Today's item is a Public Service I guess. I came across this information on a blog this afternoon and thought it might be of help to folks. I know I never knew this stuff, so maybe you don't either.
5 Things You Never Knew Your Cell Phone Could Do
(A good idea to print, fold and keep in your car, purse, and wallet.)
FIRST (Emergency)
The Emergency Number worldwide for Mobile is 112. If you find yourself out of the coverage area of your mobile network and there is an Emergency, dial 112 and the mobile will search any existing network to establish the emergency number for you, and interestingly, this number 112 can be dialed even if the keypad is locked. Try it out.
SECOND (Locked Keys in Car)
Have you locked your keys in the car? Does your car have remote keyless entry? This may come in handy someday. Good reason to own a cell phone:
If you lock your keys in the car and the spare keys are at home, call someone at home on their cell phone from your cell phone. Hold your cell phone about a foot from your car door and have the person at your home press the unlock button, holding it near the mobile phone on their end. Your car will unlock. Saves someone from having to drive your keys to you. Distance is no object. You could be hundreds of miles away, and if you can reach someone who has the other 'remote' for your car, you can unlock the doors (or the trunk).
THIRD (Hidden Battery Power)
Imagine your cell battery is very low. To activate, press the keys *3370#. Your cell phone will restart with this reserve and the instrument will show a 50% increase in battery. This reserve will get charged when you charge your cell phone next time.
FOURTH (How to disable a STOLEN mobile phone?)
To check your Mobile phone's serial number, key in the following Digits on your phone:
*#06#.
A 15-digit code will appear on the screen. This number is unique to your handset. Write it down and keep it somewhere safe.
If your phone is stolen, you can phone your service provider and give them this code. They will then be able to block your handset so even if the thief changes the SIM card, your phone will be totally useless. You probably won't get your phone back, but at least you know that whoever stole it can't use/sell it either. If everybody does this, there would be no point in people stealing mobile phones.
FIFTH (Free Directory Service for Cells)
Depending on your plan, some cell phone companies are charging us $1.00 to $1.75 or more for 411 information calls when they don't have to. Most of us do not carry a telephone directory in our vehicle, which makes this situation even more of a problem. When you need to use the 411 information option, simply dial:
(800) FREE411 or (800) 373-3411 without incurring any charge at all. Program this into your cell phone now.
Author's Notes
#112 does not work in all parts of the world, just as a non-international telephone do not work in all parts of the world. And some international telephones do not work in countries that do not support a specific telephone carrier
3370# may not give you 50% battery life, although most will give you time to make two or three important calls. It depends on the telephone model. Most phones are not set for the highest quality sound, and this brings up more power. In many cell telephones, it gives power to the telephone for a period of time.The point here is not how much time is left, but you will be able to make telephone calls if your cell telephone works in this manner, which may be very important at the time. Some cell phones also have this feature with a different number. Read the manual. Or test it out at home, run the power out and give it a try.
Entering #06# does not work on all telephones, and the feature of finding a lost telephone certainly is remote so identifying it may not be important. Normally if a cell phone is found, a discoverer needs only to a call back.
800-Free-411 of course does not count the time use of the telephone, and therefore is not fully free. However, most carriers today don't charge for 411 and more importantly, Google and other programs have made yellow pages and telephone information numbers obsolete. So how important this feature is a matter of the cell phone plan you have.
Hope some of you find this helpful.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
BloggeRhythma 2/27/2011
As mentioned yesterday, I've been reading Tony Blair's new autobiography and finding it very interesting because of the different perspective it provides on many of the events that took place while he was in office. But something that dawned on me this morning, while not exactly from the book itself, got me to thinking.
The thing that's come through most of all in what I've read so far, is that whether you agree with him or not on issues themselves, he was a true leader. Especially in the sense that he analyzed issues, looked for common grounds satisfactory to the largest number of people, then did his best to try to get everyone working together toward solutions satisfactory to all.
He points out clearly that there can never be any kind of agreement at all if opposing sides choose to dissent simply to oppose anything their opponents favor, without regard to whether their ideas have merit or not.
And, that's exactly what we have here. If one political side says black, the other says white no matter the subject, and most often don't really even listen to the question at hand, because all that's important to them is disagreement itself. And while that may be the very basis of what political strife is all about, things still have to get done and problems need satisfactory solution.
So, what's wrong with the picture here, and why don't our problems get the kind of solutions we need where everyone works together? I think the answer is: there's no leader.
Throughout American history it seems that every crisis has brought out the best in leadership, and responsible folks stepped up to the task. That's how world wars were won, depressions reversed and iron Curtains torn down. But, today it all seems quite different. While strong, uniting and motivating direction is not only necessary it's critical, we've got cadres of empty suits from the top down in all branches of national government.
So it seems that we'll continue to wallow and do our best treading water until someone new comes along who cares enough about the country and us to try to get all of us on the same team, if only temporarily, so we can go out and fix it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The thing that's come through most of all in what I've read so far, is that whether you agree with him or not on issues themselves, he was a true leader. Especially in the sense that he analyzed issues, looked for common grounds satisfactory to the largest number of people, then did his best to try to get everyone working together toward solutions satisfactory to all.
He points out clearly that there can never be any kind of agreement at all if opposing sides choose to dissent simply to oppose anything their opponents favor, without regard to whether their ideas have merit or not.
And, that's exactly what we have here. If one political side says black, the other says white no matter the subject, and most often don't really even listen to the question at hand, because all that's important to them is disagreement itself. And while that may be the very basis of what political strife is all about, things still have to get done and problems need satisfactory solution.
So, what's wrong with the picture here, and why don't our problems get the kind of solutions we need where everyone works together? I think the answer is: there's no leader.
Throughout American history it seems that every crisis has brought out the best in leadership, and responsible folks stepped up to the task. That's how world wars were won, depressions reversed and iron Curtains torn down. But, today it all seems quite different. While strong, uniting and motivating direction is not only necessary it's critical, we've got cadres of empty suits from the top down in all branches of national government.
So it seems that we'll continue to wallow and do our best treading water until someone new comes along who cares enough about the country and us to try to get all of us on the same team, if only temporarily, so we can go out and fix it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, February 26, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/26/2011
I'm about 25% through Tony Blair's autobiography, A Journey, My Political Life, which I'm finding to be a very interesting story. My wife brought it home from the library because she knows I have a very high regard and liking for him.
I first became aware of the Prime Minister when he showed himself to be one of the strongest allies the U.S. has ever had, standing shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq in 1993. At the time, I thought him to be extremely bright, down to earth, and unafraid to stand up for his beliefs regardless of dissenters. And ever since, I've yet to change my opinion.
Nonetheless, other than hearing about his actions in the news and hearing him speak once in a while, I knew very little about him. Thus, although I've really just started his book, I've learned significantly -and right off the bat, I must say I was shocked. While really not knowing much about Britain's politics, as it turns out I really knew absolutely nothing about Blair himself, since it took me by complete surprise to find that he's not only a liberal, he's left of left. But, that's why I thought to write about him today.
When he took office the Tories had had control of England's government for 18 years and were entrenched in staunchly conservative policy. His party, Labour, was almost totally comprised of union members and were diametrically opposed to everything the long-term incumbents had stood for. And Blair himself had been spending his time in the House of Commons, objecting vehemently to Tory actions along with other minority members.
Obviously, throughout his campaign, and certainly after he was elected, he realised that there were things in government that needed change, especially since many of them were in total opposition to everything he stood for or believed. But it's the way that he approached these things that made me think of him today.
First and foremost, he didn't visualize issues as if there were only two extremes...right or left. He realized there were middle grounds that could be reached if both sides were willing to listen and try to compromise. And in that way he was able to modernize his own party, while satisfying his opposition fairly often. Much of that was due to the fact that throughout he never lost sight of the fact that he was presiding over Britain, and the country came first, not political bias.
So, in a situation like the ones today in Wisconsin and Ohio, I doubt Tony Blair would run away and hide, thereby avoiding hard issues and bringing his behavior down to that of a two year old child. Instead, he'd look for a middle-ground that made sense to both sides and try to let common sense play a part.
But, beyond that, he was also very in touch and has a good sense of humor. However despite his ability to laugh and grasp the amusement in things that happen, he never performed his job like the butt of a joke in Wisconsin.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
I first became aware of the Prime Minister when he showed himself to be one of the strongest allies the U.S. has ever had, standing shoulder to shoulder with us in Iraq in 1993. At the time, I thought him to be extremely bright, down to earth, and unafraid to stand up for his beliefs regardless of dissenters. And ever since, I've yet to change my opinion.
Nonetheless, other than hearing about his actions in the news and hearing him speak once in a while, I knew very little about him. Thus, although I've really just started his book, I've learned significantly -and right off the bat, I must say I was shocked. While really not knowing much about Britain's politics, as it turns out I really knew absolutely nothing about Blair himself, since it took me by complete surprise to find that he's not only a liberal, he's left of left. But, that's why I thought to write about him today.
When he took office the Tories had had control of England's government for 18 years and were entrenched in staunchly conservative policy. His party, Labour, was almost totally comprised of union members and were diametrically opposed to everything the long-term incumbents had stood for. And Blair himself had been spending his time in the House of Commons, objecting vehemently to Tory actions along with other minority members.
Obviously, throughout his campaign, and certainly after he was elected, he realised that there were things in government that needed change, especially since many of them were in total opposition to everything he stood for or believed. But it's the way that he approached these things that made me think of him today.
First and foremost, he didn't visualize issues as if there were only two extremes...right or left. He realized there were middle grounds that could be reached if both sides were willing to listen and try to compromise. And in that way he was able to modernize his own party, while satisfying his opposition fairly often. Much of that was due to the fact that throughout he never lost sight of the fact that he was presiding over Britain, and the country came first, not political bias.
So, in a situation like the ones today in Wisconsin and Ohio, I doubt Tony Blair would run away and hide, thereby avoiding hard issues and bringing his behavior down to that of a two year old child. Instead, he'd look for a middle-ground that made sense to both sides and try to let common sense play a part.
But, beyond that, he was also very in touch and has a good sense of humor. However despite his ability to laugh and grasp the amusement in things that happen, he never performed his job like the butt of a joke in Wisconsin.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Friday, February 25, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/25/2011
Since this union fiasco in Indiana is still going on, I had a thought this morning about what would happen if a situation like this arose in a business environment, where a group of employees simply ran away and hid.
Now, naturally I understand that there can be disputes between management and the rank and file, that's what strikes are all about. But, what I had in mind was situations where there's disagreement amongst managers, and one's who think they're losing the argument simply pack up and leave town.
Could, or would, any business tolerate a scenario like that?
I mean, how could any entity operate successfully if those who disagree with decisions, or contemplate they will, stamp their feet and say "No, I won't do that," and then run away and hide, threatening not to return until they get their way.
There's no business on Earth that could survive under those circumstances, and no business would tolerate it either.
But, that's the real world, and the real world knows how to either fix those things or prevent them from happening in the first place. And that's because businesses that survive learn to be efficient and where to draw lines regarding decision making. And, that's not to say that people aren't free to decide they don't like the way things are run or done. Because they certainly are. However, most often non-believers are asked to find employment somewhere else.
Yet, aside from the ridiculousness of supposedly mature adults who choose to hide away when faced with problems they can't solve, the Indiana situation illustrates something else. Businesses have little tolerance for disagreement or disruption because they don't have the time or resources to waste on things like that. Politicians however don't really care about either subject, because all they have is valueless time to fill, coupled with a total disregard for how they give away other people's money.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Now, naturally I understand that there can be disputes between management and the rank and file, that's what strikes are all about. But, what I had in mind was situations where there's disagreement amongst managers, and one's who think they're losing the argument simply pack up and leave town.
Could, or would, any business tolerate a scenario like that?
I mean, how could any entity operate successfully if those who disagree with decisions, or contemplate they will, stamp their feet and say "No, I won't do that," and then run away and hide, threatening not to return until they get their way.
There's no business on Earth that could survive under those circumstances, and no business would tolerate it either.
But, that's the real world, and the real world knows how to either fix those things or prevent them from happening in the first place. And that's because businesses that survive learn to be efficient and where to draw lines regarding decision making. And, that's not to say that people aren't free to decide they don't like the way things are run or done. Because they certainly are. However, most often non-believers are asked to find employment somewhere else.
Yet, aside from the ridiculousness of supposedly mature adults who choose to hide away when faced with problems they can't solve, the Indiana situation illustrates something else. Businesses have little tolerance for disagreement or disruption because they don't have the time or resources to waste on things like that. Politicians however don't really care about either subject, because all they have is valueless time to fill, coupled with a total disregard for how they give away other people's money.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, February 24, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/24/2011
Talking to a close friend yesterday, whom I don't see too often because one of us in Boston, the other in New York, I was severely chastised for my negative attitude about teachers.
I'm mentioning it because my friend is a teacher herself. And in fact, is someone who represents to me what teaching should be about. Because if there were more like her, there wouldn't be any education problem in Wisconsin, Ohio, or anywhere else.
First and foremost my friend is primarily engaged in a real business, and that's how and why I know her. Because several years ago we worked for the same employer. I ran sales and marketing and she was responsible for advertising, promotion, communications and everything else dealing in the dissemination of information, so we worked together quite often.
Though we went our separate ways professionally a while back, we've stayed in touch, and she's even edited much of my writing, so I'm aware of her outstanding talent. And that's why when she told me she was considering teaching in her field, I thought it was an excellent idea. Because she's someone students can surely learn from. And not only the nuts and bolts of the subject, but how and where they apply in the real world, since she does that every day herslf.
Beyond that, since she's steadily employed in the corporate world she receives compensation and benefits from her "day job," and teaches too simply because she wants to. Consequently, her foremost desire is educating those who really want to learn, and not simply trying to see how much she can rip off from the system for herself.
Now, I've been around for a while and realize that my freind is far from the average teacher, both talentwise and attitudinally. I also very much doubt typical educators would work two jobs, especially since most of them complain about having to work at just one. But nonetheless there's surely some middle ground between the two extremes of true dedication and total responsibility avoidance.
So, maybe that's where today's confrontation should be heading. Trying to find a fair way to trade a commensurate level of compensation in return for an acceptable day's work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
I'm mentioning it because my friend is a teacher herself. And in fact, is someone who represents to me what teaching should be about. Because if there were more like her, there wouldn't be any education problem in Wisconsin, Ohio, or anywhere else.
First and foremost my friend is primarily engaged in a real business, and that's how and why I know her. Because several years ago we worked for the same employer. I ran sales and marketing and she was responsible for advertising, promotion, communications and everything else dealing in the dissemination of information, so we worked together quite often.
Though we went our separate ways professionally a while back, we've stayed in touch, and she's even edited much of my writing, so I'm aware of her outstanding talent. And that's why when she told me she was considering teaching in her field, I thought it was an excellent idea. Because she's someone students can surely learn from. And not only the nuts and bolts of the subject, but how and where they apply in the real world, since she does that every day herslf.
Beyond that, since she's steadily employed in the corporate world she receives compensation and benefits from her "day job," and teaches too simply because she wants to. Consequently, her foremost desire is educating those who really want to learn, and not simply trying to see how much she can rip off from the system for herself.
Now, I've been around for a while and realize that my freind is far from the average teacher, both talentwise and attitudinally. I also very much doubt typical educators would work two jobs, especially since most of them complain about having to work at just one. But nonetheless there's surely some middle ground between the two extremes of true dedication and total responsibility avoidance.
So, maybe that's where today's confrontation should be heading. Trying to find a fair way to trade a commensurate level of compensation in return for an acceptable day's work.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/23/2011
I'm getting concerned that an agreement will be reached on a budget extension before the Federal government closes down due to lack of funding. Because, if there's no shutdown, an opportunity will be lost to illustrate that it doesn't matter to the citizenry whether the government operates or not.
The government's sort of like your appendix. It's there, but nobody notices because it doesn't do anything at all. And the only time you're aware of it is when, for whatever reason, it makes you sick. So, in that way the government's pretty much the same. It goes on year after year doing nothing beneficial, nobody except political junkies care if it's there or not, and then all of a sudden it does something that makes you want to throw up.
At the moment however, the government's in the headlines because of two matters where it's bleeding taxpayers dry and it's actions are beyond despicable. On one hand, unions have been allowed for years to collective bargain, and in that way they've escalated their compensation packages to an extent that more than twenty states have gone broke. And at present, these unions want more.
Simultaneously, while 20% of the population is un or under-employed, and helpless folks are watching their real estate values sink through the floor due to government having artificially manipulated the market, oil prices are climbing out of sight. So, a nation that's presently more than 14 trillion dollars in debt is going to have a huge portion of its remaining wealth stolen by foreigners. It's almost impossible to imagine that those elected to serve the country and its citizens could sit back and allow this to happen. But they did!!!
I for one hope the Middle East blows itself off the map in civil wars, because not only would it be no great loss, it would likely be quite beneficial to the rest of the globe. But, at the same time I hope our "leaders" wake up and realize the time for pandering to moronic political bases can't be afforded anymore, and let the good guys right here at home start drilling for our huge resources of oil.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The government's sort of like your appendix. It's there, but nobody notices because it doesn't do anything at all. And the only time you're aware of it is when, for whatever reason, it makes you sick. So, in that way the government's pretty much the same. It goes on year after year doing nothing beneficial, nobody except political junkies care if it's there or not, and then all of a sudden it does something that makes you want to throw up.
At the moment however, the government's in the headlines because of two matters where it's bleeding taxpayers dry and it's actions are beyond despicable. On one hand, unions have been allowed for years to collective bargain, and in that way they've escalated their compensation packages to an extent that more than twenty states have gone broke. And at present, these unions want more.
Simultaneously, while 20% of the population is un or under-employed, and helpless folks are watching their real estate values sink through the floor due to government having artificially manipulated the market, oil prices are climbing out of sight. So, a nation that's presently more than 14 trillion dollars in debt is going to have a huge portion of its remaining wealth stolen by foreigners. It's almost impossible to imagine that those elected to serve the country and its citizens could sit back and allow this to happen. But they did!!!
I for one hope the Middle East blows itself off the map in civil wars, because not only would it be no great loss, it would likely be quite beneficial to the rest of the globe. But, at the same time I hope our "leaders" wake up and realize the time for pandering to moronic political bases can't be afforded anymore, and let the good guys right here at home start drilling for our huge resources of oil.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
2/22/2011
The situations in Wisconsin and Ohio really have me at a loss, because I simply can't understand them. And that's because my business experience has been polar to the issues in dispute.
Very early in my career, and sheerly by chance, I was given an opportunity to try my hand at sales. That had never been my plan or experience, I'd always worked in factories or plants, but nonetheless I accepted the challenge.
Once I began to grasp what selling was all about, and truly focused on the task, I stayed in sales and marketing for the rest of my business life and still do both today. And it's because of what selling entails that the labor issues confuse me.
The first thing about selling, and the one most important to salespeople themselves is there is no job security whatsoever, never will be and never was. The only thing that matters is: How much you produce at an acceptable profit. And, there aren't any warnings, negotiations or discussions about your job or performance. If results aren't satisfactory...you're gone.
Now, those are the rules and the way it works, and the premise is cast in stone. Because businesses aren't charities, they gain nothing from dead weight, and their mission is simple: income, survival and growth. Consequently, for salespeople especially, businesses neither have the time or resources to be patient when it comes to earning money, and the ones generally tasked with that responsibility are sales folks.
For many successful folks in sales, as time is spent, experience gained and performance noticed, opportunities arise to "manage." But, here again, not only are there no safety nets in case of failure...the employment risks increase significantly. Because now salespeople aren't only measured by their own production, they're also responsible for the results of all those on their staff. So, with every promotion, the risks and probabilities of personal failure go up.
Now, naturally, due to the risks involved in sales as a profession and the constant, never-ending need to outperform competition, successful salespeople are generally compensated quite well. But, regardless of the possibilities for greater reward, as the old saying about salespeople goes -they're as good as their last deal. Meaning that if they don't produce, they're over, regardless.
And lastly, there's this issue of tenure. Because other than relatives, or perhaps those who have some kind of hold or threat over their employer, I can think of no one who can survive in business whom isn't measurably productive. All employees have to justify their existence somehow or other. But tenure overrides that premise. Simply putting in time is enough to insure job survival.
And that reminds me of a question I was asked in a job interview many years ago when the interviewer asked me how much experience I had. When I replied that I had five years experience, he wanted clarification and inquired if I actually had five years of experience, or simply one year of experience five times. There's quite a difference.
And that's how I look at tenure. Because a typical teacher spouts the same stuff to students at the same grade level year after year, and hasn't changed an iota from day one...so what's the increase in their value? The answer's simple: None.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Very early in my career, and sheerly by chance, I was given an opportunity to try my hand at sales. That had never been my plan or experience, I'd always worked in factories or plants, but nonetheless I accepted the challenge.
Once I began to grasp what selling was all about, and truly focused on the task, I stayed in sales and marketing for the rest of my business life and still do both today. And it's because of what selling entails that the labor issues confuse me.
The first thing about selling, and the one most important to salespeople themselves is there is no job security whatsoever, never will be and never was. The only thing that matters is: How much you produce at an acceptable profit. And, there aren't any warnings, negotiations or discussions about your job or performance. If results aren't satisfactory...you're gone.
Now, those are the rules and the way it works, and the premise is cast in stone. Because businesses aren't charities, they gain nothing from dead weight, and their mission is simple: income, survival and growth. Consequently, for salespeople especially, businesses neither have the time or resources to be patient when it comes to earning money, and the ones generally tasked with that responsibility are sales folks.
For many successful folks in sales, as time is spent, experience gained and performance noticed, opportunities arise to "manage." But, here again, not only are there no safety nets in case of failure...the employment risks increase significantly. Because now salespeople aren't only measured by their own production, they're also responsible for the results of all those on their staff. So, with every promotion, the risks and probabilities of personal failure go up.
Now, naturally, due to the risks involved in sales as a profession and the constant, never-ending need to outperform competition, successful salespeople are generally compensated quite well. But, regardless of the possibilities for greater reward, as the old saying about salespeople goes -they're as good as their last deal. Meaning that if they don't produce, they're over, regardless.
And lastly, there's this issue of tenure. Because other than relatives, or perhaps those who have some kind of hold or threat over their employer, I can think of no one who can survive in business whom isn't measurably productive. All employees have to justify their existence somehow or other. But tenure overrides that premise. Simply putting in time is enough to insure job survival.
And that reminds me of a question I was asked in a job interview many years ago when the interviewer asked me how much experience I had. When I replied that I had five years experience, he wanted clarification and inquired if I actually had five years of experience, or simply one year of experience five times. There's quite a difference.
And that's how I look at tenure. Because a typical teacher spouts the same stuff to students at the same grade level year after year, and hasn't changed an iota from day one...so what's the increase in their value? The answer's simple: None.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, February 21, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/21/2011
A ticker on one of the news channels showed that oil prices increased by more than $4.00 per barrel this morning. I guess that's because the Libyans have joined the Middle-Eastern new trend of protest, revolt and riots. I'm sure Quadaffi will try to quickly fix the problem by executing all the dissidents he can find, but in the meantime, we're going to continue to go broke here due to issues that have absolutely nothing to do with us.
So, while bleeding heart conservationists who care about nothing but the survival of the red-crested pond hopper, or some schools of fish, our whole nation of real people is deciding whether to buy food or fuel with the few cents they may still have left.
And what's most incredible is, as bad as our economy is, with no real signs of recovery until the next election, our energy problems are self-inflicted. This nation could turn energy prices upside down overnight by simply permitting drilling for oil, but that's not going to happen anytime soon simply because of delusional political policy. Yet, that might be due for a change.
Because as the taxpayers in Wisconsin are showing, there comes a time when enough's enough and they're fed up with paying increasingly more for inferior products, which their teachers certainly are. So, if Wisconsinites can tell their educators to pack up and take their unions with them, perhaps the driving public will wake up and demand government finally do something about the price of fuel. Because I don't think most folks cast their votes to insure that some Sheiks in countries whose names they don't even know can afford whole new herds of camels and goats.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
So, while bleeding heart conservationists who care about nothing but the survival of the red-crested pond hopper, or some schools of fish, our whole nation of real people is deciding whether to buy food or fuel with the few cents they may still have left.
And what's most incredible is, as bad as our economy is, with no real signs of recovery until the next election, our energy problems are self-inflicted. This nation could turn energy prices upside down overnight by simply permitting drilling for oil, but that's not going to happen anytime soon simply because of delusional political policy. Yet, that might be due for a change.
Because as the taxpayers in Wisconsin are showing, there comes a time when enough's enough and they're fed up with paying increasingly more for inferior products, which their teachers certainly are. So, if Wisconsinites can tell their educators to pack up and take their unions with them, perhaps the driving public will wake up and demand government finally do something about the price of fuel. Because I don't think most folks cast their votes to insure that some Sheiks in countries whose names they don't even know can afford whole new herds of camels and goats.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, February 20, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/20/2011
Busy day today, not much blog time. But, I'm still interested in the Wisconsin union situation. Because it clearly points out the differences in thinking between doers and takers.
There's really no doubt that to be an educator, one must have schooling oneself. And that requires some work to accomplish. But, as far as employment goes, there's really quite little risk. And, unless these folks have other revenue sources, such as tutoring or authorship, or a second job, their income is pretty much fixed. However, that fact was well known when they accepted employment in the first place.
That being the case, there's no way for these folks to earn more money unless their wages increase. And thanks to union strength, that's exactly what happens. Yet, as a practical matter, what they produce remains exactly the same. History doesn't change because someone's taught it every year for eons. And arithmetic and chemical formulae remain exactly the same. And so does each aspect of every subject in basic curriculum as time passes on. What that means is, despite continual, union scaled contractual pay raises, the jobs actually done haven't changed an iota. Yet, over time, the exact same product has done nothing except increase in cost.
So, I guess part of the problem teachers have in seeking more money, or similarly having benefits cut, is to demonstrate where and how their value's increased. And, that's really the crux of their predicament. Because if they were now to be judged on merit instead of tenure, they'd owe the taxpayers a fortune in money they've already taken that ought be paid back.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
There's really no doubt that to be an educator, one must have schooling oneself. And that requires some work to accomplish. But, as far as employment goes, there's really quite little risk. And, unless these folks have other revenue sources, such as tutoring or authorship, or a second job, their income is pretty much fixed. However, that fact was well known when they accepted employment in the first place.
That being the case, there's no way for these folks to earn more money unless their wages increase. And thanks to union strength, that's exactly what happens. Yet, as a practical matter, what they produce remains exactly the same. History doesn't change because someone's taught it every year for eons. And arithmetic and chemical formulae remain exactly the same. And so does each aspect of every subject in basic curriculum as time passes on. What that means is, despite continual, union scaled contractual pay raises, the jobs actually done haven't changed an iota. Yet, over time, the exact same product has done nothing except increase in cost.
So, I guess part of the problem teachers have in seeking more money, or similarly having benefits cut, is to demonstrate where and how their value's increased. And, that's really the crux of their predicament. Because if they were now to be judged on merit instead of tenure, they'd owe the taxpayers a fortune in money they've already taken that ought be paid back.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, February 19, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/19/2011
It seems to me that in almost all walks of life and professions, talents and abilities seem to fall into bell curve categories. In each, there are very small numbers of performers at the ends of the curves, outstanding ones on one end, miserable failures on the other, and a large conglomeration of mediocrity in the middle.
Consequently, when you deal with the entire population contained in a particular category, you find that very few of those included have superior value and the rest are ordinary at best. And that example can certainly be applied to the unions extant in our country today. A few souls in each, perhaps do have stellar talent, but all the rest are treated as being equals, though they're certainly not.
And while there's no doubt that unions once served a needed and laudable service, the world has changed significantly in recent years, and these organizations no longer help, they hamper and hinder. And nowhere can that be seen more evidently than in education.
Today's salaries, benefits and working conditions continue to enhance the lives of teachers, yet their mission, education of students, declines faster every year. The United States is practically a third world nation, education-wise.
Thus, if we're all lucky, the situation in Wisconsin will serve to break the back of the teacher's union and provide a window for replacing those empty suits with competent folks who not only want a job, but also are willing to work.
What's more, I doubt there'll be much lost if the teachers strike. Because I myself went through the best public school system in the nation in New York City. And I know I learned everything of value in my life after I got out from under it, and began educating myself.
That's it for today folks,
Adios
Consequently, when you deal with the entire population contained in a particular category, you find that very few of those included have superior value and the rest are ordinary at best. And that example can certainly be applied to the unions extant in our country today. A few souls in each, perhaps do have stellar talent, but all the rest are treated as being equals, though they're certainly not.
And while there's no doubt that unions once served a needed and laudable service, the world has changed significantly in recent years, and these organizations no longer help, they hamper and hinder. And nowhere can that be seen more evidently than in education.
Today's salaries, benefits and working conditions continue to enhance the lives of teachers, yet their mission, education of students, declines faster every year. The United States is practically a third world nation, education-wise.
Thus, if we're all lucky, the situation in Wisconsin will serve to break the back of the teacher's union and provide a window for replacing those empty suits with competent folks who not only want a job, but also are willing to work.
What's more, I doubt there'll be much lost if the teachers strike. Because I myself went through the best public school system in the nation in New York City. And I know I learned everything of value in my life after I got out from under it, and began educating myself.
That's it for today folks,
Adios
Friday, February 18, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/18/2011
Having spent almost my entire life in business environments, I've known for many, many years that there's a huge chasm between government's operation and the real world. Yet, even fully understanding the fact that bureaucrats have no idea how the working world works, and having no expectation of their comprehension...one of the president's latest steps really floored me.
Because, in a scrambling effort toward job creation Thursday he invited a group to get together in California that included some of the biggest names in the high-tech corridor to confer on jobs and innovation. He was attempting to get the leaders from companies like Google and Apple behind his push to keep spending on high-tech initiatives even as Republicans are trying to slash the budget.
Also in the group were Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, along with the heads of Twitter, Yahoo!, NetFlix and Oracle, and the president of Stanford University.
Now, as I sit here and type, I'm looking at my computer screen and considering the fact that I can do this all alone. And at the same time, I can periodically check my email, websites of companies I do business with, monitor the stock market, look at my bank accounts and keep up with the news. I can check inventory, contact suppliers and do countless other tasks with my fingers with no need for human contact and without ever leaving my chair. And, should I need to actually talk to someone on antiquated equipment, like the telephone, I can jump to their number in one of my databases or, if I don't know the number, an on-line directory will likely have it.
The point of all this is, the reason I'm able to function by myself, replacing who knows how any people I might have needed to employ for these tasks before, is because of innovation and technology created by the very folks the president's looking to for advice. And, they're in exactly the opposite position of his objective. These guys live their lives replacing people with keystrokes, bringing down operating costs, and providing the population of the world with technology allowing them to function perfectly well alone. So, perhaps his plan is to ask them to stop creating innovative solutions for work completion, and unplug all their equipment so zillions of folks can go back to pencils and paper.
And, on that subject, I've no doubt that there won't be any noticeable decline in the knowledge level of kids when all the teachers actually quit. Because between the Web, and instant communication amongst themselves, when today's kids need information they have access to significantly more resources than whatever they'll get from any of their "teachers."
So, what it all boils down to is, the folks who are supposed to be leaders in politics have for many years had the same problem. By the time they wake up to reality the party's over, and the only ones who really want to follow them are the ones who like to walk into walls.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Because, in a scrambling effort toward job creation Thursday he invited a group to get together in California that included some of the biggest names in the high-tech corridor to confer on jobs and innovation. He was attempting to get the leaders from companies like Google and Apple behind his push to keep spending on high-tech initiatives even as Republicans are trying to slash the budget.
Also in the group were Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, along with the heads of Twitter, Yahoo!, NetFlix and Oracle, and the president of Stanford University.
Now, as I sit here and type, I'm looking at my computer screen and considering the fact that I can do this all alone. And at the same time, I can periodically check my email, websites of companies I do business with, monitor the stock market, look at my bank accounts and keep up with the news. I can check inventory, contact suppliers and do countless other tasks with my fingers with no need for human contact and without ever leaving my chair. And, should I need to actually talk to someone on antiquated equipment, like the telephone, I can jump to their number in one of my databases or, if I don't know the number, an on-line directory will likely have it.
The point of all this is, the reason I'm able to function by myself, replacing who knows how any people I might have needed to employ for these tasks before, is because of innovation and technology created by the very folks the president's looking to for advice. And, they're in exactly the opposite position of his objective. These guys live their lives replacing people with keystrokes, bringing down operating costs, and providing the population of the world with technology allowing them to function perfectly well alone. So, perhaps his plan is to ask them to stop creating innovative solutions for work completion, and unplug all their equipment so zillions of folks can go back to pencils and paper.
And, on that subject, I've no doubt that there won't be any noticeable decline in the knowledge level of kids when all the teachers actually quit. Because between the Web, and instant communication amongst themselves, when today's kids need information they have access to significantly more resources than whatever they'll get from any of their "teachers."
So, what it all boils down to is, the folks who are supposed to be leaders in politics have for many years had the same problem. By the time they wake up to reality the party's over, and the only ones who really want to follow them are the ones who like to walk into walls.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, February 17, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/17/2011
This seems to be a week where some things are happening that might actually have some impact toward getting the country back on track. Yesterday, New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, faced the press and said that something had to be done about entitlement programs, including social security, or the country, and certainly his state, face the reality of going broke.
Then this morning, in Wisconsin the entire corps of Democrat senators went into hiding, rather than be present for a vote that was sure to pass which would strip public employees of their right to collective bargain. The Republican majority forced the issue because, they say, the state can no longer afford to keep spending money it doesn't have and their deficit keeps growing.
Major beneficiaries of Wisconsin's law are teachers, who went ballistic over the new law and marched in protest.
Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008, the average salary for an elementary school teacher was $51,240 while middle school educators earned $50,950 and high school teachers earned $49,400. And I think that's a pretty good wage for baby sitting. Because, as is more evident every day, students all across this nation are learning close to nothing.
So, this teacher's strike, if it lasts for a while, will fall right in place with my point in yesterday's blog. Because if the teachers strike continues and the whole Federal government shuts down, both groups better make a lot of noise about it...because otherwise -nobody's going to notice.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Then this morning, in Wisconsin the entire corps of Democrat senators went into hiding, rather than be present for a vote that was sure to pass which would strip public employees of their right to collective bargain. The Republican majority forced the issue because, they say, the state can no longer afford to keep spending money it doesn't have and their deficit keeps growing.
Major beneficiaries of Wisconsin's law are teachers, who went ballistic over the new law and marched in protest.
Now, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2008, the average salary for an elementary school teacher was $51,240 while middle school educators earned $50,950 and high school teachers earned $49,400. And I think that's a pretty good wage for baby sitting. Because, as is more evident every day, students all across this nation are learning close to nothing.
So, this teacher's strike, if it lasts for a while, will fall right in place with my point in yesterday's blog. Because if the teachers strike continues and the whole Federal government shuts down, both groups better make a lot of noise about it...because otherwise -nobody's going to notice.
That's it for today folks
Adios
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/16/2011
The president's still wrangling to get his budget through, but his opposition says the proposed spending cuts are insufficient. In return, he's mumbling about shutting the government down if a budget bill doesn't pass soon.
But, what I thought most interesting is the subject he chose to mention, should passage not got through. His warning was, social security payments might not be made because they're part of the package. So, what he's doing is attempting to frighten older recipients of government checks in the hope that they'll pressure their representatives to be cooperative with him.
Now, while I truly doubt the situation would get to the stage where social security checks won't go out, I can certainly understand why the president chose this subject to make his point. Because, there's little else that government does that anyone cares about, and what's more, except for not mailing those checks, it's likely no one else would notice that the shutdown had occurred.
The rest of the country would run like it always does, and in fact, with no Feds around would likely run better. And I'm sure the military would be exempted from any shutdown, because without them, the president's in danger too...so he won't take the risk.
Consequently, the more I think about the subject, the more I hope a shutdown occurs. Because then we'll have proof positive that government's absence doesn't really matter a whit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But, what I thought most interesting is the subject he chose to mention, should passage not got through. His warning was, social security payments might not be made because they're part of the package. So, what he's doing is attempting to frighten older recipients of government checks in the hope that they'll pressure their representatives to be cooperative with him.
Now, while I truly doubt the situation would get to the stage where social security checks won't go out, I can certainly understand why the president chose this subject to make his point. Because, there's little else that government does that anyone cares about, and what's more, except for not mailing those checks, it's likely no one else would notice that the shutdown had occurred.
The rest of the country would run like it always does, and in fact, with no Feds around would likely run better. And I'm sure the military would be exempted from any shutdown, because without them, the president's in danger too...so he won't take the risk.
Consequently, the more I think about the subject, the more I hope a shutdown occurs. Because then we'll have proof positive that government's absence doesn't really matter a whit.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/15/2011
A few days ago, my wife and I stopped to pick up a late bite at a local fast food shop that's part of one of the country's largest chains. We don't do that too often, but I like fast food, not the places themselves, though my wife's not really a major fan at all.
Anyway, it was eight-thirty in the evening or so, and I waited in the car while my wife went into the shop to order. She later returned with a bag of stuff, and was shaking her head as she spoke. She said something like, "I can't believe it, but there was only one person at the counter in there, and she was serving the customers at the counter and handling the drive-up window, too. It took a really long time to get our order."
When we got home, she gave me two items, one a burger, the other something else and she herself had a "special" new entree sandwich she told they'd been promoting in ads on TV. There were also a couple of accompaniments.
Well, after two bites of her special, my wife frowned again and said, "I can't believe they sell this stuff, I think my sandwich contains cardboard or plastic." Then she took a bite of my sandwich and told me it was dry and tasteless too. However, the burger and sides seemed fine to both of us.
Then a few days later, my wife sat down at the computer with a look in her eye that I know well, and she began typing. The result was a letter to corporate management of this huge international chain of stores, recapping our experience -from the lack of service to the dissapointing food.
Now, to my surprise, a few days later a restaurant general manager called, wanting my wife to recap our experience, so he could educate himself and benefit from our displeasure, in return for which he promised to send us a gift certificate to use as we chose.
Then, today, the certificate actually showed up, along with a personal letter. Now, again, this is from a General Manager servicing twenty-five stores in the greater metroplolitan area of New York. I've re-typed it word for word.
"I appreciated speaking with you today and thank u for offering me some Valuble insight into my business. I assure u that you're comments don't fall on Deaf ears it truly matters. Please accept my sincere apology . I have enclosed a Gift card for u to use at any ****. I do hope u will return to my location To see that is not how we do business. Looking forward to seeing you soon and Again thanks."
Now, the food issue is one thing, and I think the manager's approach to this situation is laudible, sincere and certainly good for business. And although in our case, we would have gone back anyway and written that night off to simply a bad day for them, it's quite nice that the manager took the extra step.
But now to what really struck me. I have to assume that this person manages a couple of hundred folks, and as described is employed by a major, international chain. And I understand that their primary objective is to sell food, not write letters. But, you'd think someone at that level knew something about language, grammar and perhaps, even sentence structure. But, I guess not.
Yet, the one thing the letter proves above else is, that for those determined to succeed, the horrible, disgrace of a job done by the country's teachers doesn't matter a whit. The folks willing to work hard and who want to succeed will do it despite them.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Anyway, it was eight-thirty in the evening or so, and I waited in the car while my wife went into the shop to order. She later returned with a bag of stuff, and was shaking her head as she spoke. She said something like, "I can't believe it, but there was only one person at the counter in there, and she was serving the customers at the counter and handling the drive-up window, too. It took a really long time to get our order."
When we got home, she gave me two items, one a burger, the other something else and she herself had a "special" new entree sandwich she told they'd been promoting in ads on TV. There were also a couple of accompaniments.
Well, after two bites of her special, my wife frowned again and said, "I can't believe they sell this stuff, I think my sandwich contains cardboard or plastic." Then she took a bite of my sandwich and told me it was dry and tasteless too. However, the burger and sides seemed fine to both of us.
Then a few days later, my wife sat down at the computer with a look in her eye that I know well, and she began typing. The result was a letter to corporate management of this huge international chain of stores, recapping our experience -from the lack of service to the dissapointing food.
Now, to my surprise, a few days later a restaurant general manager called, wanting my wife to recap our experience, so he could educate himself and benefit from our displeasure, in return for which he promised to send us a gift certificate to use as we chose.
Then, today, the certificate actually showed up, along with a personal letter. Now, again, this is from a General Manager servicing twenty-five stores in the greater metroplolitan area of New York. I've re-typed it word for word.
"I appreciated speaking with you today and thank u for offering me some Valuble insight into my business. I assure u that you're comments don't fall on Deaf ears it truly matters. Please accept my sincere apology . I have enclosed a Gift card for u to use at any ****. I do hope u will return to my location To see that is not how we do business. Looking forward to seeing you soon and Again thanks."
Now, the food issue is one thing, and I think the manager's approach to this situation is laudible, sincere and certainly good for business. And although in our case, we would have gone back anyway and written that night off to simply a bad day for them, it's quite nice that the manager took the extra step.
But now to what really struck me. I have to assume that this person manages a couple of hundred folks, and as described is employed by a major, international chain. And I understand that their primary objective is to sell food, not write letters. But, you'd think someone at that level knew something about language, grammar and perhaps, even sentence structure. But, I guess not.
Yet, the one thing the letter proves above else is, that for those determined to succeed, the horrible, disgrace of a job done by the country's teachers doesn't matter a whit. The folks willing to work hard and who want to succeed will do it despite them.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, February 14, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/14/2011
The president released his 2012 budget today, in the amount of $3.7 trillion dollars, and it seems that nowhere in it does he really address reducing the huge $14 trillion in deficit that's already accrued.
A huge part of the problem, I would guess, is that there's still plenty of totally wasteful spending, but no significant expectation of increased income to provide the funds. And, that's the rub.
As I see the problem, the deficit would likely come down much more quickly if business were to grow and invest, and at present, that's really the segment that's missing. But, business folks won't spend a nickel they don't have to until the present administration is gone. And if the next one has a liberal bent, they won't buy into that one either.
So, as I've written here many times before, the only solution to the budget issue is to wait the situation out. And as soon as there are signs that the government's actually shrinking, regulation has eased and every dollar that's earned won't be wasted bailing out failures, investment and growth will return.
But for now, we've got this governmental Catch 22, wherein the only way incumbents can stimulate growth is to resign and yield to folks who know what they're doing. However, since that takes some caring about the country and its citizens, it'll never happen. So, folks will just have to hope there's enough left two years from now to survive.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
A huge part of the problem, I would guess, is that there's still plenty of totally wasteful spending, but no significant expectation of increased income to provide the funds. And, that's the rub.
As I see the problem, the deficit would likely come down much more quickly if business were to grow and invest, and at present, that's really the segment that's missing. But, business folks won't spend a nickel they don't have to until the present administration is gone. And if the next one has a liberal bent, they won't buy into that one either.
So, as I've written here many times before, the only solution to the budget issue is to wait the situation out. And as soon as there are signs that the government's actually shrinking, regulation has eased and every dollar that's earned won't be wasted bailing out failures, investment and growth will return.
But for now, we've got this governmental Catch 22, wherein the only way incumbents can stimulate growth is to resign and yield to folks who know what they're doing. However, since that takes some caring about the country and its citizens, it'll never happen. So, folks will just have to hope there's enough left two years from now to survive.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, February 13, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/13/2011
Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, with 30 percent of the vote. Romney placed second with 23%.
Next came a bunch of also ran's, including former Governors Gary Johnson of New Mexico and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie way back at 6 percent of the vote, and then Newt Gingrich with 5 percent.
A group at 4 percent or less included, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels, and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, among others.
As I went through the names the point that struck me was, there's no clear individual I can see who isn't some form of same old, same old, but worse than that for Republicans there's no one I think likely to beat the incumbent president. And that's not only remarkable, in a way its a tragic, because the country's in critical need of competent leadership and there's not one in the preceding bunch that stands out in any way.
Then again, there's the possible exception of Chris Christie, who seems to be doing quite a good job in his state, but the rest are clearly a bunch of continually recycling hacks saddled down with all kinds of biased political baggage.
So, I guess it boils down to politics as usual, where an incompetent incumbent has done a miserable job, yet those trying to unseat him are worse. And that's really hard to fathom. Because if these folks were in the real world, and trying to run a business -they'd be broke, gone, done and finished in less time than it took to type today's entry.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Next came a bunch of also ran's, including former Governors Gary Johnson of New Mexico and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie way back at 6 percent of the vote, and then Newt Gingrich with 5 percent.
A group at 4 percent or less included, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels, and former Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, among others.
As I went through the names the point that struck me was, there's no clear individual I can see who isn't some form of same old, same old, but worse than that for Republicans there's no one I think likely to beat the incumbent president. And that's not only remarkable, in a way its a tragic, because the country's in critical need of competent leadership and there's not one in the preceding bunch that stands out in any way.
Then again, there's the possible exception of Chris Christie, who seems to be doing quite a good job in his state, but the rest are clearly a bunch of continually recycling hacks saddled down with all kinds of biased political baggage.
So, I guess it boils down to politics as usual, where an incompetent incumbent has done a miserable job, yet those trying to unseat him are worse. And that's really hard to fathom. Because if these folks were in the real world, and trying to run a business -they'd be broke, gone, done and finished in less time than it took to type today's entry.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, February 12, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/12/2011
Today's jottings are about conceptions, a subject that's always interested me. Because I've felt for a very long time that people quite often form conclusions purely from images, notions or stereotypical assumption, rather than fact.
So, in that regard I was talking with my son yesterday and he mentioned watching a television show which featured both Gene Simmons, the bassist from Kiss, and Donald Trump.
Now, I know nothing at all about Kiss, and less about Gene Simmons, but quickly learned that he's been very successful, is extremely intelligent, has excellent business acumen and has earned several hundred million dollars from his combination of talents.
On the other hand, I've been wondering for years how Donald Trump survives economically. Because although I certainly have no inside information, have never seen his financial statements, nor have any input other than what I see and hear via the media, but from the outside looking in, I can't think of any business he's ever been involved with that was a success. And it also seems he's had bankruptcies in just about every business he's entered. So, I've never really understood all the hype, smoke and noise about his business acumen.
So, that's why when my son told me about this show, I got a kick out of it. Because the way the show works, apparently Trump gives guests business projects and then rates their performance.
In Simmon's case, he was given a situation involving a major manufacturing organization and was supposed to derive a solution for success. And, after he did so, Trump didn't like what he'd done and apparently told Simmons so.
Well, it was at this point -where Trump was telling Simmons he'd failed- that my son said you could see the anger in Simmon's eyes. And, that must have been obvious to Trump too, because he immediately backed off and let the situation defuse.
Now, as I said, I didn't see the show myself and have only the information I've looked up to support my conclusion. But, off the top I'd have to suspect that when you have someone so obviously weak in business matters reviewing the conclusions of another who's a total, and brilliant success...the chances are the failure didn't understand what the success had done to solve the problem, because the solution was over the failure's head.
And, that I guess is why Trump remains some kind of icon. Because, it looks like he's rarely run into folks in business who are very smart.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
So, in that regard I was talking with my son yesterday and he mentioned watching a television show which featured both Gene Simmons, the bassist from Kiss, and Donald Trump.
Now, I know nothing at all about Kiss, and less about Gene Simmons, but quickly learned that he's been very successful, is extremely intelligent, has excellent business acumen and has earned several hundred million dollars from his combination of talents.
On the other hand, I've been wondering for years how Donald Trump survives economically. Because although I certainly have no inside information, have never seen his financial statements, nor have any input other than what I see and hear via the media, but from the outside looking in, I can't think of any business he's ever been involved with that was a success. And it also seems he's had bankruptcies in just about every business he's entered. So, I've never really understood all the hype, smoke and noise about his business acumen.
So, that's why when my son told me about this show, I got a kick out of it. Because the way the show works, apparently Trump gives guests business projects and then rates their performance.
In Simmon's case, he was given a situation involving a major manufacturing organization and was supposed to derive a solution for success. And, after he did so, Trump didn't like what he'd done and apparently told Simmons so.
Well, it was at this point -where Trump was telling Simmons he'd failed- that my son said you could see the anger in Simmon's eyes. And, that must have been obvious to Trump too, because he immediately backed off and let the situation defuse.
Now, as I said, I didn't see the show myself and have only the information I've looked up to support my conclusion. But, off the top I'd have to suspect that when you have someone so obviously weak in business matters reviewing the conclusions of another who's a total, and brilliant success...the chances are the failure didn't understand what the success had done to solve the problem, because the solution was over the failure's head.
And, that I guess is why Trump remains some kind of icon. Because, it looks like he's rarely run into folks in business who are very smart.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, February 11, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/11/2011
The government's once again going around the block regarding the mortgage market, and what to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Because, right now, the Feds own or insure 90% of all U.S. mortgages. And the main issue seems to be, whether or not Federal guarantees should continue, and if so -in what form?
The reason the subject's of interest to me (no pun intended) is because I spent most of my working life providing equipment financing for businesses. And although never involved in mortgage funds, I think the fundamental premise of all financing is pretty much the same. You can only survive as a lender if borrowers pay you back as agreed.
Another aspect of financing is, although the individual transaction amounts may be huge, the bulk of the funds goes to pay for whatever is being financed. So, if a home costs three million dollars, the mortgage lender may have completed a seven figure deal but themselves only earn the yield the financing provides -the three million itself goes to whomever owned and sold the home.
So, since most lenders only earn the "spread" between what funds cost them and the rates they ultimately charge, and are in a highly competitive business to boot, they're actually earning very thin margins on each individual transaction. Therefore, it takes a lot of solid deals, where borrowers pay as agreed and on time, to cover the costs of bad ones.
Continuing my very primitive example, it really isn't very hard to figure out that if you flood your "portfolio" with weak or bad transactions, you can't survive as a lender for very long because you can't earn what you can't collect from borrowers.
And, to me, that's the flaw in the government's system. Because it's pretty simple to determine if borrowers are credit-worthy or not. And, in a general sense, the very need for guarantees themselves says a lot. Because creditworthy borrowers don't need them.
So, I think that while the government's wish, that more folks be able to own their homes, may be lofty, I don't think it's only a financial issue at all. Because if you're knowingly going to lend funds to folks who can't prove they're actually able to pay you back, it's not a loan, it's a gift. And I for one have absolutely no problem with that, provided it's not done with my money as a taxpayer and without my consent in every individual case.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The reason the subject's of interest to me (no pun intended) is because I spent most of my working life providing equipment financing for businesses. And although never involved in mortgage funds, I think the fundamental premise of all financing is pretty much the same. You can only survive as a lender if borrowers pay you back as agreed.
Another aspect of financing is, although the individual transaction amounts may be huge, the bulk of the funds goes to pay for whatever is being financed. So, if a home costs three million dollars, the mortgage lender may have completed a seven figure deal but themselves only earn the yield the financing provides -the three million itself goes to whomever owned and sold the home.
So, since most lenders only earn the "spread" between what funds cost them and the rates they ultimately charge, and are in a highly competitive business to boot, they're actually earning very thin margins on each individual transaction. Therefore, it takes a lot of solid deals, where borrowers pay as agreed and on time, to cover the costs of bad ones.
Continuing my very primitive example, it really isn't very hard to figure out that if you flood your "portfolio" with weak or bad transactions, you can't survive as a lender for very long because you can't earn what you can't collect from borrowers.
And, to me, that's the flaw in the government's system. Because it's pretty simple to determine if borrowers are credit-worthy or not. And, in a general sense, the very need for guarantees themselves says a lot. Because creditworthy borrowers don't need them.
So, I think that while the government's wish, that more folks be able to own their homes, may be lofty, I don't think it's only a financial issue at all. Because if you're knowingly going to lend funds to folks who can't prove they're actually able to pay you back, it's not a loan, it's a gift. And I for one have absolutely no problem with that, provided it's not done with my money as a taxpayer and without my consent in every individual case.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, February 10, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/10/2011
As I was typing yesterday's entry, I was contemplating the reaction of my generally most supportive reader, who's also at times my severest critic -my wife. Because although she really raises few issues when I expound my views, she becomes very upset when I sink to the lowest levels of human behavior. And, of course, I was right. She thought yesterday's entry an immature waste of blog space.
According to her, and I think she's correct, you can state disagreement without becoming childish, brutish, immature and acting like some kind of heathen, regardless of how upset you are. But, at the same time, I obviously feel that there are "hot button" subjects which override logic, breeding, manners and an educated, sophisticated approach to life. And that's why I sometimes lose my cool.
Because, I believe if you don't roll up your sleeves and demonstrate anger in some visible, palpable way, you fall short of making your point, thereby letting perpetrators get away Scott free. And I think there's something wrong with that. Because while the basis for things like political correctness may be honorable at their conceptual core, when you apply them in real life you wind up killing a marvelous city like San Francisco.
So, when people try to take advantage of me, or encroach on my personal space, I'm not comfortable merely saying "No thanks" or "Not now," I want them to know that I not only resent their wasting my time, but that they risk repercussion if they do it again.
And my real question is: If folks don't get rid of them that way, how will the hucksters, hustlers and frauds learn to leave us alone if no one poses tangible threats?
And that's why, though my reactions may be as immature, base and repulsive as you can get, I have no problem delivering them. And as far as telemarketers go, I'd gladly meet them anywhere, anytime in person, to get a chance to really practice what I preach and prove that I mean it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
According to her, and I think she's correct, you can state disagreement without becoming childish, brutish, immature and acting like some kind of heathen, regardless of how upset you are. But, at the same time, I obviously feel that there are "hot button" subjects which override logic, breeding, manners and an educated, sophisticated approach to life. And that's why I sometimes lose my cool.
Because, I believe if you don't roll up your sleeves and demonstrate anger in some visible, palpable way, you fall short of making your point, thereby letting perpetrators get away Scott free. And I think there's something wrong with that. Because while the basis for things like political correctness may be honorable at their conceptual core, when you apply them in real life you wind up killing a marvelous city like San Francisco.
So, when people try to take advantage of me, or encroach on my personal space, I'm not comfortable merely saying "No thanks" or "Not now," I want them to know that I not only resent their wasting my time, but that they risk repercussion if they do it again.
And my real question is: If folks don't get rid of them that way, how will the hucksters, hustlers and frauds learn to leave us alone if no one poses tangible threats?
And that's why, though my reactions may be as immature, base and repulsive as you can get, I have no problem delivering them. And as far as telemarketers go, I'd gladly meet them anywhere, anytime in person, to get a chance to really practice what I preach and prove that I mean it.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/9/2011
I read something quite interesting to me on Fox News' website this morning. They say there's a new trend toward hiring U.S. residents as Customer Service Representatives for telephone contact with customers. The change is due to consumer complaints and high unemployment which, they say, may help reverse the trend of outsourcing customer service jobs to developing countries.
The article says that, "In the last 10 years, over one million jobs have been sent to India or the Philippines in the customer service call center space alone," said Angela Selden, CEO of Arise Virtual Solutions. "What companies discovered was that, while that was great from a cost perspective, what they were losing was the connection with the customer."
The reason I was so interested in the information is because I have a huge dislike of being pestered at home. In fact, my number's been on the "Do Not call List" for many years, which works pretty well. But, every now and then some caller does try and call.
Most often, I simply bark something unprintable to them, about their families, friends, children and dogs and then hang right up. If I have time, and am really bored I invite them over, so I can take out my hostility toward them with a baseball bat or broken bottle. (If you read my books you know that I know some stuff about street fighting, weapons and martial arts.)
But, back to the theme of the article. Since this horrible trend has begun, callers have been employed who have what I'd describe as language problems. And that's really irked me because, not only are they taking my time, tying up my phone and wanting to get me to listen to them try to speak about something I have no interest in whatsoever, they can't even deliver their message clearly. That's why I'll sometimes let them ramble on, and after their long spiel, I'll ask, "What? Were you talking to me? I'm sorry, what did you say? I didn't understand you." Then, as they start over again, I hang up on them mid-sentence.
While I don't waste my time like that too often, I still get momentary pleasure thinking about the money some company wasted by calling me. My only hope is, there are lots of others out there like me. And, perhaps there are, if the article's right and the trend is reversing. Meanwhile, maybe the callers will simply go broke, which would be very nice.
Lastly, there's this new one, where someone calls and says something like, "Hi. How are you today? My name is Laverne, and I'm a professional fund raiser." My reply to that one is, "Congratulations. Glad you finally found someone dumb enough to employ you. Hope you rip off millions." And then, I hang right up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The article says that, "In the last 10 years, over one million jobs have been sent to India or the Philippines in the customer service call center space alone," said Angela Selden, CEO of Arise Virtual Solutions. "What companies discovered was that, while that was great from a cost perspective, what they were losing was the connection with the customer."
The reason I was so interested in the information is because I have a huge dislike of being pestered at home. In fact, my number's been on the "Do Not call List" for many years, which works pretty well. But, every now and then some caller does try and call.
Most often, I simply bark something unprintable to them, about their families, friends, children and dogs and then hang right up. If I have time, and am really bored I invite them over, so I can take out my hostility toward them with a baseball bat or broken bottle. (If you read my books you know that I know some stuff about street fighting, weapons and martial arts.)
But, back to the theme of the article. Since this horrible trend has begun, callers have been employed who have what I'd describe as language problems. And that's really irked me because, not only are they taking my time, tying up my phone and wanting to get me to listen to them try to speak about something I have no interest in whatsoever, they can't even deliver their message clearly. That's why I'll sometimes let them ramble on, and after their long spiel, I'll ask, "What? Were you talking to me? I'm sorry, what did you say? I didn't understand you." Then, as they start over again, I hang up on them mid-sentence.
While I don't waste my time like that too often, I still get momentary pleasure thinking about the money some company wasted by calling me. My only hope is, there are lots of others out there like me. And, perhaps there are, if the article's right and the trend is reversing. Meanwhile, maybe the callers will simply go broke, which would be very nice.
Lastly, there's this new one, where someone calls and says something like, "Hi. How are you today? My name is Laverne, and I'm a professional fund raiser." My reply to that one is, "Congratulations. Glad you finally found someone dumb enough to employ you. Hope you rip off millions." And then, I hang right up.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/8/2011
Today's an easy entry because it will write itself. I'm simply going to drop in words spoken by political leaders to illustrate my recent points, that these people aren't leaders at all. They're simply political hacks who haven't a clue as to how to run a nation, and with them at the helm, it can only get worse.
The first example is from Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who recently attacked Republicans over the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling. He said, “We can’t back out on the money we owe the rest of the world. We can’t do as the Gingrich crowd did a few years ago, close the government.”
However, the same Harry Reid, was quoted in 2006 as follows before a vote to increase our debt.
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”
Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements. Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”
Then on March 16, 2006 then Senator Obama included the following in a speech on the Senator floor.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
So, as I've been saying in entries for quite a while now, it doesn't matter what politicians say, and it never did. The only thing that counts is what they do. And in the case of our current leadership what they do most of the time is yammer. And as far as these so-called leaders are concerned, I'm really glad I'm not one of their followers. Because these two equivocating, prevaricating, vascillators are going to continue to lead whoever believes them right off the edge of a cliff.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
The first example is from Senator Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who recently attacked Republicans over the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling. He said, “We can’t back out on the money we owe the rest of the world. We can’t do as the Gingrich crowd did a few years ago, close the government.”
However, the same Harry Reid, was quoted in 2006 as follows before a vote to increase our debt.
“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.
“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?
“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our country. Weaken our county.”
Senator Reid was recently asked by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict between his 2006 and 2011 statements. Reid replied, “I don’t really know what vote you’re talking about.”
Then on March 16, 2006 then Senator Obama included the following in a speech on the Senator floor.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
So, as I've been saying in entries for quite a while now, it doesn't matter what politicians say, and it never did. The only thing that counts is what they do. And in the case of our current leadership what they do most of the time is yammer. And as far as these so-called leaders are concerned, I'm really glad I'm not one of their followers. Because these two equivocating, prevaricating, vascillators are going to continue to lead whoever believes them right off the edge of a cliff.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, February 7, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/7/2011
Sometimes I have to wonder if politicos really think folks are so dumb, they'll buy anything sold to them in the rhetoric of speeches, or is it the other way around?
Could it be that those bombasting away at lecterns are really as clueless and out of touch with reality as they sound? Because the president addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week and made some totally ridiculous remarks about the business community.
He said that: "The role of government is to support the economic foundation by spending public money to improve transportation, education and communications systems. But businesses, which have not added large numbers of jobs even as the economy stumbles toward recovery, must do more to help America as a whole and not just their own bottom line. If I've got one message it's now is the time to invest in America. Today American companies have $2 trillion on their balance sheets, I want to encourage you to get in the game."
Well, I don't know where the president thinks the money that drives the economy comes from, but it doesn't derive from government in any way shape or form, except for those businesses having contracts with Sam. What's more, if nothing else this administration has shown that if income is shown by any business operation, the Feds will do whatever they can to find a way to take it. So, it isn't a matter of "getting into the game," it's the absolute opposite. The only way to survive is to avoid playing at all.
Now, there is a way to get business to invest again, and likely even stimulate owners to begin actively hiring once more. In fact, the economy might even fully recover in a relatively short period of time. But, I doubt the president and his party love their country enough to do the right thing and resign.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Could it be that those bombasting away at lecterns are really as clueless and out of touch with reality as they sound? Because the president addressed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this week and made some totally ridiculous remarks about the business community.
He said that: "The role of government is to support the economic foundation by spending public money to improve transportation, education and communications systems. But businesses, which have not added large numbers of jobs even as the economy stumbles toward recovery, must do more to help America as a whole and not just their own bottom line. If I've got one message it's now is the time to invest in America. Today American companies have $2 trillion on their balance sheets, I want to encourage you to get in the game."
Well, I don't know where the president thinks the money that drives the economy comes from, but it doesn't derive from government in any way shape or form, except for those businesses having contracts with Sam. What's more, if nothing else this administration has shown that if income is shown by any business operation, the Feds will do whatever they can to find a way to take it. So, it isn't a matter of "getting into the game," it's the absolute opposite. The only way to survive is to avoid playing at all.
Now, there is a way to get business to invest again, and likely even stimulate owners to begin actively hiring once more. In fact, the economy might even fully recover in a relatively short period of time. But, I doubt the president and his party love their country enough to do the right thing and resign.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, February 6, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/6/2011
The other day I mentioned that 10 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent on programs for managing salmon, and that I thought the premise was kind of fishy. Because, at a time when the country's just about broke, it seems like a lot of bucks to throw away on future upscale entrees.
But, the real point of that blog entry was to illustrate the gross mis-use of funds at the hands of bureaucrats, agencies and groups who seem to find causes wherever they look, and have no compunction whatsoever about how much they spend of the public's funds. In the same time-frame, I mentioned finding data showing that 64 cents out of every dollar raised by the Republican National Committee goes to cover it's costs, illustrating further that those spending other people's money tend not to care a lot about how much of it they waste.
So, in that vein, and thinking about how the government is still trying to sell the ridiculous premise that it can financially manage health care, I came across some more information this morning.
According to the Associated press, Medicare and Medicaid scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year. And in trying to get the public's help to catch more than 170 fugitive fraudsters, the government has launched a new health care most-wanted list, with its own website
"Among those featured is Leonard Nwafor, convicted a couple of years ago in Los Angeles of billing Medicare more than $1 million for motorized wheelchairs that beneficiaries didn't need. One of those who got a wheelchair was a blind man who later testified he couldn't see to operate it. Even though motorized wheelchairs can run from under $1,000 to $7,000 apiece, Nawfor's scam was on the low end when compared to others who made the most-wanted list.
To document his transactions, Nwafor assembled elaborate paper files, complete with bogus prescriptions and photos of beneficiaries in their wheelchairs. But investigators had a hunch they were on to something when they discovered that most of his customers lived nearly 200 miles away from his Los Angeles-area store front."
Then there were sisters Clara and Caridad Guilarte who allegedly submitted $9 million to Medicare in false and fraudulent claims for pricey infusion drugs never provided to patients. They are accused of offering cash and other rewards for beneficiaries to visit their clinic in Dearborn, Mich., and sign forms that said they received services they never got.
Registered nurse, Susan Bendigo, is accused of billing California's Medicaid program for $17 million in nursing care, much of which was performed by staffers who weren't licensed. Bendigo was the nursing director for a company that provided personnel for home health agencies. Allegedly, she was fully aware that she was required to send licensed nurses to care for patients.
In Miami, brothers Carlos, Luis and Jose Benitez own a string of medical clinics, that allegedly scammed Medicare out of $119 million by billing for costly HIV drugs patients never received or did not need. Authorities say they bought hotels, helicopters and boats before fleeing to Cuba.
So, although these scams and mis-management cases only add up to several hundred million dollars, a mere drop in the bucket compared to 14 trillion in total government debt, the funds still come right out of taxpayer's pockets. And, since that's the case, I wonder how long it'll take for the public to realize that handing something as critical as health care over to mind-numb bureaucrats is financially suicidal.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
But, the real point of that blog entry was to illustrate the gross mis-use of funds at the hands of bureaucrats, agencies and groups who seem to find causes wherever they look, and have no compunction whatsoever about how much they spend of the public's funds. In the same time-frame, I mentioned finding data showing that 64 cents out of every dollar raised by the Republican National Committee goes to cover it's costs, illustrating further that those spending other people's money tend not to care a lot about how much of it they waste.
So, in that vein, and thinking about how the government is still trying to sell the ridiculous premise that it can financially manage health care, I came across some more information this morning.
According to the Associated press, Medicare and Medicaid scams cost taxpayers more than $60 billion a year. And in trying to get the public's help to catch more than 170 fugitive fraudsters, the government has launched a new health care most-wanted list, with its own website
"Among those featured is Leonard Nwafor, convicted a couple of years ago in Los Angeles of billing Medicare more than $1 million for motorized wheelchairs that beneficiaries didn't need. One of those who got a wheelchair was a blind man who later testified he couldn't see to operate it. Even though motorized wheelchairs can run from under $1,000 to $7,000 apiece, Nawfor's scam was on the low end when compared to others who made the most-wanted list.
To document his transactions, Nwafor assembled elaborate paper files, complete with bogus prescriptions and photos of beneficiaries in their wheelchairs. But investigators had a hunch they were on to something when they discovered that most of his customers lived nearly 200 miles away from his Los Angeles-area store front."
Then there were sisters Clara and Caridad Guilarte who allegedly submitted $9 million to Medicare in false and fraudulent claims for pricey infusion drugs never provided to patients. They are accused of offering cash and other rewards for beneficiaries to visit their clinic in Dearborn, Mich., and sign forms that said they received services they never got.
Registered nurse, Susan Bendigo, is accused of billing California's Medicaid program for $17 million in nursing care, much of which was performed by staffers who weren't licensed. Bendigo was the nursing director for a company that provided personnel for home health agencies. Allegedly, she was fully aware that she was required to send licensed nurses to care for patients.
In Miami, brothers Carlos, Luis and Jose Benitez own a string of medical clinics, that allegedly scammed Medicare out of $119 million by billing for costly HIV drugs patients never received or did not need. Authorities say they bought hotels, helicopters and boats before fleeing to Cuba.
So, although these scams and mis-management cases only add up to several hundred million dollars, a mere drop in the bucket compared to 14 trillion in total government debt, the funds still come right out of taxpayer's pockets. And, since that's the case, I wonder how long it'll take for the public to realize that handing something as critical as health care over to mind-numb bureaucrats is financially suicidal.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, February 5, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/5/2011
I looked out my kitchen window at about 2 o'clock this afternoon and did a double take. Because, right there on my front lawn was a flock of Canadian geese. And although I don't know very much about birds, I still understand that they thrive on cold.
Actually, they didn't stay around too long. I guess because they couldn't find much to eat. But, I'm pretty sure that right before they took off, the leader said something like, "Let's head down to Tennessee and Al Gore's house. I heard they have lots of frozen worms down there this year."
In the meantime, Sarah Palin spoke at a national celebration marking the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth on February 6. And although commentators and pundits, and of course politicos like Palin, always refer to Reagan as some kind of visionary and icon far above most mere mortals, to me he always seemed to be a regular guy possessed of a lot of common sense.
Because, what was "Reaganomics" really? I always thought his platform was pretty simple. He said that high debt of any kind and taxes, dense government regulation and rising spending, often for programs that don't work, will sink the nation if left alone. And all you have to do is the merest of homework today, and view the current situation to prove he was right. But, this isn't any kind of genius theory, anyone with a pencil can figure it out.
Palin also said a rush toward green energy was overlooking the nation's oil and natural gas reserves, a choice that will cost jobs and drive up pump prices, blaming Washington leaders for doing "everything in their power to stymie responsible domestic drilling."
Naturally, I not only agree with her position, I've written several blogs on the issue myself. And I still don't understand why our protection of the bat-winged whippoorwill and fuscia guppy are important enough to break the economic back of our population of people. The premise is so far beyond moronic, I can't find the appropriate descriptive words.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm certainly not trying to promote Sandra Palin, and frankly, don't think she's anywhere near qualified to lead the United States. But, she happened to have mentioned Reagan and I used her verbiage, because I think he did a very good job in office and his platform made a lot of sense.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Actually, they didn't stay around too long. I guess because they couldn't find much to eat. But, I'm pretty sure that right before they took off, the leader said something like, "Let's head down to Tennessee and Al Gore's house. I heard they have lots of frozen worms down there this year."
In the meantime, Sarah Palin spoke at a national celebration marking the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth on February 6. And although commentators and pundits, and of course politicos like Palin, always refer to Reagan as some kind of visionary and icon far above most mere mortals, to me he always seemed to be a regular guy possessed of a lot of common sense.
Because, what was "Reaganomics" really? I always thought his platform was pretty simple. He said that high debt of any kind and taxes, dense government regulation and rising spending, often for programs that don't work, will sink the nation if left alone. And all you have to do is the merest of homework today, and view the current situation to prove he was right. But, this isn't any kind of genius theory, anyone with a pencil can figure it out.
Palin also said a rush toward green energy was overlooking the nation's oil and natural gas reserves, a choice that will cost jobs and drive up pump prices, blaming Washington leaders for doing "everything in their power to stymie responsible domestic drilling."
Naturally, I not only agree with her position, I've written several blogs on the issue myself. And I still don't understand why our protection of the bat-winged whippoorwill and fuscia guppy are important enough to break the economic back of our population of people. The premise is so far beyond moronic, I can't find the appropriate descriptive words.
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm certainly not trying to promote Sandra Palin, and frankly, don't think she's anywhere near qualified to lead the United States. But, she happened to have mentioned Reagan and I used her verbiage, because I think he did a very good job in office and his platform made a lot of sense.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Friday, February 4, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/4/2010
Scrolling through news pages, I came across a headline about fish. Though not really interested in the subject, I clicked on it anyhow and here's what I found.
It seems that in the president's recent State of the Union message, he mentioned something about how salmon are managed, and actually joked about the process. He said, "The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater." Which is true, but then he went on to say "I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked."
He was using the fish example as evidence of too much bureaucracy in people's lives, suggesting that we could do with much less. And although I must confess, I was surprised to see that he questioned the system which he generally supports, I certainly have to agree with him on this one.
But what really astounded me the most though, was some information further along in the article. Because according to Joseph Bogaard of Save Our Wild Salmon, not only is there an oversight overlap and wasted funding, efforts to save salmon runs have cost the country $10 billion over the last 20 years. Nonetheless, salmon runs still fluctuate wildly from year to year.
Bogard went on to say, "We are making decisions that are ineffective. We're spending billions of dollars on programs that aren't working, we're not restoring our salmon, and as a result we don't have healthy, fishable populations."
After reading the preceding comments, I went back and read them again. Because I couldn't believe it. Here we are in the middle of a hopeless economy, with roughly 20% of the population un or under-employed, yet blowing 10 billion bucks on managing fish.
Now, most of the time, folks are exposed to big picture things, like health care or the cost of wars, even the colossal waste of funds on non-existent things like global warming. But, as I've mentioned before, it's little things that'll get you if you don't watch out.
So, now that we know how much money's being blown on salmon, maybe we ought to demand to learn how much is spent on saving other foods, like pizza perhaps or maybe Spam, because the cost could be in the zillions but the public's not been made aware. Which leads me to want to stop typing now, because my hot dog lunch might be endangered.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
It seems that in the president's recent State of the Union message, he mentioned something about how salmon are managed, and actually joked about the process. He said, "The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they're in freshwater, but the Commerce Department handles them when they're in saltwater." Which is true, but then he went on to say "I hear it gets even more complicated once they're smoked."
He was using the fish example as evidence of too much bureaucracy in people's lives, suggesting that we could do with much less. And although I must confess, I was surprised to see that he questioned the system which he generally supports, I certainly have to agree with him on this one.
But what really astounded me the most though, was some information further along in the article. Because according to Joseph Bogaard of Save Our Wild Salmon, not only is there an oversight overlap and wasted funding, efforts to save salmon runs have cost the country $10 billion over the last 20 years. Nonetheless, salmon runs still fluctuate wildly from year to year.
Bogard went on to say, "We are making decisions that are ineffective. We're spending billions of dollars on programs that aren't working, we're not restoring our salmon, and as a result we don't have healthy, fishable populations."
After reading the preceding comments, I went back and read them again. Because I couldn't believe it. Here we are in the middle of a hopeless economy, with roughly 20% of the population un or under-employed, yet blowing 10 billion bucks on managing fish.
Now, most of the time, folks are exposed to big picture things, like health care or the cost of wars, even the colossal waste of funds on non-existent things like global warming. But, as I've mentioned before, it's little things that'll get you if you don't watch out.
So, now that we know how much money's being blown on salmon, maybe we ought to demand to learn how much is spent on saving other foods, like pizza perhaps or maybe Spam, because the cost could be in the zillions but the public's not been made aware. Which leads me to want to stop typing now, because my hot dog lunch might be endangered.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, February 3, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/3/2011
I've never really been a Super Bowl fan, for several reasons. First and foremost, as a Jet fan I've really only had one opportunity to see them in the event because they've only gotten there once. So, I've got no real reason to watch.
On the other hand, I've mentioned before that due to business associates from the Pittsburgh area, I developed a secondary interest in the Steelers and was fortunate to watch all their Super Bowl wins in their glory years because they were truly a great team. Hall of Famer's from wall to wall.
Beyond that, also because of folks I worked with, I became aware of the Niners when Bill Walsh and Joe Montana were with San Francisco and developed an interest in them.
But, aside from my two default teams, I can't remember watching any other teams play in the year-end game. And it's not because of the teams so much, though I usually don't care who wins, it's because the game doesn't seem like football to me at all. I get the feeling that Super Bowl day is simply a huge magnet for people who don't know what a first down is, but they'll show up in the stands or the bars or, worse yet, parties, simply because they know its an "event."
So what that means is, everyone tied to the game itself from the NFL, to the sponsors, to the networks and the press and anyone else you can think of, gloms onto the game and blows everything out of proportion. The pre-game stuff goes on for eons, the commercials get longer and louder, though I doubt anyone knows whats being huckstered nor cares, and at half time they bring in a three ring circus or some international band that's stoned on drugs and has no clue as to where they are.
What made me think of this today is an item I read on the web. One of the news commentators, Shepard Smith from Fox, listed his reasons for watching:
Two historic football teams
The commercials
Excuse to eat greasy good
Watch crazy Steeler and Packer fans
The halftime show
So here's a guy who fits right in with typical day-trippers who tune in the game. Football itself, though it heads his list, is only 20% of his reason for watching.
Consequently, for folks like Smith -and most viewers I think are much like him- the game itself has less appeal than the smoke and the hype that has nothing to do with football. And that's why commercialization far overrides the sport for the NFL and the sponsors. It's also why I've seen very few Super Bowls altogether, less and less as years go by. And if I did watch for some reason...I'd never turn the sound on and would be absolutely sure to have another channel to flip to every time anything else appeared on my screen other than the game itself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
On the other hand, I've mentioned before that due to business associates from the Pittsburgh area, I developed a secondary interest in the Steelers and was fortunate to watch all their Super Bowl wins in their glory years because they were truly a great team. Hall of Famer's from wall to wall.
Beyond that, also because of folks I worked with, I became aware of the Niners when Bill Walsh and Joe Montana were with San Francisco and developed an interest in them.
But, aside from my two default teams, I can't remember watching any other teams play in the year-end game. And it's not because of the teams so much, though I usually don't care who wins, it's because the game doesn't seem like football to me at all. I get the feeling that Super Bowl day is simply a huge magnet for people who don't know what a first down is, but they'll show up in the stands or the bars or, worse yet, parties, simply because they know its an "event."
So what that means is, everyone tied to the game itself from the NFL, to the sponsors, to the networks and the press and anyone else you can think of, gloms onto the game and blows everything out of proportion. The pre-game stuff goes on for eons, the commercials get longer and louder, though I doubt anyone knows whats being huckstered nor cares, and at half time they bring in a three ring circus or some international band that's stoned on drugs and has no clue as to where they are.
What made me think of this today is an item I read on the web. One of the news commentators, Shepard Smith from Fox, listed his reasons for watching:
Two historic football teams
The commercials
Excuse to eat greasy good
Watch crazy Steeler and Packer fans
The halftime show
So here's a guy who fits right in with typical day-trippers who tune in the game. Football itself, though it heads his list, is only 20% of his reason for watching.
Consequently, for folks like Smith -and most viewers I think are much like him- the game itself has less appeal than the smoke and the hype that has nothing to do with football. And that's why commercialization far overrides the sport for the NFL and the sponsors. It's also why I've seen very few Super Bowls altogether, less and less as years go by. And if I did watch for some reason...I'd never turn the sound on and would be absolutely sure to have another channel to flip to every time anything else appeared on my screen other than the game itself.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/2/2011
As I watched news clips this morning, countless pictures flashed showing the riots in Egyptian streets. And, at the same time, a ticker in the corner of the screen indicated that the cost per barrel of oil kept rising.
So, what this amounts to is, that once again American citizens in every walk of life are going to pay significantly more to fuel their cars, heat their homes and cook their food because factions having absolutely nothing to do with any of us, half-way around the globe can't get along with each other. And why are we the economic victims? Simply because we can't drill for oil in our own country and are forced to import from others.
And why can't we drill for oil right here? Because environmentalists and politicians have decided that potential dangers to wildlife and fears of global warming merit that every citizen pay dearly to support those beliefs.
But as anyone who has access to any kind of weather report knows by now, global warning's a farce of a magnitude so huge it's almost beyond belief. This winter's cold is off the charts and there's no reason not to believe that the one's to come won't be worse. Because Mother Nature's been doing things on her own for billions of years and will keep doing it for far longer than any wacko groups with misguided causes will endure.
And as far as animal life, water quality and air pollution go, today's technology provides completely safe drilling operations, despite the BP situation which was a case where a foreign company disregarded the law and is presently in internal and financial disarray.
But, despite BP's actions, which were unique, there are still much larger aspects to consider. Because at the moment foreign nationals are holding our entire population hostage economically and have the power to virtually disable our nation, should they choose.
So, at what point do we say that despite our hopes for perfection and compassion there comes a time where a couple of blue throated warbling baybirds, or some sea bass might be lost to prevent a whole nation from losing its entire life-style, savings and wherewithal future growth?
As for me, I think the time's not only come, it's long overdue and when the citizens of our nation finally wake up and understand the magnitude of the rip-off they've undergone, the scene in Egypt will look like a picnic compared to their righteous wrath.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
So, what this amounts to is, that once again American citizens in every walk of life are going to pay significantly more to fuel their cars, heat their homes and cook their food because factions having absolutely nothing to do with any of us, half-way around the globe can't get along with each other. And why are we the economic victims? Simply because we can't drill for oil in our own country and are forced to import from others.
And why can't we drill for oil right here? Because environmentalists and politicians have decided that potential dangers to wildlife and fears of global warming merit that every citizen pay dearly to support those beliefs.
But as anyone who has access to any kind of weather report knows by now, global warning's a farce of a magnitude so huge it's almost beyond belief. This winter's cold is off the charts and there's no reason not to believe that the one's to come won't be worse. Because Mother Nature's been doing things on her own for billions of years and will keep doing it for far longer than any wacko groups with misguided causes will endure.
And as far as animal life, water quality and air pollution go, today's technology provides completely safe drilling operations, despite the BP situation which was a case where a foreign company disregarded the law and is presently in internal and financial disarray.
But, despite BP's actions, which were unique, there are still much larger aspects to consider. Because at the moment foreign nationals are holding our entire population hostage economically and have the power to virtually disable our nation, should they choose.
So, at what point do we say that despite our hopes for perfection and compassion there comes a time where a couple of blue throated warbling baybirds, or some sea bass might be lost to prevent a whole nation from losing its entire life-style, savings and wherewithal future growth?
As for me, I think the time's not only come, it's long overdue and when the citizens of our nation finally wake up and understand the magnitude of the rip-off they've undergone, the scene in Egypt will look like a picnic compared to their righteous wrath.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
BloggeRhythms 2/1/2011
According to the Associated Press, the Republican National Committee is $23 million in debt. Its new Chairman, Reince Priebus, cut a third of the staff inherited from his predecessor, Michael Steele.
Priebus said "While the year-end FEC report reveals the Republican National Committee is $21 million in debt, I believe it is best to get out all the facts as we know them associated with our financial position. To date, the committee has approximately $23 million in debt: $15 million in loans and $8 million owed to vendors."
What I thought most interesting about the report though, was that the RNC brought in almost $105 million last year, including the loans, mainly through low-dollar donors and direct-mail solicitations. But Priebus said the costs were too high: 64 cents of every dollar raised went to fundraising.
So, what the results indicate is, that it's not only politicians who know nothing about handling money and lose, waste or burn it continually -their support groups are as bad as they are, if not worse.
It also leads to the question of exactly where the funds went since most fundraisers are volunteers, the organization pays no taxes, and if the group had no office or staff, it's likely money would still pour in because donors believe in the cause. Thus, it indicates that, financially, politicians and their allies continue to screw up the proverbial free lunch.
What it really indicates though, is that the committee suffers for the same reasons as the party it supports and promotes. Nobody in either group really cares a whit about how much is spent, lost or wasted, because none of them have to work for a living and, like most parasites, survive on everyone else's backs.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Priebus said "While the year-end FEC report reveals the Republican National Committee is $21 million in debt, I believe it is best to get out all the facts as we know them associated with our financial position. To date, the committee has approximately $23 million in debt: $15 million in loans and $8 million owed to vendors."
What I thought most interesting about the report though, was that the RNC brought in almost $105 million last year, including the loans, mainly through low-dollar donors and direct-mail solicitations. But Priebus said the costs were too high: 64 cents of every dollar raised went to fundraising.
So, what the results indicate is, that it's not only politicians who know nothing about handling money and lose, waste or burn it continually -their support groups are as bad as they are, if not worse.
It also leads to the question of exactly where the funds went since most fundraisers are volunteers, the organization pays no taxes, and if the group had no office or staff, it's likely money would still pour in because donors believe in the cause. Thus, it indicates that, financially, politicians and their allies continue to screw up the proverbial free lunch.
What it really indicates though, is that the committee suffers for the same reasons as the party it supports and promotes. Nobody in either group really cares a whit about how much is spent, lost or wasted, because none of them have to work for a living and, like most parasites, survive on everyone else's backs.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)