A fifty-four year old woman required treatment by teams of surgeons over a period of seven hours for injuries inflicted by a confused chimpanzee living on lobster and ice cream in Connecticut. If the victim survives, she will require years of treatment to repair the disfiguring injuries suffered after offering the chimpanzee an Elmo doll as a present. There is a temptation to speculate that the chimpanzee was not a fan of the Muppets, but unfortunately the consequences and implications of this event transcend humor, to the detriment of a New York Post cartoonist.
http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20090219/499cf560_3ca6_15526200902191164606112
Selma Hayek inspired international outrage by breast-feeding a starving baby. The baby has no doctors. The baby has no medical care. The baby has nothing to eat. Selma Hayek did the only thing a decent human being could do.
The chimpanzee died of gunshot wounds from police faced with the task of controlling an unpredictable animal the size of a large man with twice the strength. A controversial political cartoon subsequently appeared in the New York Post portraying police shooting a chimpanzee and commenting that the chimpanzee could have produced stimulus/bailout legislation more competently than Congressional legislators, suggesting a connection to the sad event of the Chimpanzee Rampage.
In a rather ironic political twist, civil rights activists compared the chimpanzee to President Obama, and complained about discrimination by the cartoonist. The cartoon tastelessly exploits an unfortunate tragedy in an unoriginal way that has been treated more effectively and humorously, by Oliphant during the Reagan administration, for instance, but the racial discrimination is in the eye of the beholder. The baby, on the other hand, will be lucky to live as long as the chimpanzee.
There is a moral in these events, confused as morals usually are, something about expending resources to establish and maintain impossible relationships doomed from the start, while the most basic needs of others go unanswered. Can I excuse myself any more than the nation or humanity? No I cannot. I have adopted defensive habits of moderation that regard punishment as the only reward for good deeds. Witness Selma Hayek. I have retreated into the noncommittal middleground of Martin Luther King’s frustration, yet I cannot help reacting, like touching something unpleasant in the dark, to the unregulated opportunism and unfocused excess of economic and administrative cowboy culture that has encouraged disregard for just responsibility and produced an environment characterized by the vast and historic scope of self-indulgence represented by the superficially benign but ominously paradoxical images of the Dick Cheneys and Bernie Madoffs and their spiritual kin.
As far as I can tell, nobody offered the baby an Elmo doll.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Down with Tall Letters
The American Psychological Association distinguished the construction of citation forms in professional publications by removing capital letters from titles. I would like to suggest extending this efficiency to modification of all titles, such as “the wizard of oz,” for example.
In fact, the construction of all text could be vastly simplified by dispensing with capital letters entirely, thereby eliminating controversies over such thorny issues as hyphenated constructions (Web-Based or Web-based?), and other derivative terms. capital letters are really only a form of linguistic imperialism anyway, an extension of patriarchal dominance that privileges assertive thought. elimination of capital letters would therefore establish more gender-neutral and diversity-friendly language forms.
likewise, the complexity of language imposed by capital letters is at least equaled by complications imposed through punctuation. elimination of punctuation in addition to capital letters would also simplify the use of text no more controversies over dependent clause inversions set off by commas elements of lists or sentences connected improperly the meaning now depends as it should entirely on the context
having dispensed with the cultural tyranny of capital letters and punctuation consider the relative usefulness of various letters of the alphabet most vowels occur with a frequency that makes them intuitive the use of vowels is therefore redundant and merely contributes to spelling errors wtht vwls th lngg bcms vstly mr ffcnt nd n fct mny rptd ltts r qully nprdctv wtht vwls or dbl ltrs mny ns pr nfrquntly w rly nly nd th cmn ns gt rd f x y z k q v nd m d wth th rst ndgtrdspcs
And so I conclude my argument. APA has the right idea. Psychology rocks.
Here's thinking for you.
fy
In fact, the construction of all text could be vastly simplified by dispensing with capital letters entirely, thereby eliminating controversies over such thorny issues as hyphenated constructions (Web-Based or Web-based?), and other derivative terms. capital letters are really only a form of linguistic imperialism anyway, an extension of patriarchal dominance that privileges assertive thought. elimination of capital letters would therefore establish more gender-neutral and diversity-friendly language forms.
likewise, the complexity of language imposed by capital letters is at least equaled by complications imposed through punctuation. elimination of punctuation in addition to capital letters would also simplify the use of text no more controversies over dependent clause inversions set off by commas elements of lists or sentences connected improperly the meaning now depends as it should entirely on the context
having dispensed with the cultural tyranny of capital letters and punctuation consider the relative usefulness of various letters of the alphabet most vowels occur with a frequency that makes them intuitive the use of vowels is therefore redundant and merely contributes to spelling errors wtht vwls th lngg bcms vstly mr ffcnt nd n fct mny rptd ltts r qully nprdctv wtht vwls or dbl ltrs mny ns pr nfrquntly w rly nly nd th cmn ns gt rd f x y z k q v nd m d wth th rst ndgtrdspcs
And so I conclude my argument. APA has the right idea. Psychology rocks.
Here's thinking for you.
fy
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Save the Lemmings
Would somebody explain to me the logic of raising credit card default rates to 30%? How exactly is this supposed to encourage economic activity or even protect lenders?
Consider the scenarios. Take employed borrowers interested in making credit purchases. Except in desperation, are they going to look at using or applying for credit cards with 30% default rates and variable rates up to prime plus 22%, or even more? Oh yes, they’re going to say “I can’t get enough of that. Give me more.”
Likewise, for someone laid off or on reduced income with dwindling assets, how exactly do astronomical default rates encourage continued payments? Even psychologists grasp the simple concept that organisms faced with insurmountable obstacles either give up completely or turn their attention elsewhere. How does compounding loss encourage recovery?
With billions in bailout money propping up credit providers, at the very least, a moral obligation has been imposed to moderate obligations, not to mention the simple business wisdom that raising prices, in this case the price of credit, does not increase sales. Increasing the price of consumer credit is a Reagan era bait-and-switch strategy that has been sustained by economic trends of increasing income and asset values, but in a depressed economy you might as well go out and beat yourself in the head with a brick.
Forcing consumers into bankruptcy with astronomical default rates will not increase recovery for lenders, only for lawyers. What it really does for lenders is to temporarily inflate balance sheets by adding theoretical debt to assets, an effect that got us into this mess in the first place, and a practice that is only just this side of outright criminal, and only theoretically this side.
In a free market economy, price increases are an argument of supply and demand, but it is abundantly apparent that neither the economy nor the free market are what they were cracked up to be. You must have either a genuine contempt for humanity or complete disconnection from reality to believe otherwise. Raising prices in a context of dwindling resources is either the depredation of a predatory monopoly (think oil), or the last resort of the truly desperate.
Price increase is the historic mentality behind failing businesses, and you would think after the lessons of the last presidential administration, that lenders would be smart enough to figure out business as usual won’t cut it. Evidently, hope isn’t the only thing that springs eternal. Bankers, like the lemmings of legend, want to lead us on over the cliff, but the truth is, even lemmings are smarter than that.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
Consider the scenarios. Take employed borrowers interested in making credit purchases. Except in desperation, are they going to look at using or applying for credit cards with 30% default rates and variable rates up to prime plus 22%, or even more? Oh yes, they’re going to say “I can’t get enough of that. Give me more.”
Likewise, for someone laid off or on reduced income with dwindling assets, how exactly do astronomical default rates encourage continued payments? Even psychologists grasp the simple concept that organisms faced with insurmountable obstacles either give up completely or turn their attention elsewhere. How does compounding loss encourage recovery?
With billions in bailout money propping up credit providers, at the very least, a moral obligation has been imposed to moderate obligations, not to mention the simple business wisdom that raising prices, in this case the price of credit, does not increase sales. Increasing the price of consumer credit is a Reagan era bait-and-switch strategy that has been sustained by economic trends of increasing income and asset values, but in a depressed economy you might as well go out and beat yourself in the head with a brick.
Forcing consumers into bankruptcy with astronomical default rates will not increase recovery for lenders, only for lawyers. What it really does for lenders is to temporarily inflate balance sheets by adding theoretical debt to assets, an effect that got us into this mess in the first place, and a practice that is only just this side of outright criminal, and only theoretically this side.
In a free market economy, price increases are an argument of supply and demand, but it is abundantly apparent that neither the economy nor the free market are what they were cracked up to be. You must have either a genuine contempt for humanity or complete disconnection from reality to believe otherwise. Raising prices in a context of dwindling resources is either the depredation of a predatory monopoly (think oil), or the last resort of the truly desperate.
Price increase is the historic mentality behind failing businesses, and you would think after the lessons of the last presidential administration, that lenders would be smart enough to figure out business as usual won’t cut it. Evidently, hope isn’t the only thing that springs eternal. Bankers, like the lemmings of legend, want to lead us on over the cliff, but the truth is, even lemmings are smarter than that.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
Monday, February 9, 2009
Living Within Somebody's Means
The New York Times published an article arguing that the half million dollar salary cap requested by Obama for bank executives under the bailout plan isn’t realistic for NYC. The article wasn’t totally in earnest, but let’s make sure that NYC delight with its own costliness doesn’t excessively distort reality.
It may be true that bank executives have become accustomed to million a year life-styles, but they are going to have to realign their perspectives. In the first place, the limit is partly symbolic. They will probably find ways around it. Limits on compensation don’t necessarily preclude creative variations. There will probably be loopholes that allow some flexibility, if not too much. The only hope is that a definitive statement of limits will convey the message that some restraint has to be applied.
A hundred thousand a year mortgage in NYC may not be so unusual, but there is no valid principle on which bankers should continue to maintain wealth at the expense of people who have no jobs. Plenty of people are available to replace bank executives, and experience has shown that it might not be that bad of an idea. I’ve known grapefruit with more aptitude and moral principle. We have no obligation to be grateful for the opportunity to keep banks in business by rewarding the administrative class that both failed to forsee and to manage financial failures effectively, and as far as I’m concerned, that responsibility trickles pretty far down the food chain in the management of those organizations.
The name of the game is redistribution of wealth, unless we want to play O’Reilly-Limbaugh free market depression disparity again, and I fail to see the justification in that. Civilized accumulation and retention of wealth requires the cooperation of a complete society, not just individual performance. If you don’t believe that, I have some Congolese rebels and Russian Mafia I’d like to introduce you to.
Let them refinance their mortgages or give up their houses and move into five-thousand dollar a month apartments instead of ten thousand a month houses for awhile. If they don’t like it, let them go find jobs in Iceland, where people will appreciate their talents for what they are worth. Better yet, let them subdivide their million-dollar bungalows and rent out the back bedroom so they can get in touch with reality. Their children might even have to attend, shudder, public schools, where they would be crammed elbow to elbow with financially challenged low-lifes like me.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
It may be true that bank executives have become accustomed to million a year life-styles, but they are going to have to realign their perspectives. In the first place, the limit is partly symbolic. They will probably find ways around it. Limits on compensation don’t necessarily preclude creative variations. There will probably be loopholes that allow some flexibility, if not too much. The only hope is that a definitive statement of limits will convey the message that some restraint has to be applied.
A hundred thousand a year mortgage in NYC may not be so unusual, but there is no valid principle on which bankers should continue to maintain wealth at the expense of people who have no jobs. Plenty of people are available to replace bank executives, and experience has shown that it might not be that bad of an idea. I’ve known grapefruit with more aptitude and moral principle. We have no obligation to be grateful for the opportunity to keep banks in business by rewarding the administrative class that both failed to forsee and to manage financial failures effectively, and as far as I’m concerned, that responsibility trickles pretty far down the food chain in the management of those organizations.
The name of the game is redistribution of wealth, unless we want to play O’Reilly-Limbaugh free market depression disparity again, and I fail to see the justification in that. Civilized accumulation and retention of wealth requires the cooperation of a complete society, not just individual performance. If you don’t believe that, I have some Congolese rebels and Russian Mafia I’d like to introduce you to.
Let them refinance their mortgages or give up their houses and move into five-thousand dollar a month apartments instead of ten thousand a month houses for awhile. If they don’t like it, let them go find jobs in Iceland, where people will appreciate their talents for what they are worth. Better yet, let them subdivide their million-dollar bungalows and rent out the back bedroom so they can get in touch with reality. Their children might even have to attend, shudder, public schools, where they would be crammed elbow to elbow with financially challenged low-lifes like me.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
All My Dreams Daschled Again
You have to allow some slack for the possibility that everything will not work perfectly in government. It’s inevitable that the Obama administration would eventually run into some kind of ironically appropriate and embarrassing obstacles, like unreavealed tax issues for a cabinet nomination, but you have to be impressed by the sheer scope of the impact with respect to Tom Daschle.
I like Tom Daschle, and the truth is that I think he would be okay as secretary of something, but $140,000 in back taxes? Let’s see, when was the last time I even made $140,000 in a whole year, never mind incur a $140,000 tax obligation? To tell you the truth, I can’t remember the last time I made $140,000 in a year. I must have been on drugs or something. Maybe that was the summer of love. But when I consider $140,00 in back taxes against a $150,000 wardrobe, to tell you truth, the wardrobe kind of palin’s by comparison. I consider tax evasion to be even more contemptible than expensive shoes.
How do you pay $250,000 for “car services?” There’s no love lost between me and Sarah Palin, which I’m sure is a great relief to Todd, and so far, I’m in Obama’s corner, but even speaking as a slightly liberal-leaning, independent conservative, if we’re not going to allow some kind of double standard here, Daschle did the right thing to hit the road. After all, he’s got a $250,000 car service to take him there. Maybe he should be secretary of transportation instead, or the treasury.
Here’s thinking for you.
Iffy
I like Tom Daschle, and the truth is that I think he would be okay as secretary of something, but $140,000 in back taxes? Let’s see, when was the last time I even made $140,000 in a whole year, never mind incur a $140,000 tax obligation? To tell you the truth, I can’t remember the last time I made $140,000 in a year. I must have been on drugs or something. Maybe that was the summer of love. But when I consider $140,00 in back taxes against a $150,000 wardrobe, to tell you truth, the wardrobe kind of palin’s by comparison. I consider tax evasion to be even more contemptible than expensive shoes.
How do you pay $250,000 for “car services?” There’s no love lost between me and Sarah Palin, which I’m sure is a great relief to Todd, and so far, I’m in Obama’s corner, but even speaking as a slightly liberal-leaning, independent conservative, if we’re not going to allow some kind of double standard here, Daschle did the right thing to hit the road. After all, he’s got a $250,000 car service to take him there. Maybe he should be secretary of transportation instead, or the treasury.
Here’s thinking for you.
Iffy
Monday, February 2, 2009
Undecided: An Election Retrospective
I was undecided well into the presidential election campaign. I don’t think I’m particularly partial to old white guys, but to an extent, I felt like McCain deserved to be president. McCain paid his dues, military service in combat, POW in Viet Nam, struggled with physical injuries and other personal obstacles, both in and out of politics, yet never lost the determination to succeed in government. We had a military situation that needed sound military judgment. My gawd, how could you fault the man for experience and focus? Who was Barack Obama? A junior Senator on a fast track end-run into the big time? Looked like a light-weight.
There was the economy, which I held Bush responsible for ruining by a combination of stupidity and Reagan policies, not that the difference is clear. I voted twice against Bush in futile opposition to a small man in a big job who literally turned the presidency into a joke, but I also thought McCain was not a small man. Obama I wasn’t sure about, and to tell you the truth, I’m still not a hundred per cent sure, but I’m hopeful.
Palin was a stroke of genius. I guess like a lot of people, I was dazzled by the canny political audacity of matching the experienced, old-guy Republican politician with a bright, capable, effective Republican woman more in touch with a different generation and a different constituency. It took me a couple of days to figure out that only some of the vision was true, however. She was in touch with a different constituency. Catch is, that constituency amounts to a small proportion of voters, those for whom a ditzy personality is the only criteria for choosing somebody to tell them what they should do. For them, Palin was perfect, but those weren’t the voters that needed an alternative, and Palin wasn’t just a poorly qualified prop, her selection was an insult to the many truly capable women involved in Republican politics. With somewhat mystified regret, I had to conclude that McCain was taking bad advice or bad drugs, or both, and after taking leave of his senses, his campaign seemed to dissolve into a floundering parody of purpose, served up by John Stewart on The Daily Show as comedy straight off the news service reports, no embellishment required, equaled only by the inevitable bumbling of “President Goofus.” Unfortunately for McCain, a lot of people seemed to recognize the last-ditch return to Bush/Rove/Cheney staple fear-tactics delivered by Palin for what it was, pathetic. Like everybody else, I wanted some inspiration, and I didn’t necessarily want to vote for Obama by default, but you could look at it that way.
I came from Alaska, but I don’t know what happened to the people up there. The only thing I can figure is that, like everybody else, oil made them stupid, and they had more oil, so they got more stupid. How else can you explain election of a governor without any qualifications? It’s great to be a down-home, turkey-ripping, sled- waxing, soccer mom, but if your best organizational assets are experience as Wasilla Solid Waste Management Home-coming Queen, and a sneaky, vindictive kind of administrative style, then you should maybe be in organized crime instead of state government, or who knows, maybe it’s the same thing. I can tell you from experience though, even in the old days, not everybody living back there in the woods was an environmental idealist. I just never realized how seriously they took their work. I see that Palin has been organizing an exploratory committee for the next election, but I hope she will be no more dangerous than Punxsatawney Phil and only stick her head out once every four years before she returns to her burrow.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
There was the economy, which I held Bush responsible for ruining by a combination of stupidity and Reagan policies, not that the difference is clear. I voted twice against Bush in futile opposition to a small man in a big job who literally turned the presidency into a joke, but I also thought McCain was not a small man. Obama I wasn’t sure about, and to tell you the truth, I’m still not a hundred per cent sure, but I’m hopeful.
Palin was a stroke of genius. I guess like a lot of people, I was dazzled by the canny political audacity of matching the experienced, old-guy Republican politician with a bright, capable, effective Republican woman more in touch with a different generation and a different constituency. It took me a couple of days to figure out that only some of the vision was true, however. She was in touch with a different constituency. Catch is, that constituency amounts to a small proportion of voters, those for whom a ditzy personality is the only criteria for choosing somebody to tell them what they should do. For them, Palin was perfect, but those weren’t the voters that needed an alternative, and Palin wasn’t just a poorly qualified prop, her selection was an insult to the many truly capable women involved in Republican politics. With somewhat mystified regret, I had to conclude that McCain was taking bad advice or bad drugs, or both, and after taking leave of his senses, his campaign seemed to dissolve into a floundering parody of purpose, served up by John Stewart on The Daily Show as comedy straight off the news service reports, no embellishment required, equaled only by the inevitable bumbling of “President Goofus.” Unfortunately for McCain, a lot of people seemed to recognize the last-ditch return to Bush/Rove/Cheney staple fear-tactics delivered by Palin for what it was, pathetic. Like everybody else, I wanted some inspiration, and I didn’t necessarily want to vote for Obama by default, but you could look at it that way.
I came from Alaska, but I don’t know what happened to the people up there. The only thing I can figure is that, like everybody else, oil made them stupid, and they had more oil, so they got more stupid. How else can you explain election of a governor without any qualifications? It’s great to be a down-home, turkey-ripping, sled- waxing, soccer mom, but if your best organizational assets are experience as Wasilla Solid Waste Management Home-coming Queen, and a sneaky, vindictive kind of administrative style, then you should maybe be in organized crime instead of state government, or who knows, maybe it’s the same thing. I can tell you from experience though, even in the old days, not everybody living back there in the woods was an environmental idealist. I just never realized how seriously they took their work. I see that Palin has been organizing an exploratory committee for the next election, but I hope she will be no more dangerous than Punxsatawney Phil and only stick her head out once every four years before she returns to her burrow.
Here's thinking for you.
Iffy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
