It wasn't the biggest news story of the day for me but I'll take nearly every news programs word for it and say a few words about the drop in the Dow. The world of money and what to do with it after you get enough to make a separate little money making machine is a mind numbing, highly distorted reality that I luckily deciphered long ago. It didn't come easy though. I studied the field as intensely as anyone does when they get it in their mind that they just might be able to pull off early retirement. (Of course that never came true.) There was a time when a 311 point drop in the Dow would have made me weak in the knees. Then there was a time when it would of made me salivate for bargains. I've complained that it is nothing but legalized gambling and then marveled at it as an example of the value of free markets.
But all along the way I've noticed one constant and that is that the average person gives up way to much of their hard earned money to a middleman. The cost of doing business is usually way to high, not to mention that ones principle is often put at considerable risk to. There are few situations that are so clear-cut to me, and when people leave so much money on the table and at the same time there exists a remedy that anyone can take advantage of at a relatively low price, I simply have got to pass this on.
First understand that I get nothing out of this. But when you come to believe that something has such great value it becomes hard to hold back. I am perhaps one of the most skeptical people you will ever run across and I have followed this man for 20 years of which the first 10 I resisted taking his advice. But after 10 years of him being dead on and me all over the board, I was sold and have prospered ever since.
So here goes. It was never really the intent of this blog but I'm compelled. Bob Brinker. Yep the guy on the radio on weekends. But go for the newsletter, the radio show still requires you listen and that can be work. I see the incredulous look but check the record, he is the man.
Again I get zip, nada, nothing out of this but you can save yourself all the anxiety that the markets dish out and forget about it knowing that 10 years down the road you'll have kept more and earned more than you could have in most other places.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
CNN/Youtube Dem debate
My hat is off to CNN. For the time being they have exonerated themselves by taking the right steps to correct a string of poorly planned and executed debate performances. How did they do it? By replacing Wolf Blitzer with Anderson Cooper, telling Larry King to stay home and engaging regular people via YouTube. Brilliant? It goes without saying that I'm a little more interested in this stuff than the average person but I've got to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed this debate.
What I found to be so unexpected and refreshing was that most of the candidates excelled in this format. Those who knew the difference showed how much easier and natural it is to answer a real question rather than some dreamed up, insincere, over-thought concoction that we've come to mistake for reality. It's like the difference between exercise and actually running the marathon.
It most definitely has changed the debate process but these clever candidates proved that adaptation will be quick. In fact it may have lasted only through last night. There were a few insights that I found particularly interesting that were made possible in part by the YouTube format. For example, the question that has really made the rounds in the press is the one about making contacts in the first year in office, with the Leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Obama got the question and said, "I would, the notion that not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding light of this administration is ridiculous." For my taste this was a superb answer and in general this format seemed to build passion and intensity in Sen. Obama. Now on the other hand Sen. Clinton got the same question but answered in a much different way. She was measured and cautious, saying she did not want to be used by other countries for propaganda purposes. Frankly she sounded very similar to the current administrations policy.
So where this format seemed to help Sen. Obama differentiate himself from business-as-usual and the current administration, it did the opposite for Sen. Clinton.
Incidentally this seems to be a change of heart for Sen. Clinton who earlier in the year said, " you don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the President to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength not weakness."
I believe that this format was exactly one of those uncomfortable situation Sen. Clinton was talking about. Where Sen. Obama seemed young and vibrant and invigorated by the YouTube format and answered from the heart, Sen. Clinton seemed old and mechanical and defaulted to the game plan. Her whole campaign is machine like as can be seen by their instant attempts to discredit Sen Obama calling him irresponsible and naive for an answer I suspect they now wish they had given. When a campaign reacts this quick you know you got to them and Obama did and they had no choice but to attack. The Clinton camp proved again to be too smart for their own good, looking too far out and not in the moment where they belong.
What I found to be so unexpected and refreshing was that most of the candidates excelled in this format. Those who knew the difference showed how much easier and natural it is to answer a real question rather than some dreamed up, insincere, over-thought concoction that we've come to mistake for reality. It's like the difference between exercise and actually running the marathon.
It most definitely has changed the debate process but these clever candidates proved that adaptation will be quick. In fact it may have lasted only through last night. There were a few insights that I found particularly interesting that were made possible in part by the YouTube format. For example, the question that has really made the rounds in the press is the one about making contacts in the first year in office, with the Leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Sen. Obama got the question and said, "I would, the notion that not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding light of this administration is ridiculous." For my taste this was a superb answer and in general this format seemed to build passion and intensity in Sen. Obama. Now on the other hand Sen. Clinton got the same question but answered in a much different way. She was measured and cautious, saying she did not want to be used by other countries for propaganda purposes. Frankly she sounded very similar to the current administrations policy.
So where this format seemed to help Sen. Obama differentiate himself from business-as-usual and the current administration, it did the opposite for Sen. Clinton.
Incidentally this seems to be a change of heart for Sen. Clinton who earlier in the year said, " you don't refuse to talk to bad people. I think life is filled with uncomfortable situations where you have to deal with people you might not like. I'm sort of an expert on that. I have consistently urged the President to talk to Iran and talk to Syria. I think it's a sign of strength not weakness."
I believe that this format was exactly one of those uncomfortable situation Sen. Clinton was talking about. Where Sen. Obama seemed young and vibrant and invigorated by the YouTube format and answered from the heart, Sen. Clinton seemed old and mechanical and defaulted to the game plan. Her whole campaign is machine like as can be seen by their instant attempts to discredit Sen Obama calling him irresponsible and naive for an answer I suspect they now wish they had given. When a campaign reacts this quick you know you got to them and Obama did and they had no choice but to attack. The Clinton camp proved again to be too smart for their own good, looking too far out and not in the moment where they belong.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
To Big John
I did some work for a 76 year old man named John last week. John's a tough old guy, thin and in decent shape but he says if it was all over tomorrow it would be fine by him. He says he's had a good life and he wouldn't change much but getting old is no damn fun. His only concern is for his wife who's a good deal younger than he. He said he just wants everything to be in good working order so she doesn't have to worry.
He liked to talk and I didn't mind listening so we got on quite well.
Listening to the stories of his life, it was easy to see why he felt the way he did. He used to get around and do a lot of things but he can't anymore and he misses it.
He was born dirt poor and one line summed it all up. He said, "if it cost a nickel to go round the world, we didn't have enough to get out of sight." About his parents he said poverty was the best thing they could have ever given him. His mother was a saint but about his father he said" he could snatch failure right out of the mouth of success better than anyone I ever knew." He said things like, "You know, back when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel." He went on and on like this and the more I listened and laughed the more he remembered.
He told me that when he was eight years old he found some wood and built a shoe shine box and shined shoes, charging a nickel for servicemen and a dime for everyone else. He had to give the money to his mother so he felt it only right that since he did all that work that he keep a little back and treat himself to a hamburger on Fridays. He says to this day he looks forward to Fridays because of those hamburgers. He also said because of those early scrounging days, he'll never throw anything away that he thinks he could make something out of some day . His back yard is proof of that.
He spent a good deal of time at sea in the Korean war and then did two tours of duty in Viet Nam and after that was a merchant seaman. He wouldn't say much about his time in the service but did say he lost a good deal of his hearing in Viet Nam and considered that war to be a big waste of time and added about the war in Iraq that he never thought he'd see the day we'd make the same mistake twice.
John told lots of drunken bar stories. He claimed to be a "west side champion drinker." His friend Dick owned the Malibu cottage where the "Maliboozers" hung out. According to John they were mostly movie people. Lee Marvin, Keenan Wynn, Dewey Martin, Peter Lawford and somebody Hunter are the names he rattled off. He said they were good guys who loved to have lots of fun.
John worked at the studios and on location building sets for many years but didn't like movies much. He said, "back then when you saw how damn make-believe it all was it just didn't appeal to me, I wanted to do and see the real thing,"
Later in life he spent a lot of time battling with his local city council over this and that, "keeping them honest," as he says. Once he told them they're all overpaid and that the people in the city are not here for the benefit of the city council. It's supposed to be the other way around. He said the words that finally wore out his welcome were, "You know, I respect a man who walks into a bank with a gun in his hand because I know what he's up to."
There was a lot more that he told me but I think you get the general idea about John. It would be easy to start talking about how people are shaped in society. How they acquire their values and all that but that wasn't my intent. I just wanted to record something about his life because I doubt he's talked about this stuff to many people in a long time. It seems that most of his friends have died. So here's to you John, for leading a productive life, never accepting a dime of help from anybody, serving your country and still having a few good lines. There is a lot to be proud of there.
He liked to talk and I didn't mind listening so we got on quite well.
Listening to the stories of his life, it was easy to see why he felt the way he did. He used to get around and do a lot of things but he can't anymore and he misses it.
He was born dirt poor and one line summed it all up. He said, "if it cost a nickel to go round the world, we didn't have enough to get out of sight." About his parents he said poverty was the best thing they could have ever given him. His mother was a saint but about his father he said" he could snatch failure right out of the mouth of success better than anyone I ever knew." He said things like, "You know, back when ships were made of wood and men were made of steel." He went on and on like this and the more I listened and laughed the more he remembered.
He told me that when he was eight years old he found some wood and built a shoe shine box and shined shoes, charging a nickel for servicemen and a dime for everyone else. He had to give the money to his mother so he felt it only right that since he did all that work that he keep a little back and treat himself to a hamburger on Fridays. He says to this day he looks forward to Fridays because of those hamburgers. He also said because of those early scrounging days, he'll never throw anything away that he thinks he could make something out of some day . His back yard is proof of that.
He spent a good deal of time at sea in the Korean war and then did two tours of duty in Viet Nam and after that was a merchant seaman. He wouldn't say much about his time in the service but did say he lost a good deal of his hearing in Viet Nam and considered that war to be a big waste of time and added about the war in Iraq that he never thought he'd see the day we'd make the same mistake twice.
John told lots of drunken bar stories. He claimed to be a "west side champion drinker." His friend Dick owned the Malibu cottage where the "Maliboozers" hung out. According to John they were mostly movie people. Lee Marvin, Keenan Wynn, Dewey Martin, Peter Lawford and somebody Hunter are the names he rattled off. He said they were good guys who loved to have lots of fun.
John worked at the studios and on location building sets for many years but didn't like movies much. He said, "back then when you saw how damn make-believe it all was it just didn't appeal to me, I wanted to do and see the real thing,"
Later in life he spent a lot of time battling with his local city council over this and that, "keeping them honest," as he says. Once he told them they're all overpaid and that the people in the city are not here for the benefit of the city council. It's supposed to be the other way around. He said the words that finally wore out his welcome were, "You know, I respect a man who walks into a bank with a gun in his hand because I know what he's up to."
There was a lot more that he told me but I think you get the general idea about John. It would be easy to start talking about how people are shaped in society. How they acquire their values and all that but that wasn't my intent. I just wanted to record something about his life because I doubt he's talked about this stuff to many people in a long time. It seems that most of his friends have died. So here's to you John, for leading a productive life, never accepting a dime of help from anybody, serving your country and still having a few good lines. There is a lot to be proud of there.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Summer doldrums
With everything that's going on you would think that I could find something that would hold my interest long enough to write about it. I mean look at President Bush. He seems to think that you can grow hair and shine shoes with executive privilege these days. He at least believes he can hide under that warm and fuzzy blanket up to and including his final trip back to Crawford.
Now Harriet Miers is using the same blanket along with former deputy assistant to the President Sara Taylor and a gaggle of e-mails between staffers and the Attorney Generals office about the U.S. Attorney dismissals.
From Plamegate to this debacle the list of those living a lie grows by the day? What possible motivation do they use to go on? How do they even get up in the morning. I don't believe I will ever understand.
But the real problem now is that the story has gone cold. As a matter of fact the whole administration is such a mess that nothing is surprising anymore. God bless the reporters that day in and day out cover this stuff because I don't think anybody listens to it anymore. It's summer and that's what matters to the people I talk to.
There was this one thing that caught my eye on a financial news show today. A lady named Mary Sue Williams won the big Million Dollar stock pickers challenge put on by MSNBC. It has been going on now for some time and it included ordinary folks like Mary Sue right through big name professionals. What was striking was how the big condescending financial news show dealt with the fact that this novice, salt of the earth waitress from Ohio kicked the butts of the ordained so called experts. Instead of showing an ounce of humility for an industry that is so bloated with self serving opportunists it's ridiculous, they treated it like one of those financial make over segments. They had the nerve to bring on two more experts who said things like "you got lucky, now it's time to invest wisely", blah blah blah.
A few years back (quite a few) the top dog in investing was Peter Lynch and this woman whether she knew it or not was following his advice and did quite well at it. After all she picked WD-40 because she used to be a welder and said it is a great product. My kinda people. So now with success under her belt the experts find it necessary to bring her in to the herd of the mediocre or less. What a way to screw up a good story.
Then the host, looking to spice up the story asks her for a second time, in a different way, "what kind of personal things do you want to do?" Mary Sue, after answering the first time, "education for my kid's and maybe buy a car,"she adds, "payoff my mortgage." I thought way to go girl, just because they're on television doesn't mean they're any smarter than you and you just proved it.
Now Harriet Miers is using the same blanket along with former deputy assistant to the President Sara Taylor and a gaggle of e-mails between staffers and the Attorney Generals office about the U.S. Attorney dismissals.
From Plamegate to this debacle the list of those living a lie grows by the day? What possible motivation do they use to go on? How do they even get up in the morning. I don't believe I will ever understand.
But the real problem now is that the story has gone cold. As a matter of fact the whole administration is such a mess that nothing is surprising anymore. God bless the reporters that day in and day out cover this stuff because I don't think anybody listens to it anymore. It's summer and that's what matters to the people I talk to.
There was this one thing that caught my eye on a financial news show today. A lady named Mary Sue Williams won the big Million Dollar stock pickers challenge put on by MSNBC. It has been going on now for some time and it included ordinary folks like Mary Sue right through big name professionals. What was striking was how the big condescending financial news show dealt with the fact that this novice, salt of the earth waitress from Ohio kicked the butts of the ordained so called experts. Instead of showing an ounce of humility for an industry that is so bloated with self serving opportunists it's ridiculous, they treated it like one of those financial make over segments. They had the nerve to bring on two more experts who said things like "you got lucky, now it's time to invest wisely", blah blah blah.
A few years back (quite a few) the top dog in investing was Peter Lynch and this woman whether she knew it or not was following his advice and did quite well at it. After all she picked WD-40 because she used to be a welder and said it is a great product. My kinda people. So now with success under her belt the experts find it necessary to bring her in to the herd of the mediocre or less. What a way to screw up a good story.
Then the host, looking to spice up the story asks her for a second time, in a different way, "what kind of personal things do you want to do?" Mary Sue, after answering the first time, "education for my kid's and maybe buy a car,"she adds, "payoff my mortgage." I thought way to go girl, just because they're on television doesn't mean they're any smarter than you and you just proved it.
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
Folk's, we just took a real big hit
It's times like these that explaining life as a predestined path seems an appealing concept. It places things in the "beyond our control" realm where I find myself visiting now and then to cope with truly detestable events.
I expressed my fear in my last post of a Libby pardon. Guess what I find detestable today? Of course it's the Presidents decision to remove Libby's jail time. And I don't think the little political stutter-step is fooling anyone. At some point a full pardon is sure to follow.
How else than in a mindless stupor, accepting of all that is thrown your way could an ethical person accept this.
If you don't know the particulars then you probably don't care but, understand that of the people who do care, good and bad, many just confirmed their hunch that this is a rigged game. People around the world, from virtuous to scoundrel, just notched down their faith and trust in the U.S. Government.
Everyone looks to their leaders for proper conduct and because of the success of this country the world is interested in how that success was achieved. From an economic standpoint it's clear that an ethical society supports a good economy. If for no other reason countries know they must deal with corruption before a society can prosper at levels where all people can participate. Unfortunately most people now see the executive right to pardon as nothing more than legalized corruption.
So once again I find myself curious about those who don't care about such things. Maybe they're right. Maybe they have just written this government off and therefore are unaffected so the impact is so limited it really doesn't matter. But that sure seems like a strange place to be looking for a little hope now doesn't it.
I expressed my fear in my last post of a Libby pardon. Guess what I find detestable today? Of course it's the Presidents decision to remove Libby's jail time. And I don't think the little political stutter-step is fooling anyone. At some point a full pardon is sure to follow.
How else than in a mindless stupor, accepting of all that is thrown your way could an ethical person accept this.
If you don't know the particulars then you probably don't care but, understand that of the people who do care, good and bad, many just confirmed their hunch that this is a rigged game. People around the world, from virtuous to scoundrel, just notched down their faith and trust in the U.S. Government.
Everyone looks to their leaders for proper conduct and because of the success of this country the world is interested in how that success was achieved. From an economic standpoint it's clear that an ethical society supports a good economy. If for no other reason countries know they must deal with corruption before a society can prosper at levels where all people can participate. Unfortunately most people now see the executive right to pardon as nothing more than legalized corruption.
So once again I find myself curious about those who don't care about such things. Maybe they're right. Maybe they have just written this government off and therefore are unaffected so the impact is so limited it really doesn't matter. But that sure seems like a strange place to be looking for a little hope now doesn't it.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
It's about more than Scooter Libby
I fear that the next great tragedy for justice in this country will be that I. Scooter Libby will get a reduced sentence or a presidential pardon. In his usual thorough and concise way Bill Moyers has presented a clear eyed look into this matter which can be viewed at pbs.org/moyers/journal. Please take the time to read or view the story. Unfortunately, I'll bet the protest we just heard over Paris Hilton and the two justice systems in this country was louder than we'll hear if Libby gets off easy.
The potential damage could not have been assessed better than by former Virginia Governor, James Gilmore who said,"If the public believes there is one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." It's my belief that more than anything else, this perception is at the root of non law abiding behavior in a society. I still clearly recall the deleterious effect the pardon of Richard Nixon had on this country. I hope I'm not alone on this.
The potential damage could not have been assessed better than by former Virginia Governor, James Gilmore who said,"If the public believes there is one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system." It's my belief that more than anything else, this perception is at the root of non law abiding behavior in a society. I still clearly recall the deleterious effect the pardon of Richard Nixon had on this country. I hope I'm not alone on this.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Democrats Round Two
A better Democratic debate this time to be sure. But not because of CNN as they would have you believe. Can you imagine Walter Cronkite on the air, basking in adulation from colleagues just for doing his job. Wolf Blitzer did it, and for me whether or not he did his job is questionable. Take his show of hands approach when questioning on such critical issues as firing missiles at a suspected Osama Bin Laden target or the use of force in Sudan. It was thoughtless at best and perhaps purposefully contrived. To her credit, Senator Clinton refused to take the bait.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Then there was the thinly veiled question about how the candidates would use President Clinton in their administration. Why be phony? Why not just ask the question of the person it was intended for, Senator Clinton, and get on with it. Like I've said before, President Clinton is not revered nearly as much as some would have you think and CNN knows that candidates will answer this type of question affirmatively even if it hurts their campaign. I guess this is their idea of cutting edge reporting. Don't hold your breath waiting for a similar question about President Bush asked of the Republican candidates by CNN.
Some of his follow-up questions sounded like Blitzer hadn't been listening to the answers. At one point Rep. Kucinich gave an appropriate answer, right or wrong, to a question about restoring the military, Blitzer says "but the question was..." and repeats it. Kucinich, looking stunned rephrased his answer. Maybe Blitzer preferred another answer but he clearly didn't listen to what Kucinich had just said.
I'm sure they would argue as journalists that these questions were designed to find "the best obtainable version of the truth" but they missed the mark. The whole event seemed out of balance. CNN will have to start getting up a lot earlier if they think they're going to out smart these candidates, Democrat or Republican.
The bottom line is that CNN is chasing Fox news. Hopefully they're only envious of their ratings. They appear to be willing to try anything including heaping kudos on themselves to catch up, maybe thinking that a certain number of people watching will mindlessly agree. It's sad to watch the process of a formerly respected news source go the way of an entertainment show. Particularly when their competition never had to go through such humiliation. Yep and let me just take a moment to say goodbye to any Fox news fans who should ever stumble on this site.
After the debate there was a lot of comparing the candidates to their last performance which is alarming because therein lies some of the negative value of these early parades through the paddocks. I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen people promoted or bestowed with bonuses, honors or other rewards for being "most improved" and they still didn't meet the necessary standard that those who were overlooked routinely met. The media gets sucked into this all the time. A reference point makes their job easier I suspect but it has no place in evaluating someones performance or abilities.
As usual the most substantive answers seemed to come from what they call the second tier candidates. But the style masters or front runners did well enough to hold their leads. For reasons I'll never understand, we like to play what we think is the safest bet and that's just the way it is. So even if Governor Richardson is a proven diplomat and we badly need one, or Rep. Kucinich is the least war mongering when that might come in handy, all we can hope for is that one of the front runners will remember their names when it comes time to fill positions requiring those skills.
A few other things stuck with me about this debate. First the negatives. I know it occurred on both sides to be fair but I'll never understand how someone could vote on the authorization to attack Iraq without reading the ninety page National Intelligence Estimate. And one of them was Senator Clinton who keeps repeating her famous line "if I knew then what I know now" statement. Go figure. Then there is John Edwards trying to differentiate himself from himself, I guess. He's the one guy who would keep me up at night if his numbers started improving.
And finally the positives. I was glad to see Senator Dodd repeatedly emphasize how grateful Democrats are to our troops. The opposition loves to say otherwise and saying this over and over is the only way to dispel this insinuation. I also liked Senator Bidens perspective on Iran and his attempt to moth ball "regime change" as a policy toward that country.
Then there was Senator Obama, perhaps the best orator of the group who said things like "it erodes our moral claims to act on broader universal principles" or " The strength of our military has to be matched with the power of our diplomacy to build alliances around the world." These are from memory so excuse me if they're not just right but I eat that stuff up and he is still holding my attention.
Finally, it's reassuring that the candidates, both Republican and Democrat are about the smartest bunch I've ever seen run. Most of them, quite likely could do a good job for America. So we have an interesting race with little downside and plenty of upside. It should be fun to watch. Goodnight.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
I'll Take Free Speech Any Day
In 1971 I was in college and George McGovern made a whistle stop in town while campaigning for President. I was a McGovern fan for many reasons but most importantly he opposed the war in Viet Nam and I did to.
I attended a small rally on campus. I say small because it barely spilled out of one room. I helped to set up some tables with a few of McGovern's entourage.
One of them was Jon Voight, the actor. I knew he was in movies then but that's about it. He was young and lanky, long haired and interesting looking like an artist or musician. Looking back I suppose he was there in part for his image and in fact it worked because I didn't remember anything anyone said but him.
He was not a dynamic speaker by any means, in fact he was almost timid but listening to him was easy and unavoidable. You sensed that his belief in his own words allowed him to overcome some early discomfort and finish quite eloquently. He was smart but it was his passion and intensity that came through loud and clear. He was one of those people who made you believe you were hearing the truth.
I'm not one to think that people who have gained some stage or film celebrity have opinions any more insightful or valid than anyone else. It's actually quite the contrary. It seems illogical to me, given all the cuts they've made to get where they are, that many of them would be also intellectually endowed. Although, as much as it seems to bend the rules of probability, odds are such that some people, and I believe Jon Voight to be one of them, would be so blessed.
Over the years, even after his Republican conversion, when he speaks I'm still compelled to listen. So in his recent movie promoting appearances, sounding exceedingly conservative, he got me lets say, exceedingly curious.
I know that most people go through an aging process that delivers them more conservative than when they started. Remember the old saying, "Show me a man at twenty who isn't liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart, show me a man at forty who isn't conservative and I'll show you a man with no brains." So sure he has been influenced by experience and age, pushing 70 I believe, even so, this is not the same man I listened to in 1971.
What he said was that he is very concerned with the way in which people speak of the President these days and this dissension gives the enemy the "nutrients" they need to destroy this country. In one interview he said his heart is heavy, and he's really terrified by what is happening to this great nation and that our country is being divided by extremists who really believe all the propaganda that they are being fed on a daily basis by very cunning professionals.
He further said that the President in effect is America and that tearing him down was tearing down America. He spoke of discussions with injured soldiers that seemed to lead him to believe that the Iraq war was winnable. He said that he feels this situation is no Viet Nam so I take this to mean that he still feels OK with his position back in the 70's. He also claimed that the kids that come out of college today think that America is an imperialistic nation.
These are just a few of the things he said. Please check out his interviews with Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Rielly to get the complete picture.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. He was plugging a movie of course but I desperately want to believe that he wouldn't stage a controversy to promote a movie.
The Movie deals with the "Mountain Meadows" killings perpetrated by people of the Mormon faith exactly 150 years ago on September 11th. Voight implies this is somehow ironic and also says that some of his new concerns hit him while making this movie. In my opinion the date coincidence points much more to what movie producers will do to get people into theaters. For the revelation or whatever it was that he experienced making this movie, it looks more like an idea looking for a home than anything else. To compare Mormons to Muslims is ridiculous and I'm disappointed that he would even try. Mormons, who deplore this shameful part of their history will have to be the whipping boys this time around at the masterfully exploitative hands of Hollywood.
For me it is hard to comprehend why Voight is 180 degrees from where he once was. The current situation is different but not 180 degrees different. There doesn't seem to be a sliver of the man left and it forces me to be suspicious of his motives and saddened by the loss of a voice for good in this world.
Mr. Voight, free speech is the nutrient that this nation needs to remain great. Yes, the freedom that you have so enjoyed and it could be destroyed much faster by its denial than by any of your scary scenarios. I just pray that this is not you just reinforcing your belief that this movie was worth making by some redeeming value ratio approach. In the end the movie will be what it is and nothing more.
And finally, we would be well served if you would re-examine your current views to see if your heart is still in it like it once was.
I attended a small rally on campus. I say small because it barely spilled out of one room. I helped to set up some tables with a few of McGovern's entourage.
One of them was Jon Voight, the actor. I knew he was in movies then but that's about it. He was young and lanky, long haired and interesting looking like an artist or musician. Looking back I suppose he was there in part for his image and in fact it worked because I didn't remember anything anyone said but him.
He was not a dynamic speaker by any means, in fact he was almost timid but listening to him was easy and unavoidable. You sensed that his belief in his own words allowed him to overcome some early discomfort and finish quite eloquently. He was smart but it was his passion and intensity that came through loud and clear. He was one of those people who made you believe you were hearing the truth.
I'm not one to think that people who have gained some stage or film celebrity have opinions any more insightful or valid than anyone else. It's actually quite the contrary. It seems illogical to me, given all the cuts they've made to get where they are, that many of them would be also intellectually endowed. Although, as much as it seems to bend the rules of probability, odds are such that some people, and I believe Jon Voight to be one of them, would be so blessed.
Over the years, even after his Republican conversion, when he speaks I'm still compelled to listen. So in his recent movie promoting appearances, sounding exceedingly conservative, he got me lets say, exceedingly curious.
I know that most people go through an aging process that delivers them more conservative than when they started. Remember the old saying, "Show me a man at twenty who isn't liberal and I'll show you a man with no heart, show me a man at forty who isn't conservative and I'll show you a man with no brains." So sure he has been influenced by experience and age, pushing 70 I believe, even so, this is not the same man I listened to in 1971.
What he said was that he is very concerned with the way in which people speak of the President these days and this dissension gives the enemy the "nutrients" they need to destroy this country. In one interview he said his heart is heavy, and he's really terrified by what is happening to this great nation and that our country is being divided by extremists who really believe all the propaganda that they are being fed on a daily basis by very cunning professionals.
He further said that the President in effect is America and that tearing him down was tearing down America. He spoke of discussions with injured soldiers that seemed to lead him to believe that the Iraq war was winnable. He said that he feels this situation is no Viet Nam so I take this to mean that he still feels OK with his position back in the 70's. He also claimed that the kids that come out of college today think that America is an imperialistic nation.
These are just a few of the things he said. Please check out his interviews with Joe Scarborough and Bill O'Rielly to get the complete picture.
To be honest I'm not exactly sure what to make of it. He was plugging a movie of course but I desperately want to believe that he wouldn't stage a controversy to promote a movie.
The Movie deals with the "Mountain Meadows" killings perpetrated by people of the Mormon faith exactly 150 years ago on September 11th. Voight implies this is somehow ironic and also says that some of his new concerns hit him while making this movie. In my opinion the date coincidence points much more to what movie producers will do to get people into theaters. For the revelation or whatever it was that he experienced making this movie, it looks more like an idea looking for a home than anything else. To compare Mormons to Muslims is ridiculous and I'm disappointed that he would even try. Mormons, who deplore this shameful part of their history will have to be the whipping boys this time around at the masterfully exploitative hands of Hollywood.
For me it is hard to comprehend why Voight is 180 degrees from where he once was. The current situation is different but not 180 degrees different. There doesn't seem to be a sliver of the man left and it forces me to be suspicious of his motives and saddened by the loss of a voice for good in this world.
Mr. Voight, free speech is the nutrient that this nation needs to remain great. Yes, the freedom that you have so enjoyed and it could be destroyed much faster by its denial than by any of your scary scenarios. I just pray that this is not you just reinforcing your belief that this movie was worth making by some redeeming value ratio approach. In the end the movie will be what it is and nothing more.
And finally, we would be well served if you would re-examine your current views to see if your heart is still in it like it once was.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Peas in a pod
Hubris has claimed another victim. And in this case irony abounds. I'm speaking of Al Sharpton of course and no longer Reverend to me. Fresh off his Don Imus victory tour he now decides to choose off Mit Romney by questioning his belief in God. Sharpton said,"As For the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway."
Decency doesn't work in degrees. Relativism is a rhetorical tool used to wiggle out of trouble. There is simply a threshold between decency and non-decency and Don Imus and now Al Sharpton have each crossed that threshold. Neither should be viewed the same again.
What do we get out of such a stance? We give a loud and clear message that the shock approach has it's dangers and that participants do risk peril.
Until now I'm not sure I would have found the following statement by John Ridley, the Commentator and screenwriter, to be true but Al Sharpton has now convinced me it is. Mr. Ridley said, " Mr. Sharpton is hanging on by his fingernails to a position that never existed." If the media must persue "black thought" lets hope they start looking to the real African American leaders and not the likes of Al Sharpton.
Decency doesn't work in degrees. Relativism is a rhetorical tool used to wiggle out of trouble. There is simply a threshold between decency and non-decency and Don Imus and now Al Sharpton have each crossed that threshold. Neither should be viewed the same again.
What do we get out of such a stance? We give a loud and clear message that the shock approach has it's dangers and that participants do risk peril.
Until now I'm not sure I would have found the following statement by John Ridley, the Commentator and screenwriter, to be true but Al Sharpton has now convinced me it is. Mr. Ridley said, " Mr. Sharpton is hanging on by his fingernails to a position that never existed." If the media must persue "black thought" lets hope they start looking to the real African American leaders and not the likes of Al Sharpton.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Check your rudders at the door
Now to the first Republican debate. These candidates are going to have a much harder go of it than the Democrats. It's as if the Democrats were issued shotguns and the Republicans .22 caliber pistols. You'll need serious marksman on the Republican side to win.
It reminds me of Edward James Olmos in the movie "Selena" explaining how hard it is to be Mexican/American. He said, "We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!"
On some issues the tolerances on the Republican side are measured in microns.
Take abortion, Republican candidates have to nail it and so far Giuliani and Romney still look tentative. Not only have they disenchanted conservatives, they have opened themselves up to criticism for disingenuous flip-flopping.
Romney was particularly foolish in seeking cover from other abortion mind changers like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Henry Hide. Instead of bringing himself up he brought them down.
This and John McCain beating up George W. Bush for mismanaging the war seemed to seriously violate Ronald Reagan's famous and critical republican rule; never speak ill of a fellow Republican. And I'd add, certainly not in his library in front of his wife.
The Republicans always look like they're looking for someone to marry their daughter instead of a person that may actually exist. Setting the bar so high makes their candidates have to be something their not and look like they checked their rudders at the door.
It reminds me of Edward James Olmos in the movie "Selena" explaining how hard it is to be Mexican/American. He said, "We have to be more Mexican than the Mexicans and more American than the Americans, both at the same time! It's exhausting!"
On some issues the tolerances on the Republican side are measured in microns.
Take abortion, Republican candidates have to nail it and so far Giuliani and Romney still look tentative. Not only have they disenchanted conservatives, they have opened themselves up to criticism for disingenuous flip-flopping.
Romney was particularly foolish in seeking cover from other abortion mind changers like Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Henry Hide. Instead of bringing himself up he brought them down.
This and John McCain beating up George W. Bush for mismanaging the war seemed to seriously violate Ronald Reagan's famous and critical republican rule; never speak ill of a fellow Republican. And I'd add, certainly not in his library in front of his wife.
The Republicans always look like they're looking for someone to marry their daughter instead of a person that may actually exist. Setting the bar so high makes their candidates have to be something their not and look like they checked their rudders at the door.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)