologies and not just about winning and getting into positions of power and fame. 2) that much will actually change with either "extreme liberal/conservative" in office. We've all heard before claims that a particular candidate will orchestrate a completely partisan regime upon entering office - and yet how many times do we end up having basically the same old same old? The difference between republicans and democrats in practice (not in ideology) is akin to the difference between the Lakers and the Celtics: different team colors, different players, different cities, but the same 'upstanding citizens' trying to avoid prison playing the same game. 3) that the current system of "scratch my back and I'll scratch your Bill on the floor of the House" isn't already corrupt as it is.
For the number of politicians that went to law school, it is despicable that they stoop to such elementary logic. Didn't they teach you about logical fallacies? We expect better than this, especially considering how so many of them got into Harvard/Stanford/Yale/Columbia through hard work and beating all odds and defying the norm of "rich get richer and privileged get privileged-er" (oh, wait, no).
We need to call them out when they use these scare tactics. Don't let yourself become another one of their marionettes.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
They're all worthless
Except for in certain instances, no one in politics really wants to solve any real problems. People want fame, glory, power, and money, but very few are committed to actually improving life and resolving real issues. My beef at the moment is with the McCain Campaign.
Let me preface this display by saying that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. If it makes any difference to anyone, I have voted both Democrat and Republican lines (I won't tell you who I voted last time for President - you can guess that one). I see positives in both major parties as well as parties such as Libertarian and Green.
Getting to the point. Why is everyone so upset with the Obama Campaign for the Lipstick comment? Let's get the facts straight. Anyone with any morsel of a command of the English language would be able to see that the context of Obama's comment implies he was referring to McCain plans/policy/programs (economic in particular). Just because Palin happened to mention lipstick last week doesn't mean he was targeting her.
Don't flatter yourself Palin, or any of your goons - are you really that conceited that you would presume anyone even cares that you're on the Republican ticket? No one does, at least not more so than to the extent that Palin offers the potential to attract more votes to McCain (and maybe the fact that our gas prices are high enough that we are intrigued by the "let's drill for more oil" attitude). Other than that, no one cares. You're just a semi-hot Conservative babe with marginal experience. Certainly enough to hold down the fort and meet the basic duties of VP, but nowhere near the capacity to provide value-added advice to the Administration or take over in the event of the actuarial likelihood that McCain's arms will fall off or jaw implode while in office.
At any rate, Obama didn't need to call Palin a pig to address any inadequacies on her resume. The campaign has been busy targeting her with other negative campaigning. Calling her a pig requires more imagination on the part of the public to get the joke. It's much easier to say "she has little experience," or "she raised taxes on individuals and turned an in-the-black, fiscally responsible municipality into a debt-ridden, lavish spender" (both of which are true statements). The fact that some people think he was telling a sly, subtle joke (claiming he smiled and hid his face after he said it) is preposterous.
A more appropriate response for the McCain Campaign (rather than calling Obama a sexist and inciting the emotions of soccer/hockey moms across the country) would have been to understand what he meant ("McCain, your economic policy stinks") and respond appropriately. For instance, they could have attacked Obama's pant-less economic plan and called attention to Obama's lack of economic expertise (which would have worked). They then could have explained how McCain's is superior (good luck with that one).
This is all just evidence of the games the two parties are playing. It's all about beating the other side, one-upping each other, and making the American people think it's about issues. No one wants to really address the problems, being completely honest with the facts, because there is too great of a risk that the party will lose favor with you or that you might not win.
Take, for instance, Obama's statement on Letterman: Obama said that things right now are similar to when Bill Clinton took office in 1992 (implying that if he were elected something similar would occur). You have an economy not doing fantastic and people disillusioned with what the previous party had done while in office. Then in steps Clinton and you have this explosion of economic growth and wealth through the '90s. Neat Obama, except....you're full of crap. The alleged explosion of growth has now been exposed as exaggerated if not completely feigned in certain instances (Remember Enron, Worldcom, and other significant accounting frauds perpetrated to create the illusion of growth? Remember when the stock market bubble burst as a result of grossly over-valued tech companies running on pure emotion and consumer excitement?) I could list a host of other reasons the economic growth of the '90s wasn't what it seemed, admitting that there was indeed some quality growth that occured that should be noted.
Still, Obama had to act as if the '90s were the good ol' days. Back when Slick Willy was hooking up with fugly White House interns and exemplifying more conservative politics than George W. Bush. Back when Seattle was a veritable font of flannel-wearing musical geniuses and we were all trying to get our hair to look like Brandon Walsh and Kelly Taylor from 90210. In an effort to show how much change he stands for, Obama wanted to take us all back to the '90s. Joking aside, Obama had to take that opportunity to make himself more apt to win while ignoring some of the very issues at hand that need to change (and thus losing his credibility as a candidate for change). Remarkable.
So in the aftermath of all this, who do we vote for? What do we do? I am registered to vote - so I can't just say I didn't get around to it...I gotta drive down there in November and do it. Should I vote for a third-party candidate (none of whom I completely agree with) to send a message? Should I write my name or one of your names on the ballot just to give Washington a big middle finger? Or do vote for the candidate I think will least threaten my individual wants and needs while knowingly sacrificing the good of the public? Any ideas?
Let me preface this display by saying that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. If it makes any difference to anyone, I have voted both Democrat and Republican lines (I won't tell you who I voted last time for President - you can guess that one). I see positives in both major parties as well as parties such as Libertarian and Green.
Getting to the point. Why is everyone so upset with the Obama Campaign for the Lipstick comment? Let's get the facts straight. Anyone with any morsel of a command of the English language would be able to see that the context of Obama's comment implies he was referring to McCain plans/policy/programs (economic in particular). Just because Palin happened to mention lipstick last week doesn't mean he was targeting her.
Don't flatter yourself Palin, or any of your goons - are you really that conceited that you would presume anyone even cares that you're on the Republican ticket? No one does, at least not more so than to the extent that Palin offers the potential to attract more votes to McCain (and maybe the fact that our gas prices are high enough that we are intrigued by the "let's drill for more oil" attitude). Other than that, no one cares. You're just a semi-hot Conservative babe with marginal experience. Certainly enough to hold down the fort and meet the basic duties of VP, but nowhere near the capacity to provide value-added advice to the Administration or take over in the event of the actuarial likelihood that McCain's arms will fall off or jaw implode while in office.
At any rate, Obama didn't need to call Palin a pig to address any inadequacies on her resume. The campaign has been busy targeting her with other negative campaigning. Calling her a pig requires more imagination on the part of the public to get the joke. It's much easier to say "she has little experience," or "she raised taxes on individuals and turned an in-the-black, fiscally responsible municipality into a debt-ridden, lavish spender" (both of which are true statements). The fact that some people think he was telling a sly, subtle joke (claiming he smiled and hid his face after he said it) is preposterous.
A more appropriate response for the McCain Campaign (rather than calling Obama a sexist and inciting the emotions of soccer/hockey moms across the country) would have been to understand what he meant ("McCain, your economic policy stinks") and respond appropriately. For instance, they could have attacked Obama's pant-less economic plan and called attention to Obama's lack of economic expertise (which would have worked). They then could have explained how McCain's is superior (good luck with that one).
This is all just evidence of the games the two parties are playing. It's all about beating the other side, one-upping each other, and making the American people think it's about issues. No one wants to really address the problems, being completely honest with the facts, because there is too great of a risk that the party will lose favor with you or that you might not win.
Take, for instance, Obama's statement on Letterman: Obama said that things right now are similar to when Bill Clinton took office in 1992 (implying that if he were elected something similar would occur). You have an economy not doing fantastic and people disillusioned with what the previous party had done while in office. Then in steps Clinton and you have this explosion of economic growth and wealth through the '90s. Neat Obama, except....you're full of crap. The alleged explosion of growth has now been exposed as exaggerated if not completely feigned in certain instances (Remember Enron, Worldcom, and other significant accounting frauds perpetrated to create the illusion of growth? Remember when the stock market bubble burst as a result of grossly over-valued tech companies running on pure emotion and consumer excitement?) I could list a host of other reasons the economic growth of the '90s wasn't what it seemed, admitting that there was indeed some quality growth that occured that should be noted.
Still, Obama had to act as if the '90s were the good ol' days. Back when Slick Willy was hooking up with fugly White House interns and exemplifying more conservative politics than George W. Bush. Back when Seattle was a veritable font of flannel-wearing musical geniuses and we were all trying to get our hair to look like Brandon Walsh and Kelly Taylor from 90210. In an effort to show how much change he stands for, Obama wanted to take us all back to the '90s. Joking aside, Obama had to take that opportunity to make himself more apt to win while ignoring some of the very issues at hand that need to change (and thus losing his credibility as a candidate for change). Remarkable.
So in the aftermath of all this, who do we vote for? What do we do? I am registered to vote - so I can't just say I didn't get around to it...I gotta drive down there in November and do it. Should I vote for a third-party candidate (none of whom I completely agree with) to send a message? Should I write my name or one of your names on the ballot just to give Washington a big middle finger? Or do vote for the candidate I think will least threaten my individual wants and needs while knowingly sacrificing the good of the public? Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
