MSNBC went with their entertainment newsman Kieth Oberman to referee this event. His day job is being MSNBC'S counter-weight to Fox News where he slings mud and generally takes the low road in challenging the competition. Luckily we were spared the insufferable sermonized drivel he has become famous for. In fact in last nights role and in others, to be fair, he's done a decent enough job. I guess that was the Kieth Oberman who was influenced by Hal Fishman who he duly thanked at the end of the debate. Fishman, a 46 year TV news veteran from Los Angeles, died yesterday. He was an old school, quality newsman who will be missed.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Bridge Wake UP Call
I have not heard it yet from the countless hours of news coverage dedicated to the Minneapolis bridge collapse but I'm sure many people are wondering to what degree budget shortfalls played a role in decisions about this bridge. I realize it maybe early for this discussion but with 70-80 thousand bridges with structurally deficient designations in this country you have to be a little concerned.
Last evening there was mention of the high cost of replacement in one report read by Anderson Cooper of CNN. I couldn't locate this information on the Minnesota DOT website but I know from experience that the level of available funding has a way of creeping into the objectivity of inspection reports.
Since we have been hearing about a crumbling infrastructure in this country for several years now, it seems an automatic question to ask how much has the 440 billion that has been spent on the Iraq war, taken away from tending to such critical matters as these. I suspect the truth is frightening. Make no mistake about it. This was another Government failure. Now there will be a big expensive scramble to catch up to where they were already paid to be, only this time we'll pay the same people doing the same job at premium pay because it's an emergency. And get ready to ante up. It's like a late Sunday evening with six house guest then the sewer backs up and your on hold for Roto-Rooter. Hold on to your wallet.
I thought that it was interesting that Governor Pawlenty announced that they would hire their own outside consulting firm to get to the bottom of what went wrong. He said that they had faith in the NTSB but thought they should add some "redundancy" to the process. Interesting choice of words but beyond that why do we even have an NTSB and the cost associated with it if we can't trust their abilities. Drop another item off the list of things the Government does well.
Last evening there was mention of the high cost of replacement in one report read by Anderson Cooper of CNN. I couldn't locate this information on the Minnesota DOT website but I know from experience that the level of available funding has a way of creeping into the objectivity of inspection reports.
Since we have been hearing about a crumbling infrastructure in this country for several years now, it seems an automatic question to ask how much has the 440 billion that has been spent on the Iraq war, taken away from tending to such critical matters as these. I suspect the truth is frightening. Make no mistake about it. This was another Government failure. Now there will be a big expensive scramble to catch up to where they were already paid to be, only this time we'll pay the same people doing the same job at premium pay because it's an emergency. And get ready to ante up. It's like a late Sunday evening with six house guest then the sewer backs up and your on hold for Roto-Rooter. Hold on to your wallet.
I thought that it was interesting that Governor Pawlenty announced that they would hire their own outside consulting firm to get to the bottom of what went wrong. He said that they had faith in the NTSB but thought they should add some "redundancy" to the process. Interesting choice of words but beyond that why do we even have an NTSB and the cost associated with it if we can't trust their abilities. Drop another item off the list of things the Government does well.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Hurry Up and Wait
Knowing how to bring about change in the beliefs of a society a little quicker would certainly come in handy in today's world. But if I've learned anything in life it is that this process is a slow one. It seems a natural tendency in people, even after admittedly convinced of something new, to revert to a previous position without explanation, even to themselves. For most of my life I thought of this as an impediment to progress but then I'd run into an incessant mind changer or two and realize that there is value to this kind of friction. These are hard pills to swallow when your young. I surely would not have accepted this when I was twenty. But under normal circumstances this resistance probably takes much of the volatility out of the course of change. It can give good change a second chance and bad change further examination.
These thoughts all started on a walk while observing the architecture of the homes in the neighborhood. The trend has notably changed toward a modern style of late. In fact it's rare to see new homes being built in the Spanish/Mediterranean style that had been predominant for so many years. This hasn't happened overnight, in fact some of the earliest examples were so bad that it nearly brought the whole movement to a halt. Unlike the previous styles, there was not much possibility of hybridizing to make these homes less distinct. So to make this step was a gamble on many levels. More time passed as people got used to even the possibility of change. A lot of work and slow and steady improvement over time helped make these homes more appealing. Finally, only after younger customers began to be able to afford to build, the change began in earnest. These homes are now popping up everywhere and most of the people I speak with and virtually all young people prefer this style.
What in a hundred years, will look like one day everybody just up and changed their mind, actually took a long drawn out process that finally took hold, albeit more for generational reasons than anything else.
This is the reality of change in society and it tends to look easier than it really is. In fact it's much more like the-steering the oil tanker with the tugboat-analogy.
On a larger scale, in the vast mix of people around the world, there are countless beliefs that at any given time are in dire need of change, but none comes. Much of the time the desire to keep things the same is a powerful force wielded by more senior members of a society for a variety of selfish and unselfish reasons. In democracies the selfish reasons may be isolated and examined for suitability for junior members, by junior members. Without a democracy this gets more complicated depending upon the extent of force the senior members are willing to exert to limit change. An aversion to reason often makes accepting the notion of selfish motivation an impossibility, making matters worse. I think we all know how far societies may be willing to go to not relinquish power. Until ways of getting around these obstacles are discovered, societies usually struggle to advance.
Now I think I've made it clear that I was never for the Iraq war but I do hope for the best possible outcome and I look for any signs of meaningful progress on that front. No doubt good news is sparse but I was heartened by Iraq's soccer championship victory over the weekend. This seemingly insignificant event was encouraging. The AP story I read said Iraqi men flooded into the streets removing their shirts to reveal the Iraqi flag painted on their chests, chanting long live Iraq. The reports gave the impression of some sense of unity among sects which if even temporary is a good sign. But what I found the most inspiring was a 24 year old Shiite who said, "The politicians have divided us and these athletes united us." Now I'm not naive enough to call this the beginning of anything but I like two things about it. One, he was a young man and two, he was highlighting the fact that this event was more meaningful than a mere athletic victory. Every movement starts somewhere. Let's hope something has gotten underway in Iraq.
These thoughts all started on a walk while observing the architecture of the homes in the neighborhood. The trend has notably changed toward a modern style of late. In fact it's rare to see new homes being built in the Spanish/Mediterranean style that had been predominant for so many years. This hasn't happened overnight, in fact some of the earliest examples were so bad that it nearly brought the whole movement to a halt. Unlike the previous styles, there was not much possibility of hybridizing to make these homes less distinct. So to make this step was a gamble on many levels. More time passed as people got used to even the possibility of change. A lot of work and slow and steady improvement over time helped make these homes more appealing. Finally, only after younger customers began to be able to afford to build, the change began in earnest. These homes are now popping up everywhere and most of the people I speak with and virtually all young people prefer this style.
What in a hundred years, will look like one day everybody just up and changed their mind, actually took a long drawn out process that finally took hold, albeit more for generational reasons than anything else.
This is the reality of change in society and it tends to look easier than it really is. In fact it's much more like the-steering the oil tanker with the tugboat-analogy.
On a larger scale, in the vast mix of people around the world, there are countless beliefs that at any given time are in dire need of change, but none comes. Much of the time the desire to keep things the same is a powerful force wielded by more senior members of a society for a variety of selfish and unselfish reasons. In democracies the selfish reasons may be isolated and examined for suitability for junior members, by junior members. Without a democracy this gets more complicated depending upon the extent of force the senior members are willing to exert to limit change. An aversion to reason often makes accepting the notion of selfish motivation an impossibility, making matters worse. I think we all know how far societies may be willing to go to not relinquish power. Until ways of getting around these obstacles are discovered, societies usually struggle to advance.
Now I think I've made it clear that I was never for the Iraq war but I do hope for the best possible outcome and I look for any signs of meaningful progress on that front. No doubt good news is sparse but I was heartened by Iraq's soccer championship victory over the weekend. This seemingly insignificant event was encouraging. The AP story I read said Iraqi men flooded into the streets removing their shirts to reveal the Iraqi flag painted on their chests, chanting long live Iraq. The reports gave the impression of some sense of unity among sects which if even temporary is a good sign. But what I found the most inspiring was a 24 year old Shiite who said, "The politicians have divided us and these athletes united us." Now I'm not naive enough to call this the beginning of anything but I like two things about it. One, he was a young man and two, he was highlighting the fact that this event was more meaningful than a mere athletic victory. Every movement starts somewhere. Let's hope something has gotten underway in Iraq.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Down 311
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)