Mess
[Most Recent Entries]
[Calendar View]
[Friends]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
mess' LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
| Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 | | 1:50 pm |
Contmplenting a complaint Poz made
A while back I was running in CA with Poz. We went around the Google HQ and back to his house. During the run Poz and I were discussing among other things the issue or public smoking. Not sure how we got to that topic but it was likely due to his justifiable irritation or running past a smoker and getting a breath full of less than fresh air. Personally, it does not bother me that much and I do not think that outside smoking should be banned. Poz differs in this belief (If I am remembering correctly) Immediately following the trip I did not think about the conversation too much as my running was confined to the gym do to the fact that I live where there is real weather and not norther CA. However, lately I have begun thinking about this conversation during my recent runs as the weather has warmed to the point where I can not regularly run outside. So about 1 week ago I changed the run and went down a street that I traditionally do not run as I was looking for a way to extend the run .5-1 mile. On this occasion I ran through a puff of cigarette smoke and it was in fact very irritating. The experience made me think that perhaps I was wrong and Poz was correct. Outdoor smoking should be banned as your rights end at my nose. However last night I had another unpleasant running experience. During the run I passed a bus stop right as the #66 bus was pulling out and got a face-full of diesel exhaust fumes. The cigarette incident paled by comparison in terms of unpleasantness. So while I agree that a face full of cigarette smoke is not fun while running, diesel exhaust is much worse. Which has caused me to modify my original position. If we are in the business of banning outdoor smoking because it interferes with another pedestrians right to breath clean air, then I think we also need to ban diesel trucks and buses because that is far worse the then cigarette smoke. | | Saturday, March 14th, 2009 | | 9:45 am |
Cramer V Stewart
CF asked me what I thought about this because I watch a lot of Stewart and read a lot of Cramer. So here are my thoughts: 1) This is more than Stewart V. Cramer. It is Stewart V. The Entire Financial Reporting Industry. As a representative of the industry he chose Cramer because Cramer is the most flamboyant and loud commentator for the most financially orientated network. Attacking only Cramer is a mistake, the issue is the structure of financial reporting, however it is hard to attack an entire industry. Rather a goat is selected and that person pays for the collective sins of the industry which is what is happening here. 2) Cramer and the financial reporting industry were asleep at the switch and should have been more attuned to the over-leverage problems that were pervasive throughout the entire market. This includes banks, irresponsible home owners, and corporations. The problem has been that the over-leverage problems have been growing for decades and every time someone raised the red flag, they were proved wrong by the market over the next few years. So calling out over-leverage became akin to crying wolf. No one believed you. Not the investors, not the public and not the regulators. 3) There is a fundamental problem with the national psyche. When things are going well, no one wants any regulation that might risk slowing the profits. If during the boom years someone stood up and said "we need to tighten the regulations so prevent a melt-down" not only would industry finance a campaign against the regulations, the public would support it because their stocks are rising and this guy wants to stop that? However, these same people, when the crash comes, want to blame someone else. 30-1 leverage is not illegal. It may be unwise or even financially reckless, but it not illegal. So should banks execs be held accountable for engaging in reckless behavior? Yes, but the punishment should be in compensation and not jail. The compensation structures need to change on wall street. I do like the analysis that Mike Lewis did that determined that iBanks need to be partnerships and not publicly traded companies (Full article here http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom). I think that would go a long way to addressing these concerns. If they were partnerships, they would not be playing with 'our' money, they would be playing with 'their' money and I think you would not have seen 30-1 leverage. Please note that this point only refers to organizations that played withing the law and did nothing illegal. 4) The illegal behavior that happened needs to be prosecuted and life can not suck enough for those people. 5) The financial reporting industry is in a difficult position for several reasons. The first is the Stewart kept asking "who are you [Cramer] accountable to, the traders or the long term investors". This is a loaded question since the politically correct answer is the average American who is a long term investor. However, the average American who tunes into cable news does not watch CNBC, they watch FNC, CNN, or MSNBC. The ratings for March 9th were (Source: http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/03/10/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-march-9/14279): P2+ Prime Time FNC – 2,844,000 viewers CNN—965,000 viewers MSNBC –1,124,000 viewers CNBC – 314,000 viewers HLN – 642,000 viewers So who watches CNBC? People in the finance industry do. I do, but we are in the minority. It would be nice for a show to cater to the average long term investor, but they do not tune in and as a for profit company, CNBC has to cater to its audience. Until the public starts to pay attention none of this will change. However, paying attention means accepting more regulation and thus slowing growth in good times. The second is that CNBC is dependent on the CEOs and senior execs to be willing to come on the network. If all they do is beat the hell out of them, they will stop coming and the traders who are the main audience will turn the network off. 6) Stewart is a bit hypocritical. When he is held to task as he was on CNN Crossfire for not asking hard questions of Kerry in 2004, his defense was "we are a comedy show" (full clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11TaDDUVcGQ). Fine, then stay a comedy show. But that is not his approach. He can take on these real issues and attack people and networks, but turn the tables and "we are a comedy show and so it is not our job". It seams to me that Stewart is a comedy show when he wants to be and a news show when he wants to be. 7) Rick Santelli is an ass who went way overboard. To blame the entire situation on irresponsible homeowners who got themselves in too deep is not only politically stupid, but it is also wildly hypocritical. His rant on the floor was crazy because it ignored what was going on with the banks. One could, and should make a direct comparison to 'loser' homeowners who got in over their heads by borrowing too much and 'loser' bank CEOs that got in over their heads by allowing too much leverage. But we can not say that because according to him, the banks are important and homeowners are not. I think this is now longer than I initially expected, but I was right that I could not respond to it on twitter. | | Saturday, February 21st, 2009 | | 8:49 am |
Please help my friend Iwan
I have a buddy who is trying to raise money for leukemia by running a series of races. The most recent one he is trying is a 6 stage race through the Sahara. The man is not well in my opinion. That having been said, I think the cause is worthy. Here are the link to his donations site and the race: http://pages.teamintraining.org/nyc/rome09/iaxt | | Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 | | 5:31 pm |
| | Tuesday, February 10th, 2009 | | 12:11 pm |
Is Bi-partisanship really a good idea or even possible?
I am currently listening to Obama being introduced by Gov Crist in Fla. Gov Crist stressed that the stimulus must be done in a bi-partisan way. While that sounds good, I wonder if it really is a good idea or even possible. Traditionally Democrats follow the keynesian model (wiki explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics) while the Republicans tend to follow the supply side model (wiki explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side). These two economic models are diametrically opposed. So, that makes bi-partisanship difficult or impossible. Further I wonder if it is even a good approach. To make the bill bi-partisan, you have to water down each approach to the point where it becomes dramatically less effective. Finally, with the political tide where it is right now, with the Dems strongly in control of congress, the GOP reps are from very conservative districts and states. So they are the most conservative and most loyal to supply side economics of the party. So bringing them into the fold in a bi-partisan matter will be almost impossible. So while it sounds good and grabs headlines, I am not sure that the administration should worry too much about it in this case. There will be other opportunities for bi-partisanship. Policy areas where the 2 parties are not directly opposed. | | Thursday, February 5th, 2009 | | 9:43 am |
| | Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | | 3:42 pm |
Random musing
Under the "Why should I care" heading: Phelps did a bong hit. And the media went crazy. In fact it took up a significant amount of time on Mike and Mike in the Morning - the ESPN radio show I listen to every morning. My real question is who cares what he does. I guess that in some way I do because if he does a lot of drugs between now and the next games, I think it will move the line on the total number of golds he will get and there could be a potential betting opportunity. But I suspect that he is going to have to do much more that 1 bong hit to move the line. Under the "Why didn't I watch the game there" heading: Comcaast had to apologize for showing 30 sec of pron during the superbowl in Tuscon AZ. In addition they sent every viewer $10. Let me get this straight, they got paid $1,200 an hour for watching porn? what are the qualifications for that job? The drawback would be the hours. If you believe this website (Safe for work): http://www.blazinggrace.org/cms/bg/pornstatsThe average time a porn movie is watched in a hotel room is 12 minutes. SO that would mean that your income would cap out at about $240. I'd take it. More later. | | Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 | | 9:52 am |
| | Tuesday, January 20th, 2009 | | 9:04 am |
STOP IT! NOW!
This is fucking insane. I want you to read this ad and then see if you find anything that could be objectionable. /begin text Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies--just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be. /end text That is it. That is all they wrote in the offer. I find nothing to be offended about except that I think Dunkin Donuts taste better. Apparently I was wrong. The offending phrase for those playing at home is "freedom of choice" Here is the press release from ALL. /begin release Washington, DC (15 January 2009) – The following is a statement from American Life League president, Judie Brown. "The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand – including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20. The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday: Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be. Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand. President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda. Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts – only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion – is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy. A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom."" As of Thursday morning, Communications Director Brian Little could not be reached for comment. We challenge Krispy Kreme doughnuts to reaffirm their commitment to true freedom – to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – and to separate themselves and their doughnuts from our great American shame." American Life League was cofounded in 1979 by Judie Brown. It is the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life organization in the United States and is committed to the protection of all innocent human beings from the moment of creation to natural death. For more information or press inquiries, please contact Katie Walker at 540.659.4942. /end text So, what should Krispy Kreem do? My reaction would be to see how many doughnuts I could shove up Judie...Wait maybe I should not finish that statement. Anyway, I would attack. Issue a statement that anyone who thinks that this marketing promotion has any political or social connections is insane and needs to get out more. But no, they caved and re-wrote the statement. It now reads: /begin text Krispy Kreme Doughnuts’ Inauguration Day promotion on Tuesday, January 20, 2009, is offering one, free doughnut of a customer’s choice at participating Krispy Kreme locations nationwide. No purchase is necessary. The promotion allows customers to commemorate Inauguration Day by selecting one free doughnut of any variety at local participating stores. On Election Day, November 4, 2008, Krispy Kreme ran a promotion that provided customers with one free star-shaped doughnut at stores nationwide. The Inauguration Day promotion is not about any social or political issue. /end text Someone please make this stop. | | Monday, January 12th, 2009 | | 6:29 pm |
| | Friday, January 2nd, 2009 | | 10:04 am |
| | Wednesday, December 31st, 2008 | | 9:40 am |
A very good parody
I was reading Dispatches from the culture wars (which is the source for some of the more ridiculous stuff that I come across regarding the wack job religious right) and saw a post linking to this web site: http://www.paliban.org//from the site WELCOME TO The PALIBAN! Clear Vision For A Pure America The Paliban is a grassroots organization inspired by the principles of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and the Evangelical and Christian Reconstruction movements. /end So I think the real problem here is that I am currently at work which means that I do not have any Baileys and Jamesons for my coffee. I only have an airplane bottle of Grey Goose and that does not go well in coffee. | | Sunday, November 30th, 2008 | | 9:36 pm |
| | Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 | | 12:49 pm |
| | Monday, November 3rd, 2008 | | 1:44 pm |
I have been looking at polls and maps. Personally, I like CNN's map because it easily lets you change the states and see what happens. Here is what I am assuming: States that CNN has as solid one candidate or another will not change. Those are: Obama - WA, OR, CA, IA, IL, MI, NY, VT, MA, RI, CT, NJ, DE, MD, DC, HI McCain - ID, UT, WY, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY, SC, AK States that are leaning could switch, but it is unlikely. Those are: Obama - NV, CO, NM, NM, WI, VA, PA, NH, ME McCain - AZ, AR, GA, WV Toss up states could go either way. Those are: MT, ND, IA, MO, OH, NC, FL So, based on playing with that map, I have the following thoughts. Obama can effectively be called the winner if he wins 2 of the following east cost states (and by east coast, I mean EST): OH, VA, NC, PA, FL. If only the smallest of the 5, VA and NC go Oboma and the rest go McCain, then McCain needs to win all the toss up states and get 17 EVs from leaning Obama. So he needs 17 from NV (5) NM (5), CO (9), MN (10), WI (10), NH (4), ME (4). There are a lot of ways to do that, but I think it is hard. If only PA and VA go Obama, and they are both leaning Obama, then McCain needs all the other toss up states and get 22 EVs from leaning Obama states. There are also a lot of way to do that, but I think it is harder. If only FL and PA go Obama, the largest of the 5, or, only NC, VA and OH, the smallest of the 5, then McCain needs all the other toss ups and 37 EVs from leaning Obama states. There are still ways to do that, but they are decreasing fast and getting really hard. If only FL, PA and OH all go Obama, then McCain needs all the toss ups and 57 EVs. Lets see if my math is right. 10+10+9+5+5+4+4=47. OK, now we are done. So, with all of this, I stick by my though that if 2 of 5 go Obama, this is over. | | Thursday, October 30th, 2008 | | 9:56 am |
Joe as KFed
This was in one of the blogs I read: Joe the Plumber is rapidly becoming the Kevin Federline of politics, the guy you watch embarrass himself and then can't wait for his 15 minutes of fame to be over so he can slide into a well deserved obscurity. | | Monday, October 27th, 2008 | | 5:34 pm |
Education
Found this interesting Educational Background: Barack Obama: Occidental Collage - 2 years Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations. Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude Joseph Biden: University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science. Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.) vs. John McCain: United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899 Sarah Palin: Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism | | Sunday, October 19th, 2008 | | 9:42 pm |
| | Tuesday, October 14th, 2008 | | 9:21 am |
I beleive this is the natural outcome
I have been following the 2008 campaign and am now of the opinion that what we are seeing out of the McCain camp is the natural evolution of selling your self to the wack jobs on the religious right. Religion fosters hate and intolerance. It is not a force for good, rather a force for division. Additionally, there is a strong anti-intellectualism that is embedded in religion. How else can you explain the consistent rejection of scientific advancements going back as far as Copernicus and Galileo. When you combine these two trends, we get what you have in the McCain/Palin campaign. A campaign dominated by hatred and intolerance. | | Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 | | 8:14 am |
Taking more cash out of the bank
Apparently this is how bad this can get. Fed eyes plan to fund short-term business loans http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_credit_crisis_25Last week I took a bunch of cash out of my accounts and put it in a safe deposit box at the bank out of fear of bank collapses. I have no doubt that I will be fine as my reserves are in a treasury MM fund, but I am nervous about bank runs like the one at Indy Mac and hate standing in line. Now the fed is going to be buying commercial paper? We are so fucked. Further, as for the Urgent email that was sent around last week, we are so far beyond the solutions in that email (I skimmed it). Fixing the underlying securities will not fix the credit problem. Yes, it was these securities that caused the problem, but the losses are way to severe at this point. My predictions: Unemployment at some point in 2009 10%-12.5% S&P 500 will decline to 850 I have no idea where the dow will be because I do not know where GM will be At least 1 US auto maker will file chapter 11 At least 20 fortune 500 companies will either be bought out because of financial trouble or file chapter 11 |
[ << Previous 20 ]
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
m18rh's journal