I've been reading a new (2007) book by Fred Pearce entitled "With Speed and Violence - Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change". I do not recommend this book for reading immediately prior to bedtime. It's scary.
The author, who does not appear to be a kook but has some real credentials as a reporter, interviewed many scientists who are looking at various aspects of climate change. The chapters describe how each driver of climate change is behaving now, and how it is likely to affect our future climate. I've learned what these experts believe is happening with CO2, methane, peat bogs, permafrost, the albedo, clathrates, ocean currents,and other stuff.
I'm only halfway into the book and the news is all bad, so I'm done reading. If these people are right, we've put the global climate change train on the track, pushed the throttle on full, and retired to the club car for a few drinks while we wait for the inevitable and totally horrific wreck of our planet. Worried about over-population? Fuggetaboutit! Mother Nature will take care of this problem shortly, and the many fewer remaining humans will live in a much different fashion than we do now. We are quite adaptable, you know.
Who knows where this will go? We may have already started that train, or perhaps there is some time left to mitigate our climate-changing activities. But one thing I know: we humans are quite resistant to change. If inconvenience will be required to head off the end of the world as we know it, well, the world is going to end at some point anyway... Our best hope is that all this gloom and doom has been over-hyped and some compensating factors will keep our planet from overheating.
Stay tuned. It seems that the answers to almost all these questions will become apparent in this century, or perhaps in its first half. In the meantime, have another drink on me.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Iraq War Cost Update - Your Share is $1,523 Plus Interest
The National Priorities Project has calculated that the "incremental cost" of the Iraq War will hit $456 billion on September 30, 2007. This is money already spent, and does not include any future costs such as the medical treatment and disability benefits for soldiers wounded in Iraq - costs that will be giant in their own right.
"Incremental" means money that we would not have spent if we had not gone to war. For example, regular salaries of troops are not incremental, but combat pay is. Buying vehicles to replace those that have been worn out early or blown up in combat is incremental. You get the idea.
In 2003, when we invaded Iraq, that country had a population of about 25 million men, women, and children. As of September 30, 2007, the U.S. will have spent an "incremental" $18,280 for each of them in our effort to create a working, friendly democracy in Iraq. Or, to put it another way, George Bush has already spent $1,523 on Iraq for every one of the 300 million Americans.
Maybe you don't think this is a lot of money. Here's yet another way to think about it. George Bush could have taken the $1,523 and put it into a Social Security lock box for each one of us, to compound until we retire. If we were 18 this year, that money would grow by about $8,500 until we retired at 65. Now, here's the really bad news: since Bush borrowed this money and added it to the national debt which will not be repaid, we and our children will be paying out $8,500 in interest on this $1,523 over the next 47 years - and a good chunk of that will be going to Chinese investors.
The next time you meet an Iraq War Hawk, remind him or her of the amount his family has spent on the war to-date. For a family of five, that's $7,500, not counting the future medical costs or interest on the debt. Have the results been worth it?
"Incremental" means money that we would not have spent if we had not gone to war. For example, regular salaries of troops are not incremental, but combat pay is. Buying vehicles to replace those that have been worn out early or blown up in combat is incremental. You get the idea.
In 2003, when we invaded Iraq, that country had a population of about 25 million men, women, and children. As of September 30, 2007, the U.S. will have spent an "incremental" $18,280 for each of them in our effort to create a working, friendly democracy in Iraq. Or, to put it another way, George Bush has already spent $1,523 on Iraq for every one of the 300 million Americans.
Maybe you don't think this is a lot of money. Here's yet another way to think about it. George Bush could have taken the $1,523 and put it into a Social Security lock box for each one of us, to compound until we retire. If we were 18 this year, that money would grow by about $8,500 until we retired at 65. Now, here's the really bad news: since Bush borrowed this money and added it to the national debt which will not be repaid, we and our children will be paying out $8,500 in interest on this $1,523 over the next 47 years - and a good chunk of that will be going to Chinese investors.
The next time you meet an Iraq War Hawk, remind him or her of the amount his family has spent on the war to-date. For a family of five, that's $7,500, not counting the future medical costs or interest on the debt. Have the results been worth it?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Tiger, Tiger, Burning Bright!
It's Sunday afternoon. I went to church this morning where a tiny female substitute minister also played a beautiful Chopin variation on her violin together with a large black female guitar player who was excellent. Afterward I went to the ambulance to prepare financial statements for tonight's board meeting, but I took a call shortly after I finished the statements since no other medics were around. Now, after an interesting call, I've been home for awhile watching Tiger Woods win the Tour Championship tournament by an outrageous number of strokes - and also win the very first FedEx Cup. Just another day for Tiger...
2007 is Tiger's 11th year on the PGA tour since he left Stanford University after his freshman year to turn pro. He's won 61 tournaments and over $70 million, and he owns so many records I couldn't begin to relate them. His golf game is unique - no one has ever had as complete a game as Tiger. He hits it far; he hits it straight; he recovers from bad shots; he plays from sand like it isn't there; his short game and putting is possibly the best ever. But none of these things is the #1 reason I'm a great Tiger fan.
My #1 reason for admiring Tiger is that he has an unrelenting drive to excel. His golf game today is nothing like his golf game in 1997, where he won the Masters by 12 shots and embarassed every other top pro golfer. In those days he combined great talent and "feel" with youthful exuberance and confidence. Now though, he's much stronger, smarter, and "technical" - he dissects golf courses like a top-flight surgeon, and he can win even when he's not hitting the ball perfectly. He's changed his swing several times since 1997, struggling to do it a new way and willing to have some dry spells as he changed over. Tiger has never said "I'm good enough", and he's worked as hard as any other golfer to play his best. As a result, he's still as far ahead of the other golfers as he was 10 years ago, even though all his competitors have also improved their skills.
We can all learn a great lesson from Tiger, the lesson that improvement is a continuous goal regardless of our level of success. Even if our objectives fall short of being world class at anything, we can always try our best to do better every day. And that is the #1 reason why Tiger is a more admirable person than I am: he's worked harder and sacrificed more to maximize on his natural ability than I have worked and sacrificed to maximize on mine. Excellence in human activities, even in sports, is important to our species. In golf, Tiger burns bright because he brings in the fuel and keeps it lit at all times.
2007 is Tiger's 11th year on the PGA tour since he left Stanford University after his freshman year to turn pro. He's won 61 tournaments and over $70 million, and he owns so many records I couldn't begin to relate them. His golf game is unique - no one has ever had as complete a game as Tiger. He hits it far; he hits it straight; he recovers from bad shots; he plays from sand like it isn't there; his short game and putting is possibly the best ever. But none of these things is the #1 reason I'm a great Tiger fan.
My #1 reason for admiring Tiger is that he has an unrelenting drive to excel. His golf game today is nothing like his golf game in 1997, where he won the Masters by 12 shots and embarassed every other top pro golfer. In those days he combined great talent and "feel" with youthful exuberance and confidence. Now though, he's much stronger, smarter, and "technical" - he dissects golf courses like a top-flight surgeon, and he can win even when he's not hitting the ball perfectly. He's changed his swing several times since 1997, struggling to do it a new way and willing to have some dry spells as he changed over. Tiger has never said "I'm good enough", and he's worked as hard as any other golfer to play his best. As a result, he's still as far ahead of the other golfers as he was 10 years ago, even though all his competitors have also improved their skills.
We can all learn a great lesson from Tiger, the lesson that improvement is a continuous goal regardless of our level of success. Even if our objectives fall short of being world class at anything, we can always try our best to do better every day. And that is the #1 reason why Tiger is a more admirable person than I am: he's worked harder and sacrificed more to maximize on his natural ability than I have worked and sacrificed to maximize on mine. Excellence in human activities, even in sports, is important to our species. In golf, Tiger burns bright because he brings in the fuel and keeps it lit at all times.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Munitions from Iran? Golly, What a Surprise!
The latest outrage reported by U.S. Army spokesmen is a 240mm mortar round, likely from Iran, that caused the death of one of our soldiers. Its terrible that those dastardly Iranians let one of their big boomers get into the hands of our Iraqi enemies!
Well, guess what? The U.S. and the Iranians both have engaged in arming friendly militias for as long as I can remember. In fact, old Ollie North once sold arms to the Iranians in order to get cash to support the Nicaraguan "contras". Ollie wasn't on official business when he did this (until it was shown that he and Reagan lied about our involvement), and neither are the shadowy Iranians who just happen to have access to weapons that make their way into Iraq. Also, the U.S. just happened to lose a whole bunch of shoulder-fired missles in Afganistan about the time the Russians occupied that country. Apparently it's OK for us but not OK for Iran.
The fact of the matter is that all kinds of weapons tend to leak into irregular war zones. Al Queda is getting its arms and high-tech explosives from outside suppliers, probably in return for cash that came from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni militias are getting more sophisticated arms from their supporters, and the Shiite militias from theirs (Iran chief among them, most likely).
Arms are simply a commodity that follows demand, and the U.S. has created a huge demand in Iraq by destabilizing that country. Why the U.S. administration was clueless about this, and about the giant stockpiles of arms that it left unguarded early in the war, is baffling. Obviously, those in charge were naive at best.
There are reports of semi-organized resistance forces inside remote areas of Iran. If they do exist, do you think for one minute that their weapons were acquired absent clandestine U.S. support? Remember this when you hear the next complaint about Iranian meddling. It's just par for the course in the messy business of sub-rosa Nation -vs- Nation.
Well, guess what? The U.S. and the Iranians both have engaged in arming friendly militias for as long as I can remember. In fact, old Ollie North once sold arms to the Iranians in order to get cash to support the Nicaraguan "contras". Ollie wasn't on official business when he did this (until it was shown that he and Reagan lied about our involvement), and neither are the shadowy Iranians who just happen to have access to weapons that make their way into Iraq. Also, the U.S. just happened to lose a whole bunch of shoulder-fired missles in Afganistan about the time the Russians occupied that country. Apparently it's OK for us but not OK for Iran.
The fact of the matter is that all kinds of weapons tend to leak into irregular war zones. Al Queda is getting its arms and high-tech explosives from outside suppliers, probably in return for cash that came from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni militias are getting more sophisticated arms from their supporters, and the Shiite militias from theirs (Iran chief among them, most likely).
Arms are simply a commodity that follows demand, and the U.S. has created a huge demand in Iraq by destabilizing that country. Why the U.S. administration was clueless about this, and about the giant stockpiles of arms that it left unguarded early in the war, is baffling. Obviously, those in charge were naive at best.
There are reports of semi-organized resistance forces inside remote areas of Iran. If they do exist, do you think for one minute that their weapons were acquired absent clandestine U.S. support? Remember this when you hear the next complaint about Iranian meddling. It's just par for the course in the messy business of sub-rosa Nation -vs- Nation.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Remembering 9-11
Yes, today is a sad day. The bad guys broke through our pitiful defenses, killed many Americans, and scored a huge PR victory on 9/11/01. Unfortunately, our government had been much more concerned about a North Korean missile attack (and spending huge dollars on an anti-missile defense) than about heeding the Clinton administration's concerns about an attack on America by Islamic radicals.
It's also sad because our president and commander in chief, George W. Bush, that day sat in a gradeschool classroom after the second tower was hit and read a book about a goat while looking rather dazed, then ran and hid in a bunker for awhile, until he felt safe.
It's also sad because 9-11 (going after Al-Queda) was used as a pretext to go after non-existent terrorists in Iraq, costing us Americans $1 trillion and almost 4,000 lives.
It's also sad because we remember how many first responders broke every rule in the book by running inside the Twin Towers, only to die there. And we also remember how, just this year, the sadly stupid firemen did the same thing again when an unoccupied building next to the Twin Towers caught on fire - some of them died, too. This may seem heartless, but maybe it's time to expect firemen to obey their own rules. As an EMT, I may break the rules about scene safety, but if I die I don't expect to be named a hero - just call me a brave but stupid guy.
It's also sad because this entire "terrorism" thing is wasting an incredible amount of resources that should be used to deal with a whole bunch of serious world-wide problems that threaten humankind in general. Like Peanuts said, "We have met the enemy and it is us!" It's time for some serious conversation and a halt to all this bullshit.
It's also sad because our president and commander in chief, George W. Bush, that day sat in a gradeschool classroom after the second tower was hit and read a book about a goat while looking rather dazed, then ran and hid in a bunker for awhile, until he felt safe.
It's also sad because 9-11 (going after Al-Queda) was used as a pretext to go after non-existent terrorists in Iraq, costing us Americans $1 trillion and almost 4,000 lives.
It's also sad because we remember how many first responders broke every rule in the book by running inside the Twin Towers, only to die there. And we also remember how, just this year, the sadly stupid firemen did the same thing again when an unoccupied building next to the Twin Towers caught on fire - some of them died, too. This may seem heartless, but maybe it's time to expect firemen to obey their own rules. As an EMT, I may break the rules about scene safety, but if I die I don't expect to be named a hero - just call me a brave but stupid guy.
It's also sad because this entire "terrorism" thing is wasting an incredible amount of resources that should be used to deal with a whole bunch of serious world-wide problems that threaten humankind in general. Like Peanuts said, "We have met the enemy and it is us!" It's time for some serious conversation and a halt to all this bullshit.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Liberal Libertarianism
Leading politicians, republican and democrat, are doing Americans a disservice by limiting our choices regarding the role of government in our lives.
Republicans, by and large, favor a status quo which allows wealthier Americans and large corporations to prosper. They focus on cutting taxes, subsidizing the agricultural, pharmaceutical, banking, and oil industries, and weakening regulations on business. Their "family values" mantra attracts votes from social and religious conservatives who would otherwise not fit the criteria to be republican. Republicans seldom talk about their vision for the future, since they resist changes other than regressive ones.
Democrats, on the other hand, are oriented to changes that purport to favor the lower classes. They focus on increasing government benefits, regulating just about every aspect of life, being scared of just about everything,and further solidifying the power of public bureaucracies and unions. They talk incessantly of "fairness", but they have no credible plan to fund the immense cost of the socialized society they envision.
Neither of the major parties is addressing the fundamental issue that faces America in the 21st century: how to stay competitive in the world economy. The simple fact that neither party chooses to state in outright fashion is that the wealth of a society is what provides for the general welfare of its citizens - and wealth is either accumulated or frittered away in the impersonal worldwide economy. Although America's wealth is currently decreasing at an alarming rate, neither republicans nor democrats want to talk about the actions needed to reverse this trend. We need "liberal libertarians" to come to the fore.
Liberal libertarianism combines the social goals of the democrats with the philosophy of personal responsiblility that was the original (now lost) theme of the republicans. The goal, simply stated, is to create an economy powerful enough to rebuild America's wealth and thereby generate the funds to pay for the high standard of living that Americans expect for their children and grandchildren. We need to reverse the current trend of increasing national debt by harnessing the power of a new America filled with highly educated, motivated and self-reliant citizens. This will be achieved only if government policies are dramatically modified.
The most important policy modification deals with education. Americans need to be told, unequivocally, that they are responsible for ensuring they become educated to the full extent of their abilities - and hopefully, in areas of interest to them. Educational opportunties need to be provided on the basis of student ability and commitment, regardless of social background, but those who do not show interest in formal or technical education need to be given some clear understanding of what their future will definitely hold: manual labor, minimal housing, and minimal benefits. Don't want to be productive? You get screwed. Get with the program? You get a life. Just like the American colonists and frontierspeople, and most of our grandparents.
The other major cultural change must address personal responsibility. Americans have gotten used to too many free rides. Are you voluntarily obese? No longer will your insurance rates be as low as those who watch their weight, and you may not get coverage for diseases, like adult diabetes, that are related directly to obesity. Have a child you can't support? Mandatory birth control for you, or no welfare check. Want to take a risky job like coal mining or roofing? You get a good paycheck, but don't think about suing your employer if you get hurt; that's what insurance is for. Want to start a school or send your kids to a neighborhood school co-op? Feel free to do just that, and the government should refund some percent of your school tax. In short, Americans need to get back in charge of their own lives, and there are lots of areas where changes need to be made.
How do the social values of the liberals get addressed? National health insurance, for starters. If you aren't covered by your employer or wealthy enough to buy your own health insurance, the government should provide insurance that you can afford (if you are willing to work at any job offered by the government). Same with minimal housing and food. People who are now the most defenseless, like children and some elderly people, would get much more assistance and intervention than they do now. In short, we need a society where people who are self-sufficient can make their own decisions and people who obviously need help get it whether they want it or not.
Liberal libertarianism. I think something like this is what the founders of America had in mind. Too bad the republicans and democrats don't offer anything like it, because it's the only way to rebuild America for those who follow us here.
Republicans, by and large, favor a status quo which allows wealthier Americans and large corporations to prosper. They focus on cutting taxes, subsidizing the agricultural, pharmaceutical, banking, and oil industries, and weakening regulations on business. Their "family values" mantra attracts votes from social and religious conservatives who would otherwise not fit the criteria to be republican. Republicans seldom talk about their vision for the future, since they resist changes other than regressive ones.
Democrats, on the other hand, are oriented to changes that purport to favor the lower classes. They focus on increasing government benefits, regulating just about every aspect of life, being scared of just about everything,and further solidifying the power of public bureaucracies and unions. They talk incessantly of "fairness", but they have no credible plan to fund the immense cost of the socialized society they envision.
Neither of the major parties is addressing the fundamental issue that faces America in the 21st century: how to stay competitive in the world economy. The simple fact that neither party chooses to state in outright fashion is that the wealth of a society is what provides for the general welfare of its citizens - and wealth is either accumulated or frittered away in the impersonal worldwide economy. Although America's wealth is currently decreasing at an alarming rate, neither republicans nor democrats want to talk about the actions needed to reverse this trend. We need "liberal libertarians" to come to the fore.
Liberal libertarianism combines the social goals of the democrats with the philosophy of personal responsiblility that was the original (now lost) theme of the republicans. The goal, simply stated, is to create an economy powerful enough to rebuild America's wealth and thereby generate the funds to pay for the high standard of living that Americans expect for their children and grandchildren. We need to reverse the current trend of increasing national debt by harnessing the power of a new America filled with highly educated, motivated and self-reliant citizens. This will be achieved only if government policies are dramatically modified.
The most important policy modification deals with education. Americans need to be told, unequivocally, that they are responsible for ensuring they become educated to the full extent of their abilities - and hopefully, in areas of interest to them. Educational opportunties need to be provided on the basis of student ability and commitment, regardless of social background, but those who do not show interest in formal or technical education need to be given some clear understanding of what their future will definitely hold: manual labor, minimal housing, and minimal benefits. Don't want to be productive? You get screwed. Get with the program? You get a life. Just like the American colonists and frontierspeople, and most of our grandparents.
The other major cultural change must address personal responsibility. Americans have gotten used to too many free rides. Are you voluntarily obese? No longer will your insurance rates be as low as those who watch their weight, and you may not get coverage for diseases, like adult diabetes, that are related directly to obesity. Have a child you can't support? Mandatory birth control for you, or no welfare check. Want to take a risky job like coal mining or roofing? You get a good paycheck, but don't think about suing your employer if you get hurt; that's what insurance is for. Want to start a school or send your kids to a neighborhood school co-op? Feel free to do just that, and the government should refund some percent of your school tax. In short, Americans need to get back in charge of their own lives, and there are lots of areas where changes need to be made.
How do the social values of the liberals get addressed? National health insurance, for starters. If you aren't covered by your employer or wealthy enough to buy your own health insurance, the government should provide insurance that you can afford (if you are willing to work at any job offered by the government). Same with minimal housing and food. People who are now the most defenseless, like children and some elderly people, would get much more assistance and intervention than they do now. In short, we need a society where people who are self-sufficient can make their own decisions and people who obviously need help get it whether they want it or not.
Liberal libertarianism. I think something like this is what the founders of America had in mind. Too bad the republicans and democrats don't offer anything like it, because it's the only way to rebuild America for those who follow us here.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Golfer's Nirvana
If you're a baseball fan, wouldn't it be great to play in a pick-up game at Yankee Stadium? If you're a football fan, wouldn't it be great to get your friends to play a touch football game with you at the Rose Bowl? If you're a basketball fan, how about you and your B-ball buddies dribbling and shooting at Madison Square Garden? Well, I just had the equivalent experience for a golfer - Oakland Hills Country Club, in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.
This past Wednesday and Thursday, courtesy of a true friend from Mt. Lebanon High School's Class of '62, I played the north and south courses at Oakland Hills, site of the 2004 Ryder Cup Matches (we lost!) and 13 championship tournaments. Among the winners of these tournaments were Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus. And, on Thursday, I had my own little championship round and golfed my ball down the same manicured fairways that these legendary characters did.
It was a perfect day, partly sunny with temperatures in the mid-to-high 70's and a noticable wind. My three partners and I warmed up on the practice range and teed up our balls in the shadow of the huge, magnificent white-columned clubhouse. My first drive found the fairway, and that was the start of a round to remember. There were lots more drives in the fairway, several of them over 250 yards, and a few great shots from the fairway and the sand bunkers. The greens, which were severely undulating and cut short and fast, let me take 35 putts on them during the 18 holes. I also pitched my ball onto a green only to watch it roll all the way across and into the water for a penalty stroke. We played from the blue tees (6,819 yards), and I shot 93 with four pars, six bogies and an eight on one par-five. Golfer's Nirvana.
I've played on just about every kind of golf course in existence - burned out Texas tracks where the ball never stops rolling, municipal 9-holers with wire fences protecting golfers from other golfer's errant shots, a bunch of good and better country club courses, and a few of the big names like Oakmont, Harbour Town, Spyglass, TPC Sugarbush, and Oak Hill. Oakland Hills is the big daddy if you count the whole package - the gorgeous grounds, the luxurious clubhouse, and the difficult, perfectly-maintained golf course. Yesterday was a day for the memory book, and I owe my old friend a lot for giving me an experience to savor for a long time.
Some people may quarrel with the idea of exclusive places like Oakland Hills, places that few ever get a chance to experience. Yet the world would be less beautiful without Oakland Hills, and it provides a huge number of good jobs for people in the area. For me, it provided an opportunity to test my golf skills to the utmost in the company of friends. I bet you even those champions mentioned above would have said "good shot" a few times, had they been watching my golfing dream come true.
This past Wednesday and Thursday, courtesy of a true friend from Mt. Lebanon High School's Class of '62, I played the north and south courses at Oakland Hills, site of the 2004 Ryder Cup Matches (we lost!) and 13 championship tournaments. Among the winners of these tournaments were Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, and Jack Nicklaus. And, on Thursday, I had my own little championship round and golfed my ball down the same manicured fairways that these legendary characters did.
It was a perfect day, partly sunny with temperatures in the mid-to-high 70's and a noticable wind. My three partners and I warmed up on the practice range and teed up our balls in the shadow of the huge, magnificent white-columned clubhouse. My first drive found the fairway, and that was the start of a round to remember. There were lots more drives in the fairway, several of them over 250 yards, and a few great shots from the fairway and the sand bunkers. The greens, which were severely undulating and cut short and fast, let me take 35 putts on them during the 18 holes. I also pitched my ball onto a green only to watch it roll all the way across and into the water for a penalty stroke. We played from the blue tees (6,819 yards), and I shot 93 with four pars, six bogies and an eight on one par-five. Golfer's Nirvana.
I've played on just about every kind of golf course in existence - burned out Texas tracks where the ball never stops rolling, municipal 9-holers with wire fences protecting golfers from other golfer's errant shots, a bunch of good and better country club courses, and a few of the big names like Oakmont, Harbour Town, Spyglass, TPC Sugarbush, and Oak Hill. Oakland Hills is the big daddy if you count the whole package - the gorgeous grounds, the luxurious clubhouse, and the difficult, perfectly-maintained golf course. Yesterday was a day for the memory book, and I owe my old friend a lot for giving me an experience to savor for a long time.
Some people may quarrel with the idea of exclusive places like Oakland Hills, places that few ever get a chance to experience. Yet the world would be less beautiful without Oakland Hills, and it provides a huge number of good jobs for people in the area. For me, it provided an opportunity to test my golf skills to the utmost in the company of friends. I bet you even those champions mentioned above would have said "good shot" a few times, had they been watching my golfing dream come true.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Wrong, Mr. Archbishop - You Can't Desecrate God!
Kuala Lumpur archbishop Murphy Pakiam recently took on a local newspaper which had published a photo of Jesus with a cigarette in his hand. He called it a "desecration", and he later accepted the newspaper's apology after they suspended the employee who had taken the photo off the internet. Wrong move, archbishop Pakiam!
I'm tired of hearing about "holy cities", "holy places", "holy books", "holy people", and anything else in this world called "holy". Who made this designation? Show me the proof that God has deemed any material thing "holy"! This is just man-made baloney and the source of unending conflict. The truth is that nothing on this earth is "holy", whatever that means.
Archbishop Pakiam should have said, "I'm sorry that the newspaper printed a picture that I believe mischaracterizes Jesus. Let me tell you a few things about him that would indicate he probably didn't smoke. But don't worry about how Jesus would react to the picture...people did lots of worse things to him without making him angry. Jesus just got sad about how we always seem to be hurting each other and forgetting about God."
I'm a Christian, and my religion and personal experience tells me that everything humankind does in this world is imperfect, tinged by our own selfishness or our lack of understanding. Only the creator of the universe is perfect - and also totally impervious to criticism. So we are fools to call anything man-made or man-established "holy". And God, or any manifestation of God, cannot be desecrated or humiliated or lessened in any way. Anyone who thinks so does not understand God at all. What do you think, Mr. Archbishop?
I'm tired of hearing about "holy cities", "holy places", "holy books", "holy people", and anything else in this world called "holy". Who made this designation? Show me the proof that God has deemed any material thing "holy"! This is just man-made baloney and the source of unending conflict. The truth is that nothing on this earth is "holy", whatever that means.
Archbishop Pakiam should have said, "I'm sorry that the newspaper printed a picture that I believe mischaracterizes Jesus. Let me tell you a few things about him that would indicate he probably didn't smoke. But don't worry about how Jesus would react to the picture...people did lots of worse things to him without making him angry. Jesus just got sad about how we always seem to be hurting each other and forgetting about God."
I'm a Christian, and my religion and personal experience tells me that everything humankind does in this world is imperfect, tinged by our own selfishness or our lack of understanding. Only the creator of the universe is perfect - and also totally impervious to criticism. So we are fools to call anything man-made or man-established "holy". And God, or any manifestation of God, cannot be desecrated or humiliated or lessened in any way. Anyone who thinks so does not understand God at all. What do you think, Mr. Archbishop?
Blame Al-Malaki? No.
So,the Iraq war is not going so well. The root cause, of course, is that there is no political settlement in the aftermath of our invasion. All the other ills of Iraq stem from this one problem. Warring factions who can't agree on a future for Iraq are keeping the country in chaos, each faction holding out for a settlement on their own terms. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has failed miserably, and now is the time when this failure is being explained to Americans.
The administration and several republican senators are floating the proposition that the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, is responsible for the failure of our war effort. Al-Maliki, they say, has been incompetent in getting the factions to agree on a political settlement. He's ruined our government's brilliant idea of Iraqi democracy through his ineffectiveness. He's the problem, they now say.
It's unfair and wrong to make Al-Maliki a scapegoat for our failure in Iraq. Everyone with any understanding of the situation there knows that Iraq never was a "country" in the traditional sense. It was simply a geographic area set up by occupiers and ruled by a succession of tyrants who kept the factions at bay by brutal means. Nobody stated this case better than Dick Cheney in his 1994 interview, which was right on the money. Al-Maliki has simply inherited an intractable mess.
Who is to blame for the Iraq debacle? It's clear that the Bush administration's decision to oust Saddam Hussein rather than keep him in an ever-tightening box was the direct cause of the current situation. This decision was supported and constantly ratified by the republican-led congress. They "own" Iraq.
The campaigns for the 2008 elections will be filled with rhetoric about why our Iraq adventure failed. Pay no attention to attempts to divert blame to anyone other than Bush and his neocon/oil pals and their supporters in congress. They marched in where even angels would fear to tread, and now they must be held accountable for their hubris. A political price needs to be paid, but it's the republicans and not Al-Maliki who should pay it.
The administration and several republican senators are floating the proposition that the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri Al-Maliki, is responsible for the failure of our war effort. Al-Maliki, they say, has been incompetent in getting the factions to agree on a political settlement. He's ruined our government's brilliant idea of Iraqi democracy through his ineffectiveness. He's the problem, they now say.
It's unfair and wrong to make Al-Maliki a scapegoat for our failure in Iraq. Everyone with any understanding of the situation there knows that Iraq never was a "country" in the traditional sense. It was simply a geographic area set up by occupiers and ruled by a succession of tyrants who kept the factions at bay by brutal means. Nobody stated this case better than Dick Cheney in his 1994 interview, which was right on the money. Al-Maliki has simply inherited an intractable mess.
Who is to blame for the Iraq debacle? It's clear that the Bush administration's decision to oust Saddam Hussein rather than keep him in an ever-tightening box was the direct cause of the current situation. This decision was supported and constantly ratified by the republican-led congress. They "own" Iraq.
The campaigns for the 2008 elections will be filled with rhetoric about why our Iraq adventure failed. Pay no attention to attempts to divert blame to anyone other than Bush and his neocon/oil pals and their supporters in congress. They marched in where even angels would fear to tread, and now they must be held accountable for their hubris. A political price needs to be paid, but it's the republicans and not Al-Maliki who should pay it.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Another "The Teaching Company" Commercial
My friend RWorld just wrote a post about how few people are reading books these days...not even one-third of our population are readers! Aarghhh! But I digress, since I really want to discuss something even more demanding than reading - learning.
The Good Witch and I are now 2/3's through "How to Listen To and Understand Great Music", a DVD course put out by The Learning Company and taught by Professor Robert Greenberg. It's 48 45-minute lectures, so it takes a bit of dedication to stick with it. But Greenberg is definitely the most passionate and entertaining academic I've ever encountered.
I won't bore you with the details. All I can say is that, as a person who has been involved with music of all kinds for many, many years, I have benefitted greatly from all the revelations about what classical music is and how it works. I even listen to "rock and roll" with different ears, since the principles that Greenberg outlines apply to all kinds of music.
The course cost us $180 "on sale". That's a lot of money, but it has been worth the expense.
Take my advice - go to "theteachingcompany.com" and look over the catalog. Don't buy anything that's not on sale. Curse me out if you don't like what you bought, but I don't think I'll get any curses thrown my way.
This has been an unpaid commercial for a company I wish I had discovered years ago. My current quandary is deciding, with the GW's input, which course we will take when this one is done in three more weeks.
The Good Witch and I are now 2/3's through "How to Listen To and Understand Great Music", a DVD course put out by The Learning Company and taught by Professor Robert Greenberg. It's 48 45-minute lectures, so it takes a bit of dedication to stick with it. But Greenberg is definitely the most passionate and entertaining academic I've ever encountered.
I won't bore you with the details. All I can say is that, as a person who has been involved with music of all kinds for many, many years, I have benefitted greatly from all the revelations about what classical music is and how it works. I even listen to "rock and roll" with different ears, since the principles that Greenberg outlines apply to all kinds of music.
The course cost us $180 "on sale". That's a lot of money, but it has been worth the expense.
Take my advice - go to "theteachingcompany.com" and look over the catalog. Don't buy anything that's not on sale. Curse me out if you don't like what you bought, but I don't think I'll get any curses thrown my way.
This has been an unpaid commercial for a company I wish I had discovered years ago. My current quandary is deciding, with the GW's input, which course we will take when this one is done in three more weeks.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Impeach Our Cowardly, Dimwitted President
President Bush spoke today in front of another friendly audience of addled veterans,and he went through his stock speech about 9/11, fighting there rather than here, etc. Then there was a surprise; he said Iraq would be like Vietnam if we left Iraq too early, intimating that we left Vietnam too early. Is this man dense or what? Everyone knows we left Vietnam way too late and shouldn't have been there in the first place. Now we're repeating that fiasco in Iraq.
Our commander-in-chief may believe he is brave, but he is a coward who refuses to face a neutral audience, never mind a hostile one. How he manages to keep the support of true and brave Americans on the right side of the political spectrum is beyond me. I guess that a true and brave American doesn't have to be intelligent as well...but the mainstream media is also gutless for not calling Bush a cowardly dunce on the front page and thereby educating the brave and true Americans about their idol.
Bush has more than 500 days left in his term - more than 500 days of opportuntity to further screw up our country. I don't know about you, but I think the risk is too great. Impeach the Dick and the Dunce! Let the republican senators listen to the evidence and vote to keep him in office, to their everlasting shame, if that's what they decide to do. I'm sick of listening to Bush's inanity, and embarrassed as well.
Let it be over.
Our commander-in-chief may believe he is brave, but he is a coward who refuses to face a neutral audience, never mind a hostile one. How he manages to keep the support of true and brave Americans on the right side of the political spectrum is beyond me. I guess that a true and brave American doesn't have to be intelligent as well...but the mainstream media is also gutless for not calling Bush a cowardly dunce on the front page and thereby educating the brave and true Americans about their idol.
Bush has more than 500 days left in his term - more than 500 days of opportuntity to further screw up our country. I don't know about you, but I think the risk is too great. Impeach the Dick and the Dunce! Let the republican senators listen to the evidence and vote to keep him in office, to their everlasting shame, if that's what they decide to do. I'm sick of listening to Bush's inanity, and embarrassed as well.
Let it be over.
Monday, August 20, 2007
"Playing" Golf
I am a golf nut. Although I have a lot of routine obligations, I have a fair amount of freedom regarding when those things need to be accomplished. Consequently, most weeks I can play 63 or more holes of golf at a lower-tier private club with a challenging, well-maintained golf course, a decent bar, and bare bones amenities everywhere else. In the summer I live for golf.
I first joined this club 12 years ago when I was working full time, but I really started to play a lot after I retired. Slowly my scores improved from over 100 to the low 80's, and I shot two 79's for my best rounds ever. Then, due to over-golfing, I developed so many aches and pains that I had to stop. This year, after a two-year break, I've been playing again and staying healthy. I love it, largely because at age 63 I can still compete with much younger players. My current USGA handicap is 15, and it's going down.
Why is golf such a great game? The #1 reason is that you compete with yourself - everything depends on you alone. Lose your concentration and lose a stroke... make a bad decision and maybe lose two strokes or more... you have nobody else to blame. The #2 reason is that golf requires both power and finesse. It helps a lot to hit a drive 250 yards or more, but it's equally important to correctly read a three-foot breaking downhill putt and put it in the hole. The #3 reason is that you can have a great social time, get good exercise (by walking, like I do), and compete at a high level at the same time. Lastly, the handicap system means that I could play a meaningful match against Tiger Woods, since he'd have to give me 20 strokes or more.
Aside from my own struggles to improve many aspects of my golf game, the thing that most frustrates me about golf is the players who don't have fundamental skills but complain when they hit poor shots. These guys go right from their car to the first tee with no warm-up. They have a poor grip on the club, they position the ball incorrectly, and they swing like they're killing snakes, yet they complain bitterly when they hit the ball sideways. Although laughing at another player's shot is bad manners, I assure you that a full-length comedy could be made on any Saturday at the golf course. I would provide a few laughs myself, no doubt.
My father, who died at 62 from heart problems caused by rheumatic fever, was an excellent golfer. He was strong but he never tried to overpower the golf ball. He often practiced his short game in the back yard and he believed that "scores are really made from 100 yards in to the cup". I can still see him walking to the car on a Saturday morning with his garish yellow pants and a goofy hat, smiling as he waved goodbye while thinking about the fun that awaited him. Only now can I really appreciate all he tried to teach me, and I wonder if he knows I still hear his voice when I step up to the ball. "That's the shot, Dad, just like you showed me!" Thanks for the help, old man.
I first joined this club 12 years ago when I was working full time, but I really started to play a lot after I retired. Slowly my scores improved from over 100 to the low 80's, and I shot two 79's for my best rounds ever. Then, due to over-golfing, I developed so many aches and pains that I had to stop. This year, after a two-year break, I've been playing again and staying healthy. I love it, largely because at age 63 I can still compete with much younger players. My current USGA handicap is 15, and it's going down.
Why is golf such a great game? The #1 reason is that you compete with yourself - everything depends on you alone. Lose your concentration and lose a stroke... make a bad decision and maybe lose two strokes or more... you have nobody else to blame. The #2 reason is that golf requires both power and finesse. It helps a lot to hit a drive 250 yards or more, but it's equally important to correctly read a three-foot breaking downhill putt and put it in the hole. The #3 reason is that you can have a great social time, get good exercise (by walking, like I do), and compete at a high level at the same time. Lastly, the handicap system means that I could play a meaningful match against Tiger Woods, since he'd have to give me 20 strokes or more.
Aside from my own struggles to improve many aspects of my golf game, the thing that most frustrates me about golf is the players who don't have fundamental skills but complain when they hit poor shots. These guys go right from their car to the first tee with no warm-up. They have a poor grip on the club, they position the ball incorrectly, and they swing like they're killing snakes, yet they complain bitterly when they hit the ball sideways. Although laughing at another player's shot is bad manners, I assure you that a full-length comedy could be made on any Saturday at the golf course. I would provide a few laughs myself, no doubt.
My father, who died at 62 from heart problems caused by rheumatic fever, was an excellent golfer. He was strong but he never tried to overpower the golf ball. He often practiced his short game in the back yard and he believed that "scores are really made from 100 yards in to the cup". I can still see him walking to the car on a Saturday morning with his garish yellow pants and a goofy hat, smiling as he waved goodbye while thinking about the fun that awaited him. Only now can I really appreciate all he tried to teach me, and I wonder if he knows I still hear his voice when I step up to the ball. "That's the shot, Dad, just like you showed me!" Thanks for the help, old man.
Friday, August 17, 2007
A Financial Katrina - Government Fails!
The sub-prime mortgage debacle has created a world-wide panic and resulted in havoc for individuals, banks, pension funds, endowment funds, and hedge funds. Way too many people were given loans on inflated properties, and often the loans were adjustable or had no down payment. When the properties fell in value or the interest rates were adjusted upward, borrowers could not pay the mortage payment and foreclosure proceedings began. Simultaneously, the value of sub-prime mortgage portfolios fell like a rock, hammering the markets. How could this happen? It happened because government failed us.
Some people believe that the free market should allow people to make stupid decisions such as taking out an adjustable mortgage on an inflated property, and that it should allow investors to buy portfolios of these junk mortgages. That's baloney. That's just like saying the free market should allow people to invest in Ponzi schemes if they want to. There are some kinds of transactions that government needs to control due to the potential harm to individuals and the overall economy, and these sub-prime mortgages certainly meet that criteria. In this case, government's failure to regulate these transactions has resulted in a financial Katrina that government is now frantically attempting to mitigate.
Every newspaper and financial program has been warning for the past two years that these sub-prime mortgages constitute a great risk. There have been many stories warning that the lax credit criteria, the adjustable rates, and the over-valued real estate could cause major problems if the housing market cooled or interest rates increased. Did congress have hearings about this? Did they investigate companies that were not disclosing the adjustable rates to buyers or informing them about the level of risk they were taking? No. Our government failed us, and this financial Katrina is impacting not just those involved in the mortgages but the economy as a whole. Government is supposed to have financial levees to prevent such events from occurring, but it did nothing.
There are many government agencies that could have raised the flag on this or put regulations in place to slow the pace of the sub-prime market. Certainly the executive branch, with the Treasury department and the FTC, had clout here. The congress also has several committees with related responsibilities. They all failed. Apparently those who were profiting from selling these properties and the related mortgages had enough political clout to keep government out of their knickers. So, now that all the cows are out of the barn and trampling the crops, government will punish a few major offenders and pass a few laws. Thanks a lot, you incompetents!
Yes, I do believe in free markets and limited government powers. However, the government's job is to protect the country as a whole from disasters. Just as we need protection from armed enemies, we also need protection from major financial meltdowns. This one was predictable, and we need to hang the failure to get ahead of it squarely on the politicians who didn't have the guts to take on the real estate and mortgage industries. This episode provides one more good reason to go to public financing of political campaigns rather than allowing the fat cats to buy freedom from oversight with their campaign contributions.
Some people believe that the free market should allow people to make stupid decisions such as taking out an adjustable mortgage on an inflated property, and that it should allow investors to buy portfolios of these junk mortgages. That's baloney. That's just like saying the free market should allow people to invest in Ponzi schemes if they want to. There are some kinds of transactions that government needs to control due to the potential harm to individuals and the overall economy, and these sub-prime mortgages certainly meet that criteria. In this case, government's failure to regulate these transactions has resulted in a financial Katrina that government is now frantically attempting to mitigate.
Every newspaper and financial program has been warning for the past two years that these sub-prime mortgages constitute a great risk. There have been many stories warning that the lax credit criteria, the adjustable rates, and the over-valued real estate could cause major problems if the housing market cooled or interest rates increased. Did congress have hearings about this? Did they investigate companies that were not disclosing the adjustable rates to buyers or informing them about the level of risk they were taking? No. Our government failed us, and this financial Katrina is impacting not just those involved in the mortgages but the economy as a whole. Government is supposed to have financial levees to prevent such events from occurring, but it did nothing.
There are many government agencies that could have raised the flag on this or put regulations in place to slow the pace of the sub-prime market. Certainly the executive branch, with the Treasury department and the FTC, had clout here. The congress also has several committees with related responsibilities. They all failed. Apparently those who were profiting from selling these properties and the related mortgages had enough political clout to keep government out of their knickers. So, now that all the cows are out of the barn and trampling the crops, government will punish a few major offenders and pass a few laws. Thanks a lot, you incompetents!
Yes, I do believe in free markets and limited government powers. However, the government's job is to protect the country as a whole from disasters. Just as we need protection from armed enemies, we also need protection from major financial meltdowns. This one was predictable, and we need to hang the failure to get ahead of it squarely on the politicians who didn't have the guts to take on the real estate and mortgage industries. This episode provides one more good reason to go to public financing of political campaigns rather than allowing the fat cats to buy freedom from oversight with their campaign contributions.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Stuff
George Carlin has a famous monologue about "stuff", which you have probably heard. The idea is that "stuff" can pretty much take over our lives. As we get more stuff we need a bigger house and garage, which then needs an addition since we now have more stuff. Carlin wonders whether our life is really any better because we have all this stuff, or whether our life is just consumed by managing it.
I've just spent three days doing minor maintenance on a property I own and lease in North Carolina. Even seemingly little things take a long time to accomplish. First you scope out the problem - or attempt to - and then you go to Lowe's, Home Depot, or a paint store to buy the stuff you need. Then you go back and start the work, only to find there is something else you need or something you bought doesn't work. Back to the store. If you're lucky, which is about a 50% probability, you are able to complete the work without further complications. In my case, one last item is going to require an electrician.
Talking about this with my mom at lunch today, she said, "These electric things cause so many problems!" I was immediately transported to Haiti where few people have access to all the electric things, or even to electricity in some cases. At least she followed her comment with "We're lucky to have the money to fix them".
Stuff! It's truly a blessing in many instances, but it sure can rule your life if you let it. And fixing it is a pain in the neck. Simplify!
I've just spent three days doing minor maintenance on a property I own and lease in North Carolina. Even seemingly little things take a long time to accomplish. First you scope out the problem - or attempt to - and then you go to Lowe's, Home Depot, or a paint store to buy the stuff you need. Then you go back and start the work, only to find there is something else you need or something you bought doesn't work. Back to the store. If you're lucky, which is about a 50% probability, you are able to complete the work without further complications. In my case, one last item is going to require an electrician.
Talking about this with my mom at lunch today, she said, "These electric things cause so many problems!" I was immediately transported to Haiti where few people have access to all the electric things, or even to electricity in some cases. At least she followed her comment with "We're lucky to have the money to fix them".
Stuff! It's truly a blessing in many instances, but it sure can rule your life if you let it. And fixing it is a pain in the neck. Simplify!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
