TO ONE AND ALL,
THE HAPPIEST, SAFEST,
MOST SATISFYING HOLIDAY
EVER!
Monday, November 30, 2009
One for the old "Museum of the Hard to Believe"
Call Dave Letterman and ask him to bring back his very funny "Museum of the Hard to Believe",
because I have an amusing candidate item for it: "Our president was not born in the United States!" That's right, thousands of adult Americans apparently can't subtract 1959 (when Hawaii achieved statehood) from 1961 (when Barack Obama Jr. was born there). Last time I checked, "Birthers", our president was born TWO YEARS AFTER HAWAII BECAME A STATE.
Here is another sad example of "errors explored and revealed", but I'd like to call this
"Errors Explored and REVILED", because this false factoid should have died long ago, when Mr.
Obama became a Democratic Primary Presidential Candidate. But when have mere facts dissuaded prejudiced, ranting haters? Radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh stay on the air,
followers conveniently dismissing his many errors simply because they hate as he does.
Of course it is utterly American to criticize and object to various policies politicians propose
and/or pass, yet also time-wasting, distracting, upsetting and anti problem-solving to MANUFACTURE deleterious information designed to ruin a president's credibility.
So to the "birthers" and other fringe political groups: do the math. Literally, do the math.
Otherwise, Letterman gets a call.
because I have an amusing candidate item for it: "Our president was not born in the United States!" That's right, thousands of adult Americans apparently can't subtract 1959 (when Hawaii achieved statehood) from 1961 (when Barack Obama Jr. was born there). Last time I checked, "Birthers", our president was born TWO YEARS AFTER HAWAII BECAME A STATE.
Here is another sad example of "errors explored and revealed", but I'd like to call this
"Errors Explored and REVILED", because this false factoid should have died long ago, when Mr.
Obama became a Democratic Primary Presidential Candidate. But when have mere facts dissuaded prejudiced, ranting haters? Radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh stay on the air,
followers conveniently dismissing his many errors simply because they hate as he does.
Of course it is utterly American to criticize and object to various policies politicians propose
and/or pass, yet also time-wasting, distracting, upsetting and anti problem-solving to MANUFACTURE deleterious information designed to ruin a president's credibility.
So to the "birthers" and other fringe political groups: do the math. Literally, do the math.
Otherwise, Letterman gets a call.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Plouffe's Fluff, a New Book
I really recoiled while reading the four page excerpt of Obama Presidential Campaign manager
David Plouffe's new book, The Audacity of....(-well, he COULD have aimed at a bit more originality). Yes, he and other operatives had the traditional mechanics, strategy and logistics (....let's get a bunch of kids with Obama Tee shirts and clipboards onto some chartered buses NOW to knock on doors in Battleground Indiana...) of successful campaigning well in hand, but where is the substance? ("...Ax and I,...Ax and I" etc.) I must have missed the numerous instances when either David Axelrod or David Plouffe publicly betrayed any knowledge about any weighty subject such as science/health, world history/current affairs, anything else important to many of us, OTHER than politics.
David Plouffe as a writer is not new to me, or the many thousands of others who received campaign emails signed by him. All of the ones I read were distinguished by many generalizations employing hackneyed phrases, like the all-inclusive insulting "ordinary people just like you". Funny, those very few emissives signed by Mr. Obama himself were quite different, more erudite, more respectful.
Mr. President, please replace these campaign insiders and Chicagoland cronies soon.
You, and we, are not being very well served.
David Plouffe's new book, The Audacity of....(-well, he COULD have aimed at a bit more originality). Yes, he and other operatives had the traditional mechanics, strategy and logistics (....let's get a bunch of kids with Obama Tee shirts and clipboards onto some chartered buses NOW to knock on doors in Battleground Indiana...) of successful campaigning well in hand, but where is the substance? ("...Ax and I,...Ax and I" etc.) I must have missed the numerous instances when either David Axelrod or David Plouffe publicly betrayed any knowledge about any weighty subject such as science/health, world history/current affairs, anything else important to many of us, OTHER than politics.
David Plouffe as a writer is not new to me, or the many thousands of others who received campaign emails signed by him. All of the ones I read were distinguished by many generalizations employing hackneyed phrases, like the all-inclusive insulting "ordinary people just like you". Funny, those very few emissives signed by Mr. Obama himself were quite different, more erudite, more respectful.
Mr. President, please replace these campaign insiders and Chicagoland cronies soon.
You, and we, are not being very well served.
Bring Back Glass-Steagall, Investigate the SEC
(1) Simon Johnson
(2) Paul A.Volcker
(3) Joseph E. Stiglitz
(4) John Reed
(5) Michael Perino
These are some of the credentialed, experienced economists, worthy experts, who have recently publicly recommended Glass-Steagall (a 1930's very effective two-act set of banking regulations) be reenacted. The Clinton Administration and Gramm, Leach, et al, riding high on the recovery from the 1992 recession, allowed Glass-Steagall to lapse in 1999, heralding the hedge fund, derivatives-based, wild banking sprees which in large measure brought on the 2008-2009 Great Recession. "It's a new era, requiring more latitude, less regulations..we can all get rich!" (That was the argument promulgated by '90's bank-paid lobbyists, the same thinking of the '20's on-spec stock "margin-magic" morons.)
Why isn't The Obama White House heeding such sage advisers as
Simon Johnson of MIT and the IMF, or Paul Volcker,
the still-respected economist who preceded Alan Greenspan?
I have a notion, a most unattractive one: other, vested-interest
advisers surrounding the President. I'll mention two:
Emanuel and Giannoulias, both from Illinois, both of whom
have wealth derived from banks,
two men who can scarcely be objective about reining in the
banking community. Many others in the inner circle
are tightly bound by
too-recent ties to Wall Street and the "too-big-to fail"
banks as well; T. Geithner was/is an extremely poor choice for
Treasury Secretary.
Spectacular SEC failure to regulate and investigate Wall Street and the big banks requires more
investigations by Congressional Rep. Barney Frank and the House Finance Committee...again, the SEC has too-incestuous ties to the persons and institutions which caused our current crisis.
"Pure" economic theories can't work on Earth in 2009; I believe they never have. In America,
most economists say we have a "mixed" economy, with publicly-funded entities such as
police forces, schools and libraries, as well as private corporations. WE HAVE NEVER HAD pure Laissez-Faire in the United States, so the extreme, deregulation advocates need to find a different dream.
Humanity does have a dark side, a selfish side, a short-term standard side. Almost everyone is sometimes guilty of these behaviors, me included. But when the stakes are high, when millions can be unjustly, needlessly hurt by the thoughtless, powerful few, it would be a great blessing to know sane and sensible regulations exist to protect us all....
So, let's all stick a pin in Congress. Call your senators and house reps, ask them to be brave:
Bring back Glass-Steagall, investigate the SEC.
(2) Paul A.Volcker
(3) Joseph E. Stiglitz
(4) John Reed
(5) Michael Perino
These are some of the credentialed, experienced economists, worthy experts, who have recently publicly recommended Glass-Steagall (a 1930's very effective two-act set of banking regulations) be reenacted. The Clinton Administration and Gramm, Leach, et al, riding high on the recovery from the 1992 recession, allowed Glass-Steagall to lapse in 1999, heralding the hedge fund, derivatives-based, wild banking sprees which in large measure brought on the 2008-2009 Great Recession. "It's a new era, requiring more latitude, less regulations..we can all get rich!" (That was the argument promulgated by '90's bank-paid lobbyists, the same thinking of the '20's on-spec stock "margin-magic" morons.)
Why isn't The Obama White House heeding such sage advisers as
Simon Johnson of MIT and the IMF, or Paul Volcker,
the still-respected economist who preceded Alan Greenspan?
I have a notion, a most unattractive one: other, vested-interest
advisers surrounding the President. I'll mention two:
Emanuel and Giannoulias, both from Illinois, both of whom
have wealth derived from banks,
two men who can scarcely be objective about reining in the
banking community. Many others in the inner circle
are tightly bound by
too-recent ties to Wall Street and the "too-big-to fail"
banks as well; T. Geithner was/is an extremely poor choice for
Treasury Secretary.
Spectacular SEC failure to regulate and investigate Wall Street and the big banks requires more
investigations by Congressional Rep. Barney Frank and the House Finance Committee...again, the SEC has too-incestuous ties to the persons and institutions which caused our current crisis.
"Pure" economic theories can't work on Earth in 2009; I believe they never have. In America,
most economists say we have a "mixed" economy, with publicly-funded entities such as
police forces, schools and libraries, as well as private corporations. WE HAVE NEVER HAD pure Laissez-Faire in the United States, so the extreme, deregulation advocates need to find a different dream.
Humanity does have a dark side, a selfish side, a short-term standard side. Almost everyone is sometimes guilty of these behaviors, me included. But when the stakes are high, when millions can be unjustly, needlessly hurt by the thoughtless, powerful few, it would be a great blessing to know sane and sensible regulations exist to protect us all....
So, let's all stick a pin in Congress. Call your senators and house reps, ask them to be brave:
Bring back Glass-Steagall, investigate the SEC.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Facing, Even Embracing, Facebook Again
I haven't changed my opinion regarding Facebook's overly-proprietary "we own our customers"
attitude/policies; yet, after a loved one's coaxing, I let her open a new Facebook account for me. This one will be for and with her, she really wanted it; AND what has my righteous harrumphing on the earlier post gotten me? Little commiseration or understanding, to say the least.
The simplest, most rational expression probably should be: if a Facebook customer wants off of
"the cloud" (an account on the web), the company should facilitate that. Everyone else can
socialize to their hilarious content.
But the upcoming/ongoing lawsuits still bear watching.
attitude/policies; yet, after a loved one's coaxing, I let her open a new Facebook account for me. This one will be for and with her, she really wanted it; AND what has my righteous harrumphing on the earlier post gotten me? Little commiseration or understanding, to say the least.
The simplest, most rational expression probably should be: if a Facebook customer wants off of
"the cloud" (an account on the web), the company should facilitate that. Everyone else can
socialize to their hilarious content.
But the upcoming/ongoing lawsuits still bear watching.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Facebook Follies: Emauled by Facebook
Facebook behaves as though they own you, or me: just try to remove your Facebook listing,
if you created one, and an outrageously enlightening experience may ensue. I followed all the prompts, sent VERY FIRM emails TO Facebook, promising legal action, etc....but I'm still out there, in limbo in the "cloud", very possibly electronically bothering every person or organization I have ever emailed, quite against my will or prior knowledge. But the young "genius" creator of Facebook, and all his addlepated admin colleagues don't know me: I have age, experience, a fierce tenacity, and a high I.Q. I have and know something else, too: FACEBOOK DOES NOT OWN ME.
About two years ago, I tried MySpace. I wasn't crazy about the setup, so, after ten days, MySpace graciously, easily acceded to my cancel request, issuing me a cancellation
confirmation number. So the technology DOES exist....but Facebook wants to count EVERY
PERSON who ever tried to obtain a Facebook Account, publishing the lamest rationale in their defense, paraphrased to wit: "Well, when someone wants to reactivate his account, it will be
ready..." Oh rubbish! There are new social websites every year (-or month, perhaps) and competition is brisk, so, once a customer, always a customer, like it or not...a numbers game, even if the numbers mislead.
Facebook allegedly already faces some legal embarrassments regarding this and other technical/policy snafus. I suggest these young turks obtain objective, rigorous legal advice, THEN TAKE IT.
Remember the Milwaukee "414's"? They were sooo clever, hacking away with impunity, but
finally caught, embarrassed, brought down a peg or two. This current eproblem is reminiscent
of that scene from years back, but then, history is often repeated, idiot humans refusing to learn
and retain important lessons.
Emauled by Facebook? A class action suit could be in its future.
Stay tuned.
if you created one, and an outrageously enlightening experience may ensue. I followed all the prompts, sent VERY FIRM emails TO Facebook, promising legal action, etc....but I'm still out there, in limbo in the "cloud", very possibly electronically bothering every person or organization I have ever emailed, quite against my will or prior knowledge. But the young "genius" creator of Facebook, and all his addlepated admin colleagues don't know me: I have age, experience, a fierce tenacity, and a high I.Q. I have and know something else, too: FACEBOOK DOES NOT OWN ME.
About two years ago, I tried MySpace. I wasn't crazy about the setup, so, after ten days, MySpace graciously, easily acceded to my cancel request, issuing me a cancellation
confirmation number. So the technology DOES exist....but Facebook wants to count EVERY
PERSON who ever tried to obtain a Facebook Account, publishing the lamest rationale in their defense, paraphrased to wit: "Well, when someone wants to reactivate his account, it will be
ready..." Oh rubbish! There are new social websites every year (-or month, perhaps) and competition is brisk, so, once a customer, always a customer, like it or not...a numbers game, even if the numbers mislead.
Facebook allegedly already faces some legal embarrassments regarding this and other technical/policy snafus. I suggest these young turks obtain objective, rigorous legal advice, THEN TAKE IT.
Remember the Milwaukee "414's"? They were sooo clever, hacking away with impunity, but
finally caught, embarrassed, brought down a peg or two. This current eproblem is reminiscent
of that scene from years back, but then, history is often repeated, idiot humans refusing to learn
and retain important lessons.
Emauled by Facebook? A class action suit could be in its future.
Stay tuned.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Public Outcry Denies Public "Option"
-Boy oh boy! The town hall I saw, recently televised by PBS, showed me a bewilderingly dangerous lack of understanding among the American polity.
I don't remember what town, which week, which experts appeared on the panel, because I was
immediately overtaken by a shocking insight:
Neither the panelists, nor the audience, seemed to realize what the word "option" actually means. Option means choice, meaning one can CHOOSE...which should not have taken on the politically-loaded, pejorative connotation perceived by the anti-abortion contingent in the U.S. (oh, YES, Democrats ARE involved, so that must mean the issues are exactly the SAME, all across the factual, moral, ethical, practical landscape.)
For anyone still confused, dismissive, or merely suspicious:
Any American would have the right to retain their current insurance provider, purchase private
insurance if they don't have any now, --OR--
Choose THE PUBLIC OPTION. There would, most probably, be income limitations to qualify for the Option, so as to not bankrupt insurance companies across the country. This is not a mandate, command, demand, etc.
Why then, since this seems like a straightforward notion, has The Tower of Babble been erected again over this?
Everybody, this ISN'T THAT HARD.....let's recur to a dictionary when obvious confusion erupts.
I don't remember what town, which week, which experts appeared on the panel, because I was
immediately overtaken by a shocking insight:
Neither the panelists, nor the audience, seemed to realize what the word "option" actually means. Option means choice, meaning one can CHOOSE...which should not have taken on the politically-loaded, pejorative connotation perceived by the anti-abortion contingent in the U.S. (oh, YES, Democrats ARE involved, so that must mean the issues are exactly the SAME, all across the factual, moral, ethical, practical landscape.)
For anyone still confused, dismissive, or merely suspicious:
Any American would have the right to retain their current insurance provider, purchase private
insurance if they don't have any now, --OR--
Choose THE PUBLIC OPTION. There would, most probably, be income limitations to qualify for the Option, so as to not bankrupt insurance companies across the country. This is not a mandate, command, demand, etc.
Why then, since this seems like a straightforward notion, has The Tower of Babble been erected again over this?
Everybody, this ISN'T THAT HARD.....let's recur to a dictionary when obvious confusion erupts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)