Okay, off the top of my head, here are the things that have me completely hacked off and ready to move to Canada:
1. Michelle Bachman, in the Tea Party response, blamed the jump in unemployment on Obama. Good lord, is she kidding? The surge in unemployment is due to Bush, Clinton, Paulson, Geithner and predominantly Republican Congresses doing all they could to make sure Wall Street could steal all they could carry. Our unemployment rate isn't Obama's fault. It's mostly Republicans' fault.
2. The Republicans have got to stop trying to repeal Obamacare. Seriously. Yes, Barack Obama was a complete and total moron to spend the first year of his presidency to produce such an idiotic and worthless bill. It accomplishes next to nothing. It does nothing whatsoever, to address the real problem with health care in the United States: unrestrained costs that are completely out of line with what the rest of the world pays. HOWEVER, it accomplishes NEXT TO nothing, but it didn't accomplish nothing. There are a few good things in there.
The fight to repeal it would be nearly as stupid as the fight to pass such a watered down, corrupted bill in the first place.
At this point, the damage is done. Obama fiddled with health care while America burned, but it's done. Obama is right: fix it, amend it, make it better. It was a stupid thing for him to do, and it's part of the reason he lost the House of Representatives. He took his lumps, let's all move on.
Yes, parts of it need to be repealed, like... oh... the mandates that the administration is currently exempting all the unions from. Typical Washington games: rules are rules, unless you're Wall Street or a union.
Unless the Republicans are going to address costs, then whatever they have to say on the issue is completely worthless.
The Republicans havevery few good ideas on health care. The biggest problem with Obamacare was that he wasn't big-government, enough. It was that he wasn't far enough to the left.
We need a single payer system so we can negotiate prices that are the same as the rest of the world pays. Until that happens, health care providers and pharma are going to do exactly what Wall Street is doing: stealing all they can until the country collapses.
3. Obama was all full of praise for the brothers in Michigan who got government money and started making solar panels. Oh, come on. We're supposed to celebrate that another formerly free-market company realized that the best way to make money is to stop pulling the wagon and jump into it, instead? That the formula for success is to get money from the government? That's not reinvention. If anything, that's EXACTLY what's wrong with America right now.
4. We have 1 in 6, or more likely 1 in 5 Americans who can't find good jobs right now. We have farging problems. These idiots are all together giving standing ovations to a barely competent president while real Americans are sufferring. Glad you think the state of the union is strong, Mr. President, but I am sort of curious what planet you live on.
5. Why in the world is everybody chosing NOW to try and cut spending? Honestly people, this is not the time. Of all the things to have bipartisan agreement on, this is downright nuts.
6. Pretty obvious that when Wall Street needs help, the federal government will mobilize any amount of money, with no conditions and give it to them as fast as possible so they won't have to suffer. However, when it comes to rescuing main street? Hey, it happens when it happens. No urgency at all.
If we put 1/10th the resources into rescuing Main Street that we did with Wall Street, it'd be a whole different picture, now.
Heck, if we did 1/10th as much for Main Street as we're doing for Wall Street RIGHT NOW, it'd be a whole 'nother ball game. Imagine if ordinary Americans were able to borrow money at 0.1% interest. Imagine if ordinary Americans were allowed to be completely insolvent, yet still operate businesses? Imagine if ordinary Americans could lend money to the federal government for more interest than they were paying the fed, and imagine if ordinary Americans made money just for handling the transaction?
We should replace, "e pluribus unum" with "everything for wall street, no matter the cost... the rest can eat cake."
I'm sad to say that I've reached a point where I'm completely disgusted with the United States of America. I'll raise my son here, but after that, if I could move to Canada, I would.
I will continue to serve in the Navy for a little while longer, but if things don't improve, and I doubt they will, I won't be putting my ass on the line for a country that exists solely for the benefit of a bunch of Wall Street bankers. I'm not going to sacrifice my life for a bunch of guys who don't even think they should have to sacrifice a bonus for a problem they, themselves created.
We are so screwed. They're actually destroying our country.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Douchebag neighbors, Bad weather and Good business...
I really don't like a few of my neighbors on the cul-de-sac. I've moved less than a block from my original home, but the cul-de-sac folks are really a breed apart.
One of my neighbors is a total douche. Comes over to complain whenever any little thing irritates him.
I figured we just needed to get to know each other. So, I saw his wife and him in the yard one day and after talking a little bit, asked if they'd like to see the inside of the house. (They had been asking about it and I was explaining that it was being remodelled.)
One of the rooms, we had just taken out some wrought-iron crap. The wife took one peek and said, "Oh, you can give me those. I'll use them in my garden."
That really rubbed me the wrong way. Like, "I don't know you very well, but listen while I tell you how you're going to give me stuff." If my other interactions with them had been more positive, it probably wouldn't have bothered me, but when your total interactions with a person either involve them bitching about something or asking for something that pretty much puts them on the douchebag list, IMHO.
I was chopping up some wood and he came over asking, "mind if I see what you're doing?" I felt like saying, "Well... yeah, I do. I don't think you need to see what I'm doing, and besides, I know that the only reason you're coming over here is to either bitch about something or ask for something, and neither of those are things I want to deal with."
So, he kept poking and prodding about the wood. Was I going to burn it all? I finally got the hint and said, "you're welcome to some of this wood if you want to burn it." His face brightened, until I added, "... all you have to do is come over here and split it yourself."
Dude is a total douche. The less I deal with him the better.
Today, I was snow-blowing my driveway and noticed a different neighbor standing across the street looking at me. After another pass, he hadn't moved. So, I stopped and asked, "do you need to speak with me?"
He said, "Generally, we don't blow snow into the street after the plow trucks come. You should get one of these (points to some idiotic extra-wide snow shovel he's using.)"
Now, first, I do blow snow into the street, but if it's obvious that it's enough that it won't melt right away, I then go into the street and blow it back into my yard. I've done it before. I just hadn't gotten that far.
So, I said, "I usually clean off the street when I'm done" and went back to what I was doing. I'm not sure what he was expecting. It's sort of hard to clear the driveway without blowing at least a little snow into the street. I guess he figured I should clear the street before I blew snow onto it, or something.
Or maybe, just maybe, some people are just absolute douchebags who never learned that when you act like a total cock, it tends not to endear you to people.
In any event, I'm here until my son graduates from High School. Then, if everything works out, I'm going to live out my days on enough land that I won't ever see my neighbors.
Sometimes, they're awesome. In fact, most neighbors are. Sometimes, though, they can be a real pain in the ass.
The bad weather has come and for the first time in a long time, the business is really busy. If this keeps up, I'm rich again. However, I'll never take things for granted in this industry again. I'll also continue working on a solid Plan B, so that I won't be left high and dry if things go sour in this line of work.
Other than that, life is good. Logan is playing rec basketball and baseball workouts have begun. I'm doing well and starting to enjoy my house. I might put down a couple hundred bucks worth of carpet to last me until I can afford hardwood for the whole place, though.
One of my neighbors is a total douche. Comes over to complain whenever any little thing irritates him.
I figured we just needed to get to know each other. So, I saw his wife and him in the yard one day and after talking a little bit, asked if they'd like to see the inside of the house. (They had been asking about it and I was explaining that it was being remodelled.)
One of the rooms, we had just taken out some wrought-iron crap. The wife took one peek and said, "Oh, you can give me those. I'll use them in my garden."
That really rubbed me the wrong way. Like, "I don't know you very well, but listen while I tell you how you're going to give me stuff." If my other interactions with them had been more positive, it probably wouldn't have bothered me, but when your total interactions with a person either involve them bitching about something or asking for something that pretty much puts them on the douchebag list, IMHO.
I was chopping up some wood and he came over asking, "mind if I see what you're doing?" I felt like saying, "Well... yeah, I do. I don't think you need to see what I'm doing, and besides, I know that the only reason you're coming over here is to either bitch about something or ask for something, and neither of those are things I want to deal with."
So, he kept poking and prodding about the wood. Was I going to burn it all? I finally got the hint and said, "you're welcome to some of this wood if you want to burn it." His face brightened, until I added, "... all you have to do is come over here and split it yourself."
Dude is a total douche. The less I deal with him the better.
Today, I was snow-blowing my driveway and noticed a different neighbor standing across the street looking at me. After another pass, he hadn't moved. So, I stopped and asked, "do you need to speak with me?"
He said, "Generally, we don't blow snow into the street after the plow trucks come. You should get one of these (points to some idiotic extra-wide snow shovel he's using.)"
Now, first, I do blow snow into the street, but if it's obvious that it's enough that it won't melt right away, I then go into the street and blow it back into my yard. I've done it before. I just hadn't gotten that far.
So, I said, "I usually clean off the street when I'm done" and went back to what I was doing. I'm not sure what he was expecting. It's sort of hard to clear the driveway without blowing at least a little snow into the street. I guess he figured I should clear the street before I blew snow onto it, or something.
Or maybe, just maybe, some people are just absolute douchebags who never learned that when you act like a total cock, it tends not to endear you to people.
In any event, I'm here until my son graduates from High School. Then, if everything works out, I'm going to live out my days on enough land that I won't ever see my neighbors.
Sometimes, they're awesome. In fact, most neighbors are. Sometimes, though, they can be a real pain in the ass.
The bad weather has come and for the first time in a long time, the business is really busy. If this keeps up, I'm rich again. However, I'll never take things for granted in this industry again. I'll also continue working on a solid Plan B, so that I won't be left high and dry if things go sour in this line of work.
Other than that, life is good. Logan is playing rec basketball and baseball workouts have begun. I'm doing well and starting to enjoy my house. I might put down a couple hundred bucks worth of carpet to last me until I can afford hardwood for the whole place, though.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Of Tiger Moms and Baseball
The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother is making quite a stir these days. For those who haven't heard of it, the book is a memoir that defends what the author describes as a "Chinese" way of raising kids.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
Basically, kids are expected to be high achievers, and that a parent is justified in using methods that others might consider extreme in order to achieve that goal. For instance, 4 hours of piano practice, without a bathroom or meal break, is one of the anectdotes in the book.
The author has been the subject of considerably hostility. Apparently, some folks have even threatened her with violence of some sort or another.
I'm loathe to claim much knowledge in the area of parenting. Yet, I find myself disagreeing with this woman's stance. The hypocrasy of this does not escape me: I chastise a woman for claiming a superior method of parenting, at the same time, believing that some of her methods are inferior.
Let me start with my biggest problem with her book: it works from the premise that her method produced superior kids.
There are a few nits to pick with this. Number one is that her kids are still teenagers. It's a bit premature to roll out the "mission accomplished" banner. In fact, what we know of development of the brain suggests that parts of it are still developing well into the mid 20s. So, it's going to be some years before we know whether this method worked or not.
Second, sorry, but this is a Harvard Law educated woman who teaches at Yale Law School. Her husband is similarly brilliant. I'm one of the folks who believes that genetics has a lot to do with a person's achievement in life. She won the genetic lottery and by extension, so did her daughters.
If they had been raised by a longshoreman, they'd still be brilliant.
The basic question comes down to this, though: what is the goal of parenting?
That's a question folks can only answer for themselves.
As some of you know, I have mixed feelings about travel baseball and the issues it raises are similar to the discussion this book raises.
I still remember Logan's first day of tee-ball practice. I was helping coach some of the kids, and I heard somebody say, "Jim, come over here, Logan just got hit in the face with the ball."
Luckily, tee ball is played with a softer baseball. I sat Logan on my knee and he regained his composure. I asked if he wanted to keep playing and he didn't even hesitate. He ran back to join the other kids.
A few minutes later, "Jim, Logan got hit in the face with the ball again."
I can't tell you exactly what I was thinking at the moment, but I think it was something along the lines of, "Oh f***ity f***ing f***."
Went over and sat him on my knee, he regained his composure and again, went right back out to play.
After that practice, I hated myself. I hated myself for not preparing him. I don't know how in the world Logan was the lucky kid who got hit in the face not once, but twice, but it happened.
So, I immediately bought a tennis balls and some wiffle balls and started to teach him how to catch a ball with a baseball glove.
I worked with him a little bit, but his biggest improvement came when he would practice by himself at night. He would take a wiffle ball and throw it against the front door and field it with his glove. A wiffle ball gives you no feedback in the glove, so it's 100% hand-eye practice. I liken it to trying to catch a flying BB with tweezers.
Hours every night he practiced. I never had to push him towards it, encourage him to do it or even mention it to him. He just loved doing it.
Fast forward to the modern day and Logan has made our city's premier travel baseball team.
I'm lukewarm to the idea of travel baseball. Logan's mom brought up to me last year that Logan might not want to play travel this year. I told her, flat-out, I didn't care if Logan played rec league ball, or if he never touched a baseball glove again for the rest of his life. My only line in the sand was that he had to finish out the season because we had made a committment to the team.
Is baseball important? Well, yeah, I think it is. I probably think it's more important than a lot of things in life.
However, I also know that there are dads who are pushing their kids into travel baseball because they think their kid is going to play in the major leagues someday.
There are fewer than 1,000 players in major league baseball. They are recruited from all over the world. Not every country plays baseball, but seriously, we're probably talking a third or a quarter of the world's population has access to baseball.
I would LOVE it if Logan played MLB someday. However, I'm putting a little more effort into making sure he has a strong plan B.
Other dads are pushing their boys into travel baseball because they think it's the only way the kid will ever make their high school team.
To that, I say, "so what?" If they don't make their high school baseball team, they can still live fulfilling lives as productive members of society.
Should I be pushing him in baseball? I don't think so. I think that childhood is a time when he should be exploring a lot of different activities and options. He may not like baseball. Maybe he'll run track and cross country in High School. Maybe, heaven forbid, he won't play sports at all.
If he excels in baseball in High School and beyond, it'll be because he pushes himself. It'll be because he's one of those kids who practices even when they don't have to.
Logan can play travel baseball as long as he loves doing it. When it turns into a chore, he will have the option of doing something else. He's 9 years old and that's too young to have a job.
Amy Chua (the Tiger Mother) is proud of her daughters for having achieved excellence in piano and violin. The girls should be proud of their accomplishments.
On the other hand, I'd have to ask, "So what?" Why is it important to excel at piano and violin? Are they going to be professional musicians? If not, then seriously, what was all that work for? If it was because the girls loved it, that's one thing.
If it's because they had to, and had no choice, and their hours of piano practice kept them from enjoying a lot of the typical activities that form the warm memories of childhood, then sorry, I disagree with making them do it.
This is not to say that I'm pro-sports and anti-music. Far from it. I'm actually one of the least athletic people you'll ever meet.
I'm teaching my son basketball right now and frankly, I know a lot about the game. My son asked why I know so much about it, despite not-playing in High School, and I told him bluntly, "Because I wasn't very talented, I had to learn everything I could about how the game is played".
It didn't matter much. I never once made a middle school basketball team, and played only a couple of years of CYO. Sometimes, sorry, genetics trumps a love of the game, even when you're a 5'11" 7th grader.
I also happen to love music. I taught myself to play guitar starting at age 16, and studied applied classical guitar in college. I also taught guitar for 3 years.
In my personal story, I would have been a kid who practiced 4 hours a day. My family simply couldn't afford instruments or music lessons. I asked for them starting in about the 2nd grade and kept up the asking until about the 4th, at which point it became obvious that it just wasn't going to happen.
When I was old enough to buy my own guitar, I did, and practiced constantly. I did this from the time I was 16 until about the time I left college in Texas at age 25.
You can't make up for lost time on something like this. I would clearly have been a much better musician if I had the resources to start earlier.
So, is that an argument for the Tiger Mom? No, it isn't. What if I didn't want to play the violin? What if I were like my son and wasn't musically inclined, but athletically inclined?
The Tiger Mom might have worked out in my case, probably. I would have loved to have learned how to play the piano. But the fact that she was oblivious to listening to her kids means that it probably wouldn't have worked out for most kids, most of the time.
Ultimately, popular music is not made with violins, and to an increasing degree, not with guitars, either. Classical music is something that appeals to a lot of people if it's in the background, like Muzak. Beyond that, it doesn't impact the lives of most people.
So, is music unimportant? Is baseball unimportant? They're both very important each in their own way. Which one should you push your kid into? Neither, but you should facilitate their ability to pursue the one they'll love. And you can't find out which one they love if you're shoving other activities down their throats.
Getting back to basketball, Logan recently tried out for the city's premier basketball team and didn't make the cut. It was a flashback to the first day of tee-ball practice. He didn't succeed because I hadn't prepared him. I only heard about the tryouts the week or so before. Had I been able to put Logan through a few workouts, he may have made the squad.
Am I worried? Is he doomed? Will the players on the team outpace him? Will he never make his High School team? The reality of this is that he probably has the physical skills to make his High School team. If he makes it, it will be because he worked hard at it, for years, and not because he was forced to. I can haul him to the warehouse to shoot hoops once or twice a week, but the kids who make the HS team will be the ones who are practicing a few hours, multiple times a week, all Summer long.
He'll make it if he has the love. If he doesn't, he won't. And either way is fine with me. I'll help him, but I won't stand over him and force him. He's got to want it for himself.
Ultimately, we all want to raise well-adjusted, competent, contributing members of society. We're all going to go about it each in our own way. No method works for raising all kids.
My boy is a people pleaser. He doesn't rebel. He's not mischievous. Me? I was all that. You don't raise a boy like my boy the way you have to raise somebody like I was.
Kids are individuals, and there is something inside there. There's a human being with likes and dislikes. In my opinion, a successful parent is one who allows the child room to explore and grow, and to become a person they want to be, not just a person they have to be.
I don't agree with trying to force a kid into our image of what they should be. Whether that's a piano-playing science-fair winning high achiever, or a kid who throws a 90 mph fastball.
There are hard limits, of course. We want our children to be moral. We want our children to do SOMETHING with their lives. However, micromanaging their lives into a very, very, very narrow set of experiences is not something I believe in doing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html
Basically, kids are expected to be high achievers, and that a parent is justified in using methods that others might consider extreme in order to achieve that goal. For instance, 4 hours of piano practice, without a bathroom or meal break, is one of the anectdotes in the book.
The author has been the subject of considerably hostility. Apparently, some folks have even threatened her with violence of some sort or another.
I'm loathe to claim much knowledge in the area of parenting. Yet, I find myself disagreeing with this woman's stance. The hypocrasy of this does not escape me: I chastise a woman for claiming a superior method of parenting, at the same time, believing that some of her methods are inferior.
Let me start with my biggest problem with her book: it works from the premise that her method produced superior kids.
There are a few nits to pick with this. Number one is that her kids are still teenagers. It's a bit premature to roll out the "mission accomplished" banner. In fact, what we know of development of the brain suggests that parts of it are still developing well into the mid 20s. So, it's going to be some years before we know whether this method worked or not.
Second, sorry, but this is a Harvard Law educated woman who teaches at Yale Law School. Her husband is similarly brilliant. I'm one of the folks who believes that genetics has a lot to do with a person's achievement in life. She won the genetic lottery and by extension, so did her daughters.
If they had been raised by a longshoreman, they'd still be brilliant.
The basic question comes down to this, though: what is the goal of parenting?
That's a question folks can only answer for themselves.
As some of you know, I have mixed feelings about travel baseball and the issues it raises are similar to the discussion this book raises.
I still remember Logan's first day of tee-ball practice. I was helping coach some of the kids, and I heard somebody say, "Jim, come over here, Logan just got hit in the face with the ball."
Luckily, tee ball is played with a softer baseball. I sat Logan on my knee and he regained his composure. I asked if he wanted to keep playing and he didn't even hesitate. He ran back to join the other kids.
A few minutes later, "Jim, Logan got hit in the face with the ball again."
I can't tell you exactly what I was thinking at the moment, but I think it was something along the lines of, "Oh f***ity f***ing f***."
Went over and sat him on my knee, he regained his composure and again, went right back out to play.
After that practice, I hated myself. I hated myself for not preparing him. I don't know how in the world Logan was the lucky kid who got hit in the face not once, but twice, but it happened.
So, I immediately bought a tennis balls and some wiffle balls and started to teach him how to catch a ball with a baseball glove.
I worked with him a little bit, but his biggest improvement came when he would practice by himself at night. He would take a wiffle ball and throw it against the front door and field it with his glove. A wiffle ball gives you no feedback in the glove, so it's 100% hand-eye practice. I liken it to trying to catch a flying BB with tweezers.
Hours every night he practiced. I never had to push him towards it, encourage him to do it or even mention it to him. He just loved doing it.
Fast forward to the modern day and Logan has made our city's premier travel baseball team.
I'm lukewarm to the idea of travel baseball. Logan's mom brought up to me last year that Logan might not want to play travel this year. I told her, flat-out, I didn't care if Logan played rec league ball, or if he never touched a baseball glove again for the rest of his life. My only line in the sand was that he had to finish out the season because we had made a committment to the team.
Is baseball important? Well, yeah, I think it is. I probably think it's more important than a lot of things in life.
However, I also know that there are dads who are pushing their kids into travel baseball because they think their kid is going to play in the major leagues someday.
There are fewer than 1,000 players in major league baseball. They are recruited from all over the world. Not every country plays baseball, but seriously, we're probably talking a third or a quarter of the world's population has access to baseball.
I would LOVE it if Logan played MLB someday. However, I'm putting a little more effort into making sure he has a strong plan B.
Other dads are pushing their boys into travel baseball because they think it's the only way the kid will ever make their high school team.
To that, I say, "so what?" If they don't make their high school baseball team, they can still live fulfilling lives as productive members of society.
Should I be pushing him in baseball? I don't think so. I think that childhood is a time when he should be exploring a lot of different activities and options. He may not like baseball. Maybe he'll run track and cross country in High School. Maybe, heaven forbid, he won't play sports at all.
If he excels in baseball in High School and beyond, it'll be because he pushes himself. It'll be because he's one of those kids who practices even when they don't have to.
Logan can play travel baseball as long as he loves doing it. When it turns into a chore, he will have the option of doing something else. He's 9 years old and that's too young to have a job.
Amy Chua (the Tiger Mother) is proud of her daughters for having achieved excellence in piano and violin. The girls should be proud of their accomplishments.
On the other hand, I'd have to ask, "So what?" Why is it important to excel at piano and violin? Are they going to be professional musicians? If not, then seriously, what was all that work for? If it was because the girls loved it, that's one thing.
If it's because they had to, and had no choice, and their hours of piano practice kept them from enjoying a lot of the typical activities that form the warm memories of childhood, then sorry, I disagree with making them do it.
This is not to say that I'm pro-sports and anti-music. Far from it. I'm actually one of the least athletic people you'll ever meet.
I'm teaching my son basketball right now and frankly, I know a lot about the game. My son asked why I know so much about it, despite not-playing in High School, and I told him bluntly, "Because I wasn't very talented, I had to learn everything I could about how the game is played".
It didn't matter much. I never once made a middle school basketball team, and played only a couple of years of CYO. Sometimes, sorry, genetics trumps a love of the game, even when you're a 5'11" 7th grader.
I also happen to love music. I taught myself to play guitar starting at age 16, and studied applied classical guitar in college. I also taught guitar for 3 years.
In my personal story, I would have been a kid who practiced 4 hours a day. My family simply couldn't afford instruments or music lessons. I asked for them starting in about the 2nd grade and kept up the asking until about the 4th, at which point it became obvious that it just wasn't going to happen.
When I was old enough to buy my own guitar, I did, and practiced constantly. I did this from the time I was 16 until about the time I left college in Texas at age 25.
You can't make up for lost time on something like this. I would clearly have been a much better musician if I had the resources to start earlier.
So, is that an argument for the Tiger Mom? No, it isn't. What if I didn't want to play the violin? What if I were like my son and wasn't musically inclined, but athletically inclined?
The Tiger Mom might have worked out in my case, probably. I would have loved to have learned how to play the piano. But the fact that she was oblivious to listening to her kids means that it probably wouldn't have worked out for most kids, most of the time.
Ultimately, popular music is not made with violins, and to an increasing degree, not with guitars, either. Classical music is something that appeals to a lot of people if it's in the background, like Muzak. Beyond that, it doesn't impact the lives of most people.
So, is music unimportant? Is baseball unimportant? They're both very important each in their own way. Which one should you push your kid into? Neither, but you should facilitate their ability to pursue the one they'll love. And you can't find out which one they love if you're shoving other activities down their throats.
Getting back to basketball, Logan recently tried out for the city's premier basketball team and didn't make the cut. It was a flashback to the first day of tee-ball practice. He didn't succeed because I hadn't prepared him. I only heard about the tryouts the week or so before. Had I been able to put Logan through a few workouts, he may have made the squad.
Am I worried? Is he doomed? Will the players on the team outpace him? Will he never make his High School team? The reality of this is that he probably has the physical skills to make his High School team. If he makes it, it will be because he worked hard at it, for years, and not because he was forced to. I can haul him to the warehouse to shoot hoops once or twice a week, but the kids who make the HS team will be the ones who are practicing a few hours, multiple times a week, all Summer long.
He'll make it if he has the love. If he doesn't, he won't. And either way is fine with me. I'll help him, but I won't stand over him and force him. He's got to want it for himself.
Ultimately, we all want to raise well-adjusted, competent, contributing members of society. We're all going to go about it each in our own way. No method works for raising all kids.
My boy is a people pleaser. He doesn't rebel. He's not mischievous. Me? I was all that. You don't raise a boy like my boy the way you have to raise somebody like I was.
Kids are individuals, and there is something inside there. There's a human being with likes and dislikes. In my opinion, a successful parent is one who allows the child room to explore and grow, and to become a person they want to be, not just a person they have to be.
I don't agree with trying to force a kid into our image of what they should be. Whether that's a piano-playing science-fair winning high achiever, or a kid who throws a 90 mph fastball.
There are hard limits, of course. We want our children to be moral. We want our children to do SOMETHING with their lives. However, micromanaging their lives into a very, very, very narrow set of experiences is not something I believe in doing.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The crisis and crossroads blog post...
2011 has begun and so far, it's kicked off exactly as I had hoped. We're swamped with work at the biz. It's mostly general contracting stuff that's keeping us busy. That's not ideal, but we can make money doing the GC stuff. Much better than the days when we weren't turning a profit. Not sure how long this will last, but this is a business where you are at the mercy of the weather.
There's no reason to believe that we aren't profitable again, though.
Not too long and I will be taking the LSAT. Yeah, after all these years, and at my age, I'm contemplating returning to school. Part of it was taking Arabic last fall. It was a real motivator. I won't say that it reminded me that school is fun, because I don't think it is. However, it reminded me that if you stay on top of your studies, you're going to do just fine.
Even if my business does well, I want to diversify my income streams and this is a good way to do it. Law is a profession people can practice well into old age.
Of course, this presumes I'm accepted into a law school, which is pretty far from a foregone conclusion. All I can do is submit my application and take it as it goes.
I had a bit of a crisis of motivation regarding my Navy service for the past few weeks. The travel was wearing me out. Also, the cost of the travel, since it comes out of my own pocket, is a bummer. Granted, I knew that coming in, but the reality of it was heavier than I might have anticipated.
Plus, well... it's starting to feel a lot more like work and a lot less like fun.
I was turning in my paperwork to get my $2,000 bonus for taking Arabic, and had to make a choice. If I submitted the paperwork, I also needed to commit to another 2 years in the reserves.
I'm also disgusted by the state of things in the country right now. Maybe it's always been this corrupt, but as folks know, I feel that the Wall Street bailouts really laid bare just how fairness and equality are only buzzwords we throw around when the monied interests aren't busy robbing us blind.
Am I really willing to die for a country whose number one priority is to make sure that rich people get richer? Seriously, what sort of simpleton sacrifices his life for a country that exists only for the benefit of the wealthy, and where the wealthy are not even willing to sacrifice their quarterly bonuses?
I think this is a crisis of faith. Military service, I have always felt, is a calling much like the clergy. I agree with Dubya when he says that if a person has never had a crisis of faith, that that means the person simply hasn't thought about their faith very much.
Sometimes faith means being unable to reconcile certain things, and simply believing that, on the whole, the good done outweighs any bad. Maybe that's where I am with serving the United States.
I am okay with hitching up for another two years. That's not that long of a time. I've completed 3 years already and it went by in the blink of an eye. I only have 2 more trips to Texas this fiscal year. Once those are done, I will be halfway through my tour with the contracting unit in Fort Worth.
I still stand a chance at mobilization, though clearly the mobilizations are becoming less and less frequent. Once I get my contracting certification, I will be fair game, but a lot can happen. I won't have my certification until next fiscal year. By then, Obama has promised we'll be out of Iraq. All I can do is wait and see.
The future prospects for my reserve career don't look good, though. It's a lot of guys competing for very few billets. For promotion, if I don't mobilize, I'll be behind everybody who did. The odds of me having to fly around at my own expense if I stay in the reserves is pretty good once I get to O-5, and even O-4. (I will be an O-3 in less than a year.)
Still, that's a ways off. I am thinking I'll do a couple more years. I'd like to leave the service as at least an O-3, if I leave. By then, with any luck, the wars will be pretty much completely wound down. They just won't need as many of us.
I joined the military because there were two wars going on and the manpower demands were really hurting the folks who were serving.
Once the wars are over, I will probably beat my sword back into a plowshare and focus on trying to make enough money to put my son through college and put myself through retirement.
In the mean time, life is good. Need more of the same for a while. 2010 was a brutal year in a lot of ways. I hope to be able to return to what life was like in 2008 and 2009. Things were pretty darned perfect back then.
There's no reason to believe that we aren't profitable again, though.
Not too long and I will be taking the LSAT. Yeah, after all these years, and at my age, I'm contemplating returning to school. Part of it was taking Arabic last fall. It was a real motivator. I won't say that it reminded me that school is fun, because I don't think it is. However, it reminded me that if you stay on top of your studies, you're going to do just fine.
Even if my business does well, I want to diversify my income streams and this is a good way to do it. Law is a profession people can practice well into old age.
Of course, this presumes I'm accepted into a law school, which is pretty far from a foregone conclusion. All I can do is submit my application and take it as it goes.
I had a bit of a crisis of motivation regarding my Navy service for the past few weeks. The travel was wearing me out. Also, the cost of the travel, since it comes out of my own pocket, is a bummer. Granted, I knew that coming in, but the reality of it was heavier than I might have anticipated.
Plus, well... it's starting to feel a lot more like work and a lot less like fun.
I was turning in my paperwork to get my $2,000 bonus for taking Arabic, and had to make a choice. If I submitted the paperwork, I also needed to commit to another 2 years in the reserves.
I'm also disgusted by the state of things in the country right now. Maybe it's always been this corrupt, but as folks know, I feel that the Wall Street bailouts really laid bare just how fairness and equality are only buzzwords we throw around when the monied interests aren't busy robbing us blind.
Am I really willing to die for a country whose number one priority is to make sure that rich people get richer? Seriously, what sort of simpleton sacrifices his life for a country that exists only for the benefit of the wealthy, and where the wealthy are not even willing to sacrifice their quarterly bonuses?
I think this is a crisis of faith. Military service, I have always felt, is a calling much like the clergy. I agree with Dubya when he says that if a person has never had a crisis of faith, that that means the person simply hasn't thought about their faith very much.
Sometimes faith means being unable to reconcile certain things, and simply believing that, on the whole, the good done outweighs any bad. Maybe that's where I am with serving the United States.
I am okay with hitching up for another two years. That's not that long of a time. I've completed 3 years already and it went by in the blink of an eye. I only have 2 more trips to Texas this fiscal year. Once those are done, I will be halfway through my tour with the contracting unit in Fort Worth.
I still stand a chance at mobilization, though clearly the mobilizations are becoming less and less frequent. Once I get my contracting certification, I will be fair game, but a lot can happen. I won't have my certification until next fiscal year. By then, Obama has promised we'll be out of Iraq. All I can do is wait and see.
The future prospects for my reserve career don't look good, though. It's a lot of guys competing for very few billets. For promotion, if I don't mobilize, I'll be behind everybody who did. The odds of me having to fly around at my own expense if I stay in the reserves is pretty good once I get to O-5, and even O-4. (I will be an O-3 in less than a year.)
Still, that's a ways off. I am thinking I'll do a couple more years. I'd like to leave the service as at least an O-3, if I leave. By then, with any luck, the wars will be pretty much completely wound down. They just won't need as many of us.
I joined the military because there were two wars going on and the manpower demands were really hurting the folks who were serving.
Once the wars are over, I will probably beat my sword back into a plowshare and focus on trying to make enough money to put my son through college and put myself through retirement.
In the mean time, life is good. Need more of the same for a while. 2010 was a brutal year in a lot of ways. I hope to be able to return to what life was like in 2008 and 2009. Things were pretty darned perfect back then.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
End of Year Blogpost
The business year is ending on a high note. Got in a bunch of money, most of which was long overdue. All in all, the year was a disaster, but mostly because it was a nasty ride down. Our gross volume literally fell by 50%.
Next year, we're in good shape. Paid off a few notes. So, our monthly cash flow should be a lot better. We also downsized to the bone. We don't even have an office administrator right now. I'm filling that role. Though, if things get better, like I think they should, we'll be hiring one first part of next year.
We've got work on the board, too. Some pretty good stuff. All in all, we may have turned the corner. Even though volume was bitterly disappointing (far worse than anything I could have imagined at this time last year), if we did the same volume next year, the company would be very profitable again. The weather seems to be getting a little more harsh.
It's amazing that I surivived this past year. It was the first real hard bump in the road since I opened my doors. The lesson to take away from all this is that you can't count on a straight 40% growth trajectory, or even for volume to remain consistent from year to year.
I'm looking to make some changes next year. I want to diversify my revenue streams so that a down year in one particular business unit won't necessarily mean pain. Will have to see how it goes.
I am living in the cabin pretty much all the time these days. I call it the cabin because the back yard overlooks a nice wooded ravine. Also, because it's pretty much only 35% or so remodelled at this point. It's like living in a house that's being remodelled.
Half the house looks trashed. One of the bedrooms is 100% done. It's the first room in the house I can say that about, other than the downstairs half-bath. Another two are about 90% there. So far, so good.
Structurally, I feel good about the house, though. We had to fix a problem with some sagging load-bearing beams and everything is 100% right now. It's finally got good bones, though it took a lot of work. My goal is to have this house ready to sell by the time Logan graduates from High School. I figure I'm in Sylvania until then. After that? Who the heck knows.
Logan continues to be an absolute joy. We went skiing twice during his Christmas break and he loves it. Granted, it's not that odd to love skiing. It's about like saying you like amusement parks. It's just something that's generally enjoyable for most folks.
We drove a couple of hours away to a ski slope that's supposed to be a lot nicer than the one we went to last year. It really was better. However, it's all of a 2 hour drive. The other place is less than an hour. So, for day-trips, it makes sense to go to the closer place.
If possible, I may see if I can get Logan for a few days and use the time to visit his grandma in Akron, and then drive up to Peek n Peak in upstate New York. That's a pretty big logistical committment. Peek 'n Peak is almost 3 hours away. However, the skiing there is worlds better than what we've got within driving distance, here.
I wish there were a way to fly out for a skiing vacation. I really wish Logan had year-round school with the breaks interspersed throughout the year. I don't know what the resistance to that is, but it would make things so much nicer for us as far as any activities that involve travel, like visiting the relatives in Arizona.
As for the coming of the new year, here are my resolutions:
1. Guide my business back to high profitability.
2. Embark on a new skill set / career.
3. Make strong progress on all my financial goals, especially debt reduction.
4. Continue to spend quality time with my son. Make the most of these next 9 years with him.
5. Get the house closer and closer to being in a "finished" state. Pretty much anybody who has ever done a major restoration/remodel can tell you that things take a lot more time and money than folks thought they would. So, "progress" is as much as I'll commit to on this goal.
Next year, we're in good shape. Paid off a few notes. So, our monthly cash flow should be a lot better. We also downsized to the bone. We don't even have an office administrator right now. I'm filling that role. Though, if things get better, like I think they should, we'll be hiring one first part of next year.
We've got work on the board, too. Some pretty good stuff. All in all, we may have turned the corner. Even though volume was bitterly disappointing (far worse than anything I could have imagined at this time last year), if we did the same volume next year, the company would be very profitable again. The weather seems to be getting a little more harsh.
It's amazing that I surivived this past year. It was the first real hard bump in the road since I opened my doors. The lesson to take away from all this is that you can't count on a straight 40% growth trajectory, or even for volume to remain consistent from year to year.
I'm looking to make some changes next year. I want to diversify my revenue streams so that a down year in one particular business unit won't necessarily mean pain. Will have to see how it goes.
I am living in the cabin pretty much all the time these days. I call it the cabin because the back yard overlooks a nice wooded ravine. Also, because it's pretty much only 35% or so remodelled at this point. It's like living in a house that's being remodelled.
Half the house looks trashed. One of the bedrooms is 100% done. It's the first room in the house I can say that about, other than the downstairs half-bath. Another two are about 90% there. So far, so good.
Structurally, I feel good about the house, though. We had to fix a problem with some sagging load-bearing beams and everything is 100% right now. It's finally got good bones, though it took a lot of work. My goal is to have this house ready to sell by the time Logan graduates from High School. I figure I'm in Sylvania until then. After that? Who the heck knows.
Logan continues to be an absolute joy. We went skiing twice during his Christmas break and he loves it. Granted, it's not that odd to love skiing. It's about like saying you like amusement parks. It's just something that's generally enjoyable for most folks.
We drove a couple of hours away to a ski slope that's supposed to be a lot nicer than the one we went to last year. It really was better. However, it's all of a 2 hour drive. The other place is less than an hour. So, for day-trips, it makes sense to go to the closer place.
If possible, I may see if I can get Logan for a few days and use the time to visit his grandma in Akron, and then drive up to Peek n Peak in upstate New York. That's a pretty big logistical committment. Peek 'n Peak is almost 3 hours away. However, the skiing there is worlds better than what we've got within driving distance, here.
I wish there were a way to fly out for a skiing vacation. I really wish Logan had year-round school with the breaks interspersed throughout the year. I don't know what the resistance to that is, but it would make things so much nicer for us as far as any activities that involve travel, like visiting the relatives in Arizona.
As for the coming of the new year, here are my resolutions:
1. Guide my business back to high profitability.
2. Embark on a new skill set / career.
3. Make strong progress on all my financial goals, especially debt reduction.
4. Continue to spend quality time with my son. Make the most of these next 9 years with him.
5. Get the house closer and closer to being in a "finished" state. Pretty much anybody who has ever done a major restoration/remodel can tell you that things take a lot more time and money than folks thought they would. So, "progress" is as much as I'll commit to on this goal.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Great Moment in TARP
There were lots of horrendous moments in TARP and the crafting of the bills that bailed out Wall Street for their criminal incompetence.
One example is when Chris Dodd's staff (at the behest of an un-named official, probably Tim Geithner) stripped out compensation limits from the legislation.
There was one great moment, though. It was the type of victory for the little guy that almost never happens.
To understand this moment, it is illustrative to look at the two TARP bill votes.
The first vote was to have the government buy up all the toxic assets the banks had acquired. Basically, give us the toxic stuff, and leave the banks to continue raking it in. This vote actually failed due to popular outrage at the possibility that the American people would be stuck with the bad stuff in the banks' portfolios.
The second vote was for the taxpayer to basically give the banks billions of dollars. Now, whether we wanted it to happen or not, it was going to happen and it is happening today. That's why, for instance, the government continues to lend money to the banks at 0% interest, and then sell them T-bills that allow the banks to make 3% interest.
The government wants to use their power to make banks rich.
In the code that was written in the bill, some sneaky congressional staffer added these lines:
(c) Direct purchases
"If the Secretary determines that use of a market mechanism under subsection (b) is not feasible or appropriate, and the purposes of the chapter are best met through direct purchases from an individual financial institution, the Secretary shall pursue additional measures to ensure that prices paid for assets are reasonable and reflect the underlying value of the asset."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00005223----000-.html
What does this mean? Well, the bill, without these lines, would have meant that the government would have given the banks loans, or would have simply given them money.
However, they would not have been able to buy the stock of the companies.
It is because we bought stock that people are now saying that TARP may turn a profit. (It probably won't, but it won't cost as much as we thought at first.)
If not for that sneaky staffer, taxpayer losses from TARP would have been much, much greater.
It is ONLY because of that sneaky staffer that the American people had a chance to benefit from the banks (and auto-makers) recovering.
TARP was, in my opinion (as I've mentioned at length) a disgusting series of anti-capitalist measures, taken with no regard for the taxpayer, and which handsomely rewarded Wall Street banks for reckless and criminal behavior.
These lines of code, inserted in the bill, are the only bright spot of the entire debacle. If we had enacted compensation limits, haircuts for counterparties, and wiping out of shareholder equity, along with a nationalization and the US as the sole shareholder to be reimbursed at an IPO sometime down the road when the banks were healthy, I doubt there'd be the outrage about TARP that there is.
Instead, TARP was written in such a way as to maximize the benefit Wall Street received. That's why we're mad.
Thanks to one ballsy congressional staffer, though, we actually derived some benefit from TARP. It's these lines of the bill that are the only part that didn't completely screw over America.
One example is when Chris Dodd's staff (at the behest of an un-named official, probably Tim Geithner) stripped out compensation limits from the legislation.
There was one great moment, though. It was the type of victory for the little guy that almost never happens.
To understand this moment, it is illustrative to look at the two TARP bill votes.
The first vote was to have the government buy up all the toxic assets the banks had acquired. Basically, give us the toxic stuff, and leave the banks to continue raking it in. This vote actually failed due to popular outrage at the possibility that the American people would be stuck with the bad stuff in the banks' portfolios.
The second vote was for the taxpayer to basically give the banks billions of dollars. Now, whether we wanted it to happen or not, it was going to happen and it is happening today. That's why, for instance, the government continues to lend money to the banks at 0% interest, and then sell them T-bills that allow the banks to make 3% interest.
The government wants to use their power to make banks rich.
In the code that was written in the bill, some sneaky congressional staffer added these lines:
(c) Direct purchases
"If the Secretary determines that use of a market mechanism under subsection (b) is not feasible or appropriate, and the purposes of the chapter are best met through direct purchases from an individual financial institution, the Secretary shall pursue additional measures to ensure that prices paid for assets are reasonable and reflect the underlying value of the asset."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12/usc_sec_12_00005223----000-.html
What does this mean? Well, the bill, without these lines, would have meant that the government would have given the banks loans, or would have simply given them money.
However, they would not have been able to buy the stock of the companies.
It is because we bought stock that people are now saying that TARP may turn a profit. (It probably won't, but it won't cost as much as we thought at first.)
If not for that sneaky staffer, taxpayer losses from TARP would have been much, much greater.
It is ONLY because of that sneaky staffer that the American people had a chance to benefit from the banks (and auto-makers) recovering.
TARP was, in my opinion (as I've mentioned at length) a disgusting series of anti-capitalist measures, taken with no regard for the taxpayer, and which handsomely rewarded Wall Street banks for reckless and criminal behavior.
These lines of code, inserted in the bill, are the only bright spot of the entire debacle. If we had enacted compensation limits, haircuts for counterparties, and wiping out of shareholder equity, along with a nationalization and the US as the sole shareholder to be reimbursed at an IPO sometime down the road when the banks were healthy, I doubt there'd be the outrage about TARP that there is.
Instead, TARP was written in such a way as to maximize the benefit Wall Street received. That's why we're mad.
Thanks to one ballsy congressional staffer, though, we actually derived some benefit from TARP. It's these lines of the bill that are the only part that didn't completely screw over America.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
It wasn't Obama's fault... It really was Bush's fault... But can Obama recover?
As I watch the slow motion train-wreck that the Obama presidency is turning out to be, I can't help but feel sorry for the guy.
He got beaten up a bit for going to the "it's Bush's fault" well one too many times. I think people knew he was right... they just didn't want a president who was going to whine about the past. They wanted one who would lead us into a brighter future.
The economic crisis? I think that was largely Clinton's fault, actually. He's the one who led the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In fact, the biggest villains in all that are probably the Republican congress. They're the one constant when we talk about a continuum of legislative actions that were way too friendly to banking interests, and way too neglectful, or downright hostile, to average citizens.
I want to be frank when I say: if we had not repealed Glass Steagall, we wouldn't have had to respond to the economic crisis the way we did.
Obama bears a lot of the blame too, but mostly, he bears it for badly misplaying a bad hand that he was dealt by Bush.
The Wall Street bailouts? They're huge. Maybe not as huge with most people as they are with me, but they're enough to get vast swaths of the population furious.
Obama, Geithner, Paulson and an army of economists have said, rightly so, that the bailouts were necessary.
Well... I think some form of bailout was necessary. However, there are two things the American people simply cannot forgive, even though years have now passed.
The first is that they told their legislators, flat-out, do not bail out the banks. Make them suffer the consequences of their recklessness. If people on Main Street need to feel the pain that capitalism frequently brings, then the folks on Wall Street should be no different.
We all know the history, there. The congress voted down the TARP, but the Wall Street lobbying machine went into high gear, bought more politicians, Pelosi and Bush twisted more arms, and TARP passed on the second vote.
The voters have absolutely taken it out on the hide of people who voted for TARP. That was a toxic vote. It cost congresspeople their careers, and it should have.
You simply can't tell the population of a democracy that you don't care what they want and expect to get away with it every time.
Eventually, you're really going to piss them off.
The second problem? The second problem is that no effort was made to curb executive compensation during the birth of TARP.
It wasn't that the idea wasn't brought up. Nancy Pelosi mentioned it. Harry Reid was in the room when she did.
Hank Paulson said, basically, no, no, no. If we put any strings on this, the bankers won't go along with it. And if they won't go along with it, we'll be burning library books to keep warm and eating squirrels because we will be cast back into the stone age if we don't do something about the impending financial crisis. (Not a direct quote, but you get the idea.)
So, they didn't. The problems that resulted were predictable and people were furious. In some instances, in some cities, people literally took to the streets.
Obama did what he could to impose compensation limits after the fact, but he really couldn't do much. It was too little, too late.
Those Wall Street banker bonuses were a hidden time bomb that the Bush administration left for Obama.
I honestly feel that once the news of banker bonuses hit the press, Obama was doomed. The public simply didn't trust the government to do anything, for any reason, at any time. The government completely lost any moral authority they may have had when it was laid naked that Wall Street was going to profit immensely for destroying the economy.
Now, Obama also badly misplayed his hand, too. It was a bad one, but he made a critical error of focusing on health care for a year, rather than focusing on Wall Street reform.
The people? Were rightly angry and wanted to see the modern equivalent of Pecora hearings. Pecora was the guy who hauled all the idiots who caused the great depression in front of congress and grilled them.
Instead, Obama was very conciliatory. He was almost Lincolnesque in his handling of Wall Street after the crisis. It was as if his motto for handling Wall Street was "with malice towards none, with charity for all".
The problem is that Lincoln held that attitude about the reconstruction confederacy. They were already decimated. Trying to exact punishment on them would have been pointless.
Obama held that attitude towards the very bankers who caused our problems, and who were cashing multimillion (and in some cases multibillion) dollar checks while the nation got to experience 10% unemployment.
It made things doubly worse that the health-care reform bill he created was nothing short of astoundingly assinine.
His claims that he had implemented new, tough Wall Street reforms were ridiculous to the point of being difficult to claim with a straight face.
Right now, nobody is listening to Obama anymore. He booted Wall Street reform. He went easy on Wall Street in every imagineable way. He booted health care reform.
The public's mistrust of government is higher than at any time since Vietnam. They simply don't trust congress to get anything right, right now.
So, what's Obama to do? I'm not sure there's anything he can do. He is our nation's Jimmy Carter. A guy too nice for the job. Weak and ineffectual at a time when we needed a tough crisis leader.
A person can claim (with valid arguments to support the position) that Bush led the country in the wrong direction in the days after 9/11. However, at the time, he inspired confidence. He gave folks the impression he was in charge.
But the Taliban no longer controls Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein is dead. He did some good things... just probably not the good things that he should have been doing.
Obama? It's hard to name a single thing he's done that's good. Really.
I had a lot of misgivings about Obama the candidate. Some of them were profoundly wrong, such as my fear that he was actually a far-left radical.
However, one of my misgivings was right on the money: this guy has never been a success at any job he's ever held. Not ever. His entire resume consists of getting his ticket punched at various junctures, but he hasn't really had a single notable accomplishment, and the few minor accomplishments he's racked up smack of a thumb being put on the scale to help him gain gravitas that he hasn't quite earned.
He's out of his league. This is his first real job and he's blowing it, badly.
Bill Clinton lost his friends on the left when he moved away from them and started co-opting agenda items from the right like welfare reform.
Obama has lost his friends on the left because they're moving away from him because he's so badly botched his attempts at agenda items from the left.
Right now, we don't need a conciliator in chief. Right now, we need freakin' Harry Truman. We need somebody to rip the throats out of Wall Street Executives and make sure that as many of them as possible finish their lives unemployed and penniless.
(Sound harsh? That's the fate of a whole lot of honest, hard-working people who DIDN'T create this crisis. I feel no need to go softer on the very folks who caused it.)
He needs to take on congress. Reagan didn't work WITH congress. He made congress his enemy. Then he rolled up a newspaper and smacked the crap out of it until it sat up and begged and did what he wanted it to do.
Just as Obama was the right man, in the right place, at the right time, during his campaign. He's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time as president.
I just don't see how he can turn this around. However, the first thing I'd do is fire Giethner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren or Brooksley Born.
Then, I'd declare war on Wall Street. I'd declare war on the Fed and get the banks off of welfare. I'd force them to mark their assets to market and they'd be insolvent overnight.
I'd let another couple of Wall Street firms fail and when the rest came crying for another bailout, I'd tell them the terms the bailout would come with.
#1, the shareholders will be wiped out.
#2, the board of directors will be fired.
#3, the executives would be fired.
Any director or executive would be barred from ever working for an FDIC insured institution ever again.
Then, I'd re-institute Glass Steagall.
Harsh? Crazy? Maybe. But nothing short of this will rebuild Obama's moral authority. Right now, he has none.
He got beaten up a bit for going to the "it's Bush's fault" well one too many times. I think people knew he was right... they just didn't want a president who was going to whine about the past. They wanted one who would lead us into a brighter future.
The economic crisis? I think that was largely Clinton's fault, actually. He's the one who led the repeal of Glass-Steagall. In fact, the biggest villains in all that are probably the Republican congress. They're the one constant when we talk about a continuum of legislative actions that were way too friendly to banking interests, and way too neglectful, or downright hostile, to average citizens.
I want to be frank when I say: if we had not repealed Glass Steagall, we wouldn't have had to respond to the economic crisis the way we did.
Obama bears a lot of the blame too, but mostly, he bears it for badly misplaying a bad hand that he was dealt by Bush.
The Wall Street bailouts? They're huge. Maybe not as huge with most people as they are with me, but they're enough to get vast swaths of the population furious.
Obama, Geithner, Paulson and an army of economists have said, rightly so, that the bailouts were necessary.
Well... I think some form of bailout was necessary. However, there are two things the American people simply cannot forgive, even though years have now passed.
The first is that they told their legislators, flat-out, do not bail out the banks. Make them suffer the consequences of their recklessness. If people on Main Street need to feel the pain that capitalism frequently brings, then the folks on Wall Street should be no different.
We all know the history, there. The congress voted down the TARP, but the Wall Street lobbying machine went into high gear, bought more politicians, Pelosi and Bush twisted more arms, and TARP passed on the second vote.
The voters have absolutely taken it out on the hide of people who voted for TARP. That was a toxic vote. It cost congresspeople their careers, and it should have.
You simply can't tell the population of a democracy that you don't care what they want and expect to get away with it every time.
Eventually, you're really going to piss them off.
The second problem? The second problem is that no effort was made to curb executive compensation during the birth of TARP.
It wasn't that the idea wasn't brought up. Nancy Pelosi mentioned it. Harry Reid was in the room when she did.
Hank Paulson said, basically, no, no, no. If we put any strings on this, the bankers won't go along with it. And if they won't go along with it, we'll be burning library books to keep warm and eating squirrels because we will be cast back into the stone age if we don't do something about the impending financial crisis. (Not a direct quote, but you get the idea.)
So, they didn't. The problems that resulted were predictable and people were furious. In some instances, in some cities, people literally took to the streets.
Obama did what he could to impose compensation limits after the fact, but he really couldn't do much. It was too little, too late.
Those Wall Street banker bonuses were a hidden time bomb that the Bush administration left for Obama.
I honestly feel that once the news of banker bonuses hit the press, Obama was doomed. The public simply didn't trust the government to do anything, for any reason, at any time. The government completely lost any moral authority they may have had when it was laid naked that Wall Street was going to profit immensely for destroying the economy.
Now, Obama also badly misplayed his hand, too. It was a bad one, but he made a critical error of focusing on health care for a year, rather than focusing on Wall Street reform.
The people? Were rightly angry and wanted to see the modern equivalent of Pecora hearings. Pecora was the guy who hauled all the idiots who caused the great depression in front of congress and grilled them.
Instead, Obama was very conciliatory. He was almost Lincolnesque in his handling of Wall Street after the crisis. It was as if his motto for handling Wall Street was "with malice towards none, with charity for all".
The problem is that Lincoln held that attitude about the reconstruction confederacy. They were already decimated. Trying to exact punishment on them would have been pointless.
Obama held that attitude towards the very bankers who caused our problems, and who were cashing multimillion (and in some cases multibillion) dollar checks while the nation got to experience 10% unemployment.
It made things doubly worse that the health-care reform bill he created was nothing short of astoundingly assinine.
His claims that he had implemented new, tough Wall Street reforms were ridiculous to the point of being difficult to claim with a straight face.
Right now, nobody is listening to Obama anymore. He booted Wall Street reform. He went easy on Wall Street in every imagineable way. He booted health care reform.
The public's mistrust of government is higher than at any time since Vietnam. They simply don't trust congress to get anything right, right now.
So, what's Obama to do? I'm not sure there's anything he can do. He is our nation's Jimmy Carter. A guy too nice for the job. Weak and ineffectual at a time when we needed a tough crisis leader.
A person can claim (with valid arguments to support the position) that Bush led the country in the wrong direction in the days after 9/11. However, at the time, he inspired confidence. He gave folks the impression he was in charge.
But the Taliban no longer controls Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein is dead. He did some good things... just probably not the good things that he should have been doing.
Obama? It's hard to name a single thing he's done that's good. Really.
I had a lot of misgivings about Obama the candidate. Some of them were profoundly wrong, such as my fear that he was actually a far-left radical.
However, one of my misgivings was right on the money: this guy has never been a success at any job he's ever held. Not ever. His entire resume consists of getting his ticket punched at various junctures, but he hasn't really had a single notable accomplishment, and the few minor accomplishments he's racked up smack of a thumb being put on the scale to help him gain gravitas that he hasn't quite earned.
He's out of his league. This is his first real job and he's blowing it, badly.
Bill Clinton lost his friends on the left when he moved away from them and started co-opting agenda items from the right like welfare reform.
Obama has lost his friends on the left because they're moving away from him because he's so badly botched his attempts at agenda items from the left.
Right now, we don't need a conciliator in chief. Right now, we need freakin' Harry Truman. We need somebody to rip the throats out of Wall Street Executives and make sure that as many of them as possible finish their lives unemployed and penniless.
(Sound harsh? That's the fate of a whole lot of honest, hard-working people who DIDN'T create this crisis. I feel no need to go softer on the very folks who caused it.)
He needs to take on congress. Reagan didn't work WITH congress. He made congress his enemy. Then he rolled up a newspaper and smacked the crap out of it until it sat up and begged and did what he wanted it to do.
Just as Obama was the right man, in the right place, at the right time, during his campaign. He's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time as president.
I just don't see how he can turn this around. However, the first thing I'd do is fire Giethner and replace him with Elizabeth Warren or Brooksley Born.
Then, I'd declare war on Wall Street. I'd declare war on the Fed and get the banks off of welfare. I'd force them to mark their assets to market and they'd be insolvent overnight.
I'd let another couple of Wall Street firms fail and when the rest came crying for another bailout, I'd tell them the terms the bailout would come with.
#1, the shareholders will be wiped out.
#2, the board of directors will be fired.
#3, the executives would be fired.
Any director or executive would be barred from ever working for an FDIC insured institution ever again.
Then, I'd re-institute Glass Steagall.
Harsh? Crazy? Maybe. But nothing short of this will rebuild Obama's moral authority. Right now, he has none.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)