Like almost every other aspect of life requiring particular skills and expertise, a very small percentage of people ordinarily possess the necessary traits, yet others in the population often still strongly voice opinions, suggestions and comments, even though they have no real clue or experience regarding what they're talking about. And two professions heading the list where almost everyone, everywhere, has a strong opinion about how things should be done, regardless that they have no first-hand knowledge themselves nor have they ever been personally involved, are politics and sports.
In that regard, I write about politics all the time, and especially about the economy where the vast majority of politicos have no skill, real knowledge or experience to draw upon, yet make decisions frequently that do significant fiscal damage. And since their constituents are in the same boat, knowing nothing either, they support those they like and agree with them, even though by doing that, they're actually self-destructing. I guess that's why Barnum believed there was a sucker born every minute.
But, since today there are playoff games in the NFL, I also want to comment on fan reaction because, to me, there are not only many similarities to the political world, but whole businesses have been built that appeal to the huge majority of talentless and incapable sports voyeurs who are simply hangers-on.
And naturally, that brings me to Tim Tebow who's become an icon overnight by appealing to the scads of folks who've not only never suited up, athletically they probably can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
As for myself, frankly I didn't play a lot of football, but enough to know that it's truly a team sport and that there's no way that one can succeed continually alone. There are eleven defensive players across the line every time the ball is snapped, and on every play the quarterback's a prime target for huge defensive linemen, linebackers, and often for backfield players trying to shoot the gap. And that means, for a guy like Tebow who prefers to keep the ball himself whenever he can, rather than utilize his team-mates, simple probability says that sooner or later a couple of thousand pounds of defense men are going to land on him and break something major.
So, while the media's in a frenzy because they've found someone who's ignited the horde's of clueless fans, I just wanted to set down my thoughts before today's Denver game against New England's defense. Because, although you never know when a new phenoms going to be slammed down to earth really hard and perhaps not ever come back, today just might be the one for Tebow.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Friday, January 13, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/13/2012
I think a problematical factor in the process of campaigning for Republicans is that the primary's begin almost a year before the next presidential election. And during that time, while dueling with other candidates, contestants not only promote their positions with significant details about their platforms, but also disclose considerable information that can be used by rivals in the other party.
In that regard, it seems to me that by watching the Republicans debate and make speeches, the president may finally be coming to the realization, for the first time, that the majority of voters are very concerned about the economy. And in that regard, he's likely noted that business plays a significant role in the process and perhaps ought to be considered. Because, so far, he's acted as if commerce was a foreign word and that if additional money's needed, more will be printed by the Federal Reserve.
But now, with ten months to go before the election, he's announced that he's elevating the head of the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level position, and is also urging Congress to grant him permission to consolidate that and other federal agencies in an attempt to make government more efficient.
So now, as a practical matter, if the president's really trying to finally take steps in the right direction, economy-wise, actually wanting to help business grow and try to cut out some waste, would it really hurt if he were to be re-elected? Because, the purpose of the top job in governance isn't supposed to be one of particular political persuasion, it's to support and protect the entire U.S. population. And, in that regard, if the tasks being completed as it should be, why would anyone care about the politics of the matter?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
In that regard, it seems to me that by watching the Republicans debate and make speeches, the president may finally be coming to the realization, for the first time, that the majority of voters are very concerned about the economy. And in that regard, he's likely noted that business plays a significant role in the process and perhaps ought to be considered. Because, so far, he's acted as if commerce was a foreign word and that if additional money's needed, more will be printed by the Federal Reserve.
But now, with ten months to go before the election, he's announced that he's elevating the head of the Small Business Administration to a Cabinet-level position, and is also urging Congress to grant him permission to consolidate that and other federal agencies in an attempt to make government more efficient.
So now, as a practical matter, if the president's really trying to finally take steps in the right direction, economy-wise, actually wanting to help business grow and try to cut out some waste, would it really hurt if he were to be re-elected? Because, the purpose of the top job in governance isn't supposed to be one of particular political persuasion, it's to support and protect the entire U.S. population. And, in that regard, if the tasks being completed as it should be, why would anyone care about the politics of the matter?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Thursday, January 12, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/12/2012
There's another significant indication in the recent news that clearly demonstrates why pure politicians should have nothing to do with the economy, business in general, and the financial well-being of the United States. Because, apparently Newt Gingrich went after Mitt Romney, saying that while running Bain Capital, Romney was responsible for the layoffs of thousands of people. And that presents a perfect example of how little a windbag like Gingrich knows about how to create or manage wealth.
First and foremost, Bain Capital was a venture capital organization, and as such it's primary goal was the creation of new business entity's, investing in others, and doing it's best to maximize the performance of it's holdings. So, if that meant decreasing the staff of an over-employed or poorly performing business in an attempt to make it more profitable or efficient, so-be-it, because Bain's goal was to do an effective job economically as opposed to fostering bloat and waste.
On the other hand, in the cases of businesses that ran well under Bain's guidance, thousands more were hired, increased taxes were paid and the overall results were for the considerably better, all the way around.
Beyond that, venture capitalism isn't a textbook exercise designed to test baseless theories, it's a risk-filled endeavor where only the best managed operations have any chance to survive. And that's because the real income earned comes from performance of the entities invested in and their growth, because venture capitalists can't simply go to a captive tax-paying base for funds when they're wrong, wasteful, or incompetent as do politicians and governments. And that means a lot, because the tax-paying public isn't financing their mistakes, capitalists must do that themselves.
So, what this scenario goes to underline is that, as I wrote at the start, I think politicians ought to learn a little about the things they criticize before they shoot of their mouths. But, desperation causes hare-brained reactions quite often. However, since Gingrich took the gloves off and tried to land a couple of really cheap and inaccurate shots, he's now put his own sordid past in play which is just about the same as willingly jumping into a shredder.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
First and foremost, Bain Capital was a venture capital organization, and as such it's primary goal was the creation of new business entity's, investing in others, and doing it's best to maximize the performance of it's holdings. So, if that meant decreasing the staff of an over-employed or poorly performing business in an attempt to make it more profitable or efficient, so-be-it, because Bain's goal was to do an effective job economically as opposed to fostering bloat and waste.
On the other hand, in the cases of businesses that ran well under Bain's guidance, thousands more were hired, increased taxes were paid and the overall results were for the considerably better, all the way around.
Beyond that, venture capitalism isn't a textbook exercise designed to test baseless theories, it's a risk-filled endeavor where only the best managed operations have any chance to survive. And that's because the real income earned comes from performance of the entities invested in and their growth, because venture capitalists can't simply go to a captive tax-paying base for funds when they're wrong, wasteful, or incompetent as do politicians and governments. And that means a lot, because the tax-paying public isn't financing their mistakes, capitalists must do that themselves.
So, what this scenario goes to underline is that, as I wrote at the start, I think politicians ought to learn a little about the things they criticize before they shoot of their mouths. But, desperation causes hare-brained reactions quite often. However, since Gingrich took the gloves off and tried to land a couple of really cheap and inaccurate shots, he's now put his own sordid past in play which is just about the same as willingly jumping into a shredder.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/11/2012
I think that for the most part, except for particular issues that are repeated continually day after day, folks tend to forget most of the things politico's say. That's why I want to mention that recently, Democrats have been spouting that unless Mitt Romney were to win definitively in New Hampshire, they didn't consider him a serious threat. Well, now the primary's over, and Romney not only won by a wide margin, he blew almost all of his competition away at the polls.
I also think that, like Bre'r Rabbit who begged and pleaded not to be thrown in the brier patch, Dem's have been down-playing Romney as a serious candidate and implying he's a light-weight because he's the one they fear the most. And that's because it looks like the key issue this time around is going to be the economy, wherein Romney's vast experience and success versus the incumbent's is like comparing Bill Gates to Daffy Duck.
To that extent, the Dem's also have recently been setting the stage to reinforce their claim that the incumbent inherited a much worse economic state then he expected because his predecessor saddled him with horrendous financial woes. And that, they say, is why it's taken so long to recover. But what they seem to forget, or most purposefully avoid, is that it was two years of Dem control of the House and Senate that caused most of the nation's fiscal woes at the end of the Bush Administration. And, to that extent, I think Mr. Romney will help folks recall names like Dodd, Frank, and Project Acorn.
So, I guess after yesterday's results, the presidential battles going to heat up, and Mr. Romney's already started to turn his campaigning aim toward the incumbent rather than his own party rivals he's likely to beat for the nomination. However, if the remaining Republican candidates decide to either band together, or worse, form some kind of third party presence to promote their so-called "conservative" issues, they're not only totally giving up any chance of winning the next election, they'd be killing Romney's almost sure thing against the incumbent themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
I also think that, like Bre'r Rabbit who begged and pleaded not to be thrown in the brier patch, Dem's have been down-playing Romney as a serious candidate and implying he's a light-weight because he's the one they fear the most. And that's because it looks like the key issue this time around is going to be the economy, wherein Romney's vast experience and success versus the incumbent's is like comparing Bill Gates to Daffy Duck.
To that extent, the Dem's also have recently been setting the stage to reinforce their claim that the incumbent inherited a much worse economic state then he expected because his predecessor saddled him with horrendous financial woes. And that, they say, is why it's taken so long to recover. But what they seem to forget, or most purposefully avoid, is that it was two years of Dem control of the House and Senate that caused most of the nation's fiscal woes at the end of the Bush Administration. And, to that extent, I think Mr. Romney will help folks recall names like Dodd, Frank, and Project Acorn.
So, I guess after yesterday's results, the presidential battles going to heat up, and Mr. Romney's already started to turn his campaigning aim toward the incumbent rather than his own party rivals he's likely to beat for the nomination. However, if the remaining Republican candidates decide to either band together, or worse, form some kind of third party presence to promote their so-called "conservative" issues, they're not only totally giving up any chance of winning the next election, they'd be killing Romney's almost sure thing against the incumbent themselves.
That's it for today folks.
Adios.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/10/2011
I had to go searching to confirm an item I saw crawl by on a news station last evening, but I was able to find what I needed on the website of the New York Post. According to columnist, Charles Gasparino, the banking firm, Goldman Sachs, is endorsing Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination.
Gasparino's lead paragraph set the tone for his column: "Goldman Sachs may be the most hated firm on Wall Street, vilified by protesters and banking rivals alike, but one reason the firm has so many detractors is envy of its uncanny ability to bet on winners."
But what I thought most interesting was the writer's assumption that Goldman CEO, LLoyd Blankfein, has apparently found his pick and the reason why. According to friends, Blankfein’s bet is that Romney will win the nomination fairly early, not only putting him in a decent position to win the presidency, but once in office to do his best to water down some of the more insane aspects of the Dodd/Frank financial-reform law.
This move is practically a complete reversal of Goldman's position in 2008, and what makes it so striking is just how far to the left it was in 2008. The Goldman "community" gave more than a $1 million to the president's campaign, beaten only by the ultra-liberals tied to the University of California. However, this time around through September, Goldman-linked givers barely crack the top 20 of Obama donors, with a little more than $50,000 toward the re-election effort.
Furthermore, Goldman-linked donors are presently Romney’s leading source of corporate campaign cash, $367,200 so far, which is nearly $127,000 more than the firm put up for 2008 GOP nominee John McCain.
So, I guess that here we have another indication of what's to come, because a firm like Goldman Sachs isn't in the politics business, but makes every effort to do what's best for itself, like all well-managed enterprises should. And their position change stems from the fact that they've been legislated out of billions by an over-zealous, ill-informed and anti-success administration who'll likely do far more damage if allowed to continue. However, it appears that it's not going to be so easy for them next time around, because folks everywhere are awfully tired of watching their assets and equity shrink with no return for their investment.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Gasparino's lead paragraph set the tone for his column: "Goldman Sachs may be the most hated firm on Wall Street, vilified by protesters and banking rivals alike, but one reason the firm has so many detractors is envy of its uncanny ability to bet on winners."
But what I thought most interesting was the writer's assumption that Goldman CEO, LLoyd Blankfein, has apparently found his pick and the reason why. According to friends, Blankfein’s bet is that Romney will win the nomination fairly early, not only putting him in a decent position to win the presidency, but once in office to do his best to water down some of the more insane aspects of the Dodd/Frank financial-reform law.
This move is practically a complete reversal of Goldman's position in 2008, and what makes it so striking is just how far to the left it was in 2008. The Goldman "community" gave more than a $1 million to the president's campaign, beaten only by the ultra-liberals tied to the University of California. However, this time around through September, Goldman-linked givers barely crack the top 20 of Obama donors, with a little more than $50,000 toward the re-election effort.
Furthermore, Goldman-linked donors are presently Romney’s leading source of corporate campaign cash, $367,200 so far, which is nearly $127,000 more than the firm put up for 2008 GOP nominee John McCain.
So, I guess that here we have another indication of what's to come, because a firm like Goldman Sachs isn't in the politics business, but makes every effort to do what's best for itself, like all well-managed enterprises should. And their position change stems from the fact that they've been legislated out of billions by an over-zealous, ill-informed and anti-success administration who'll likely do far more damage if allowed to continue. However, it appears that it's not going to be so easy for them next time around, because folks everywhere are awfully tired of watching their assets and equity shrink with no return for their investment.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Monday, January 9, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/9/2011
In almost any walk of life, you can tell when folks are in trouble when they become incoherent and grasp at straws simply hoping to stay in the game. And that certainly seems to be the case with Newt Gingrich, who's down to slinging any kind of mud he can dream up.
Apparently, during a debate on, Meet the Press, Sunday morning, Newt Gingrich found fault with Mitt Romney after Romney quoted his father, Michigan Governor George Romney, who said, "never get involved in politics if you have to win an election to pay the mortgage."
Gingrich said, "When Governor Romney made the comment that you shouldn't run if you have to win in order to pay your mortgage, I thought that that was very much the opposite of the American tradition historically. We want every day, normal people to be able to run for office, not just millionaires."
After reading Gingrich's comment over several times, I'm not sure it makes any sense. First of all, Romney didn't say anything about having to be a millionaire to have a mortgage, and I haven't checked the statistics but I believe that most homeowners who are current on theirs aren't millionaires either. Consequently, I think what Mr. Romney actually meant is that if folks are having trouble paying their debts; they likely aren't the best candidates for public office.
After reading Gingrich's comment over several times, I'm not sure it makes any sense. First of all, Romney didn't say anything about having to be a millionaire to have a mortgage, and I haven't checked the statistics but I believe that most homeowners who are current on theirs aren't millionaires either. Consequently, I think what Mr. Romney actually meant is that if folks are having trouble paying their debts; they likely aren't the best candidates for public office.
Nonetheless, as I sit here and type about the subject, I can think of quite a few folks who arrived in the White House damn near broke and made zillions after they left. Names like Clinton, Johnson and Nixon readily come to mind.
Therefore, since in our society money earned is usually the sign of success, its absence demonstrates the reverse. So then, why should someone who can't even handle their own obligations properly be given responsibility for the well-being of others, be it financial or anything else?
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Sunday, January 8, 2012
BloggeRhythms 1/8/2012
I came across an entry on Fox News this morning that had me scratching my head. It included some comments from a debate, where Rick Santorum apparently went after Mitt Romney.
He "dismissed" Romney as a "mere manager," and said, "Business experience doesn’t necessarily match up with being commander in chief of this country. Being a president is not a CEO. You've got to lead and inspire.” He went on to say, Romney’s tax plan is too meek to get the country's economy moving again.
Since I knew nothing about Santorum's background, I went and looked him up and here's what I found out. He's a lawyer and politician and member of the Republican party who represented Pennsylvania in the House from 1991 to1995, and in the Senate from 1995 to 2007. As senator, he chaired the Senate Republican Conference making him third-ranking Senate Republican from 2001 to 2007. And that's it as far as experience of any kind goes, which leads me to believe that as far as management's concerned, this guy knows less than zip.
After I re-read the item a few times, to be sure I'd understood it correctly, I went right to my desk to type because I don't think I could find a better example of what's wrong with empty suit politicos, and lawyers to boot, than Santorum's ridiculous statement about business management. Because, if nothing else, the best CEO's understand clearly that success in business means winning, and winning is all about leadership, setting examples, and inspiring others above almost everything else.
In fact, from his obviously ignorant comments about business success and what strong, successful top managers are all about, I think he ought to read Rudy Guliani's book, "Leadership." Page after page, Rudy clearly describes and illustrates how vitally important it is to think like a Commander-in-Chief while working together with those around you, maximizing the value and talent of all your resources.
But, then you can also look at the complete reverse of what true leadership is all about, and examine the traits of self-serving, stand alone, me-first slimes and pigs. And you couldn't find more perfect examples of selfishness and grasps for personal reward than politicians and lawyers, who don't have a clue as to what team-work is. So, I guess from his ill-thought out comments, Santorum's described himself as being just about as dense about leadership as our current incumbent.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Since I knew nothing about Santorum's background, I went and looked him up and here's what I found out. He's a lawyer and politician and member of the Republican party who represented Pennsylvania in the House from 1991 to1995, and in the Senate from 1995 to 2007. As senator, he chaired the Senate Republican Conference making him third-ranking Senate Republican from 2001 to 2007. And that's it as far as experience of any kind goes, which leads me to believe that as far as management's concerned, this guy knows less than zip.
After I re-read the item a few times, to be sure I'd understood it correctly, I went right to my desk to type because I don't think I could find a better example of what's wrong with empty suit politicos, and lawyers to boot, than Santorum's ridiculous statement about business management. Because, if nothing else, the best CEO's understand clearly that success in business means winning, and winning is all about leadership, setting examples, and inspiring others above almost everything else.
In fact, from his obviously ignorant comments about business success and what strong, successful top managers are all about, I think he ought to read Rudy Guliani's book, "Leadership." Page after page, Rudy clearly describes and illustrates how vitally important it is to think like a Commander-in-Chief while working together with those around you, maximizing the value and talent of all your resources.
But, then you can also look at the complete reverse of what true leadership is all about, and examine the traits of self-serving, stand alone, me-first slimes and pigs. And you couldn't find more perfect examples of selfishness and grasps for personal reward than politicians and lawyers, who don't have a clue as to what team-work is. So, I guess from his ill-thought out comments, Santorum's described himself as being just about as dense about leadership as our current incumbent.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)