The Adventures of Jim...

These are interesting times

I had good intentions.  I really, really had good intentions.  Those intentions were to blog on a frequent basis.  When I first began my blog many months ago, I was pretty good about making those frequent entries.  In fact there were times when I was posting something every day.

That was cool, but it is time consuming, because I want to make sure things are well written, grammatically correct, and...oh yeah...INTERESTING!  The reason I obsess about the writing is that I feel that it is important to project a professional image, even posting personal blog postings.

And another reason that factors in is that I have to decide exactly how much of my life to expose online.  No offense to anyone who reads this, but you don't have a right to know everything about my life.

It took me until January 20th to blog about our Christmas and New Year's happenings.  So I guess that it should be no surprise that it has taken me until near the end of January to blog about the inauguration of Barack Obama.  But here goes...

Like many people, I was at work on Inauguration Day.  Luckily, the gym at the office has several TVs, so I made it a point to go to the gym early that day.  I got there, dressed out, and got on one of the treadmills very close to the TVs right before the ceremonies got under way.  Luckily, they had the volume turned up on the TVs so that you could hear the broadcasts without having to listen to an FM radio tuned to the stations.  (And I use an iPod, which doesn't have an FM receiver.)

Unfortunately, I got there in time to be subjected to Aretha Franklin's caterwallering.  I don't know if 'caterwallering' is a real word, but it's how I can best describe what she did.  I liked some of her earlier performances.  Suffice it to say, her better days are behind her.  But I did not something in her facial expression that I'll mention below.

Then came Joe Biden's oath.  All I could think was "dear God, please don't let that man speak".  Why?  Because he is a windbag, and if they'd let him speak, we might still be awaiting Obama's oath-taking.

When it came time for Obama's oath and speech, I slowed down on the treadmill to a brisk walk, because running all-out caused too much noise, and I wanted to be able to listen to it all.  The flubbing false-start of the oath has been played all over the media, so people know all about that.

I wasn't too impressed by his speech, but that is because I am admittedly against the policies that he espoused when campaigning for the job and has started carrying out.  But I get the significance of having the first black President.  Anyone who saw the emotion on the face of Aretha Franklin during her performance (and maybe that factored into the quality of that performance), and of the other black Americans in the crowd.

I cannot imagine what it must be like for people who have gone from experiencing civil rights as it was in the 1950's, 60's, etc., to now have a President who "looks like them" (as I've heard it read and seen it written).  This aspect of Obama's presidency, I dig.  It might be the only aspect about which I can say that (given my opposition to his policies), but it is a valid one to recognize.

That every black child in the United States doesn't have to simply imagine the possibilty of something that has never been as now being possible is a good thing.  I hope they all gaze at their TVs when he's on and daydream "...wow...maybe someday...I...could be the President".  A side product of their daydreaming during those times, of course, is that maybe-just-maybe they won't absorb his policies...  <smile>

And maybe I'll give Aretha a break this time.  Yeah...these are interesting times.  It should make for an interesting next few years.

It's all about the timing...

It's interesting to see how, in politics, a new leader deals with the conditions that were essentially created by their predecessor.  They subsequently either get the blame or take the credit.  I saw that on multiple occasions when I lived in Louisiana.  Edwin Edwards was governor of the state for four different terms, only two of which were consecutive.  Each of his successors had caught flack from the fallout of what he had put into place.  (Edwards was such an upstanding citizen that he now resides in prison.)

What made me think of this?  Well, everyone knows that the US economy has hit a rough spot as of late.  When gas prices started rising 2 or 3 years ago, people starting feeling the pinch in their wallets to greater and greater degrees.  Thankfully, prices have been falling for the last month or so.

Today, on the way back from Arkansas, I filled up my tank for $1.95 per gallon.  Granted, we saw prices ranging from that to $2.29, and the prices near our house are currently around $2.06.  The bottom line is that prices are dropping, and will hopefully continue to do so.

Here's my (not so) bold prediction:  If prices on gas stay at a reasonable level, other prices will dip and consumer confidence will begin to rise.  Then, at about the mid-way point of 2009, we'll begin to see a turnaround in the economy.  Not a major overnight shift, but evidence of the beginnings of recovery.  The new President, be he Obama or McCain, will then be heralded as the economic savior, even though neither will have been in office long enough to have a significant affect on it.  And when he runs for re-election in 2012, we'll hear false claims of "the economy was in the crapper when I took office (insert miscellaneous blaming of George Bush here).  It was under MY leadership that things got fixed."  All a bunch of BS.

Don't get me wrong; I'll be happy to pay lower prices for gas and...well...everything else.  It just to show how dumb luck and timing (being in the right place at the right time) can have an impact.

One more reason I'll be glad when the election is over

I'm beginning to weary of finding out what's been done with the signs I put in my yard to support the political candidate of my choice.  I knew that someone messing with them was a likelihood when I got them, but was hoping from better from my fellow man.  Apparently, I've given some people more credit than they deserved.

I'll go on the record as saying that my vote for President went (I voted early) to John McCain and Sarah Palin.  If you don't support them, I have no problem with that.  We're all entitled to our opinions.  Put the signs in your yard that you want.  We have a couple  of neighbors down the street with Obama signs in their yard.  Cool for them.  But please, don't mess with mine.

All that being said, my signs have been out for 3 or 4 weeks.  About a week after I put them out, we came home to find them trashed; bent up and mangled.  They were repairable, so I fixed 'em up and put them right back out in the yard.  Today I came home and found one of them mangled again.  I fixed it...no biggie.  But there is a little part of me that wishes I could be home when they try it the next time, just so I could come barrelling out of the house and scare the beejeebies out of whoever was messing with it.  Maybe I should put on an old man outfit (a white T-shirt, some powder blue shortie-shorts hiked up uncomfortably high, dark socks and dress shoes) and run out shaking my fists while screaming "HEY!!!  YOU KIDS GET THE HECK OFF MY LAWN!!!   

BTW...you're welcomed for that disturbing visual. <grin>

That'd probably cause more emotional scarring than anything else.  I'm not interested in any type of physical confrontation, and wouldn't want to harm the vandals, although I'll admit to having thought about doing what the homeowner in this article did.

Last weekend, I walked outside my home one morning to take Eddie (my dog) for a walk, only to find my signs gone.  Not mangled.  Gone.  Somebody had stolen them, and I was NOT feeling the joy!!

As we went on our walk, I quickly discovered that they were taken not by a person not necessarily with a political ax to grind, but  with a mischevious streak that I, quite frankly, can appreciate.  Four or five McCain signs from several houses on our street had been swiped and placed in the yard of one of the homes that previously had an Obama sign.  I said "previously" because their sign was gone...and in the yard of a McCain home.  (Not one of the homes McCain owns, mind you.  A home that'd had one of  his signs.  <chuckle>  )

Being the Good Samaritan, I gathered up the McCain signs and took them back to their rightful yards.  In the process, I rang doorbells and to verify that I had them at the right house, and just alert them that we had some practical jokers in the neighborhood.  The win-win of that was that I got to meet a couple more of my neighbors that I'd not previously met.  So, good came from it, after all.

And in case you're wondering.....YES...I even returned the  Obama sign to it's proper yard.  I was tempted....but that would've just been wrong, Wrong, WRONG!

I'm glad that I live in such a great country, even if we have more than our fair share of knuckle-draggers, boneheads, and open-mouthed breathers.  And I hope that McCain wins the Presidency.  But if he doesn't, the world won't end.  And at least by having voted, I've earned the right to gripe about the other guy.  One way or the other, I'll be very happy to see this election come and go.  And hopefully <fingers-crossed>, it will be over by November 5.

Bar Stool Economics

A buddy I worked with eons ago (seems like another lifetime) e-mailed me this today with the subject line of "Bar Stool Economics".  Regardless of your political persuasion, give it a read:

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

          The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

          The fifth would pay $1.

          The sixth would pay $3.

          The seventh would pay $7.

          The eighth would pay $12.

          The ninth would pay $18.

          The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every dayand seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said,"I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men-the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

          The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

          The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).

          The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

          The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

          The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

          The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I did!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"


So...the nine men surrounded the tenth...and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

I don't know the original source of this, but it's at least something to think about...

A letdown...

A couple of nights ago, I watched the 2nd McCain-Obama Presidential debate.  I tuned in expecting to hear a lively exchange of ideas.  Being the political junkie, this sort of thing interests me.  Since I have already decided who I’ll vote for, I definitely don’t watch with objectivity.  (Imagine that…ME…with a strong opinion.  No Way!! <smirk>)

I have to say, however, that the debate was really a let down.  Both candidate largely regurgitated passages from their talking points and stump speeches.  It was all a bunch of blah-blah-blah as far as I was concerned, so I tuned out for the second half.

There was one question, however, which captured my attention more strongly than the others I heard, it was e-mailed in from a 78-year-old woman who described herself as “a  child of the Depression”.  She asked:

Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?

That, my friends, is what I call a “meatball”.  It was a slow pitch, right over the plate that either/both candidates should have driven out of the park.  Instead, they both ‘whiffed’.  Here’s how I would have liked to hear the question answered:

Nobody in government has any right to ask the people to sacrifice until government has a willingness to sacrifice.  Those in Washington must demonstrate a pattern of restraint from trying to do all things for all people, of trying to be the all-fixing safety net for everything that goes awry in life before they can ask American citizens to sacrifice.  They must stop pandering to every group who wants something, just so that group will support him/her for re-election in the next election cycle.

For too long, those in the Legislative Branch of government have ignored what is in the best interest of the country long-term, and instead operated with their own best interests at heart.   And for too long, those in the Executive Branch, both past and present, have been complicit.

What is needed is legislators and executives with the backbone and the courage to set out on a new course, and the leadership to bring others on board.  They will, sadly, never develop that backbone until we, as citizens sacrifice...our silence, and our apathy.  We must rise and give voice to our concerns, and make those in leadership positions understand that THEY are there to do OUR bidding.

So…yeah…that’s what I would have liked to hear.  As an extra aside, I'd like to see a candidate propose a law that no government-funded project can bear the name of any sitting government official (and they can't have the loophole of changing the name to that of someone who was in office when the legislation was passed AFTER that person leaves office.)  Nothing...not a highway, not a school, not a library.  If the can't feed their ego by slapping their name on it, they'll be less likely to unnecessarily spend the money.

Phew...I feel better now that I've vented.  At least for the time being.  I’m not sure whether or not I’ll watch the final debate.  It depends on what happens between now and then.  Or…maybe I’ll watch with the pre-decision to bail out if it falls into the same disappointing pattern.

I’m not crazy about either candidate.  But I do believe that one will do more harm than the other, so I’ll be voting for what I consider to be the lesser of two evils.

Tonight, I watched the Palin-Biden VP debate.  At one point...and thank God for DVR...I paused it and had Angie snap this picture.

I couldn't help thinking...have politics in American been boiled down to an American Idol knock-off? 

I must've uttered that tought aloud...because Angie posted the same sentiment on her blog.  Or...maybe we are just like-minded on that.  Cool...

An unwelcomed birth...

An unwelcomed birth?!?!?!  What type of title is that for a posting, I can imagine anyone who reads this asking.  Not to worry, I'm not referring to the birth of a child.  I have several friends who have recently welcomed children into the world, and I've been blessed with three wonderful children of my own.

No...I'm talking about a birth of a different type.

For the most part, I haven't really gotten into politics too deeply in this blog, only making a few posting on that general topic.  Yes, I have mentioned in one of them that I am a political junkie, but I've not really indicated which side of the political spectrum I favor.  Given the events of the last few days, that's a pattern that is about to change.  (...and if you don't want to read blog postings on politics.......THIS is your warning to not read further.)

A day or two ago, the United States Senate voted on and passed legislation that is being dubbed as a "rescue" or a "bailout", or whatever...  I understand that they, essentially, authorized a governmental takeover of a significant portion of our financial system. 

I can't help but feel like a bit of Marxism was birthed in my beloved country, and it is decidedly unwelcomed.  I don't want government getting that much deeper into the private sector.  I bothers me deeply that this is the direction we've gone.  Granted, the government needed to step in to reassure the financial markets, but I would rather have seen them take measure that encouraged the market to fix itself.

I know...there is a part of the current problem that was caused by excessive greed corporate executives who drew exhorbitant salaries while their companies were "swirling the bowl".  But when I hear national politicians rail against against the "greed of Wall Street", the one word that comes to mind is "hypocrite", when there is no epicenter of greed that rivals Washington, DC.

Sheesh....don't get me started...

Not bad

My timing is impeccable.  No sooner do I post my opinion about how none of the speakers to date at the political convention had impressed me with their deliver style.  Largely, my beef was the clumsy use of the teleprompter and poor or lack of connection with the audience.  Then...last night happened.

I will issue the disclaimer that I have not seen all of the speakers at both conventions.  In addition to other life committments and activities, not all of the speakers are shown on the channel I typically watch.  (Their commentators interview movers and shakers, and only show the speeches of the really heavy hitters.)

That being said, I was pleased with how three speakers that I DID see performed.  Mike Huckabee and Rudy Guiliani used but did not rely on the prompters and established a good connection with the audience.  My suspicion is that Huckabee's years as a Baptist minister and governor of Arkansas and Guiliani's tenure as NY mayor gave them each plenty of opportunity to practice speaking to good-sized crowds.

I was very impressed with the performance of Sarah Palin, the GOP VP candidate last night, but I'm even more impressed with her today.  As all speakers did, she used the teleprompter.  But she it was unnoticable, as she didn't lock in on it for any length of time.  It seemed that the prompter was simply there as a support, not as a crutch.

Earlier in the evening, I recall hearing that she had been in MN practicing the speech since Sunday, and it definitely showed.  I've always said that practice is paramount in educational sessions about public speaking that I teach.  Since she knew her material, she was free to connect with the audience, and she did a good job of that with eye contact with the audience AND with the camera.

Then today, I learn that her teleprompter malfunctioned, and she had to a decent part of the speech from memory!  That's why I'm more impressed by her performance this morning, and just goes to underline the value of knowing your material, and not just being an interpretive teleprompter reader.

Whether you like their content or not, the performances of Huckabee, Guiliani, and Palin at the 2008 Republican National Convention in terms of their limited use of the teleprompter and focus on connecting and communicating is a good case study for anyone who is wanting an example of how it is done right.

I'm not impressed

To a degree, I'm a political junkie.  Well...maybe not a junkie so much as someone who has a definite opinion on what government should and should not do, and I pay attention to elections.

Last week I watched the Democratic National Convention, and this week I've been watching the Republican one, in it's Gustav-abbreviated form.  Strictly from the perspective of a speaker, I have yet to see one single speaker who impressed me in terms of their style of speaking.  (The substance of their speeches is a whole different matter.) 

That goes for any of the candidates and past Presidents.  In my opinion, they relied so heavily on the teleprompter that I've felt no connection to any of them.  That goes from the various party players to the candidates themselves.  I found it particularly surprising with Obama, since he has been heralded as such an effective orator.  I wasn't very impressed.

To the average viewer at home, it may look as though they are simply making eye contact with the left and right sides of the audience.  To the speaker experienced with using a teleprompter, it is clear that they are simply doing an interpretative reading from the teleprompter.  For someone reading copy for radio, it wouldn't be so bad.  For a speaker...eh...it is completely unimpressive.  Maybe they should rename it a "tele-reader".

When I think back to the various political convention speeches that I've seen, the only one whose style stands out in a positive memorable way was Elizabeth Dole in 1996.  She had them remove the lectern and teleprompters, and with just a hand-held microphone, she spoke.  It impressed me as a real and authentic conversation, not simply bloviating oratory pyrotechnics by yet another blowhard.

Small wonder, I suppose, that she became the first woman to run for President in 2000 for one of the major parties.  (Sorry Hillary fans, Elizabeth was the first.)

I'm hopeful that the remaining speakers at the Republican's convention will put forward a better offering than what I've seen so far.

Come on people...show me something