Note to self:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090506/ap_on_re_us/us_torture_auction
"Let's buy it, hunny!"
This link for a series of poems, and this link:
http://www.versedaily.org/2007/lastingachievment.shtml
for inspiration on some other pieces currently brewing.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
State of the Blogger
Not that I'm delaying the pressing work to be done to finish up with this semester's MFA work, but I do feel the need to blog about a few things happening in my life, and to vent a bit on the seeming impossibility of writing these pieces at times.
Not that I have not been impressed with my own writing as of late (but judging from the double negatives I just used, I'd say my writing isn't improving...I'll leave it there for a later reminder of when my downfall began to occur), but I feel stifled, creatively pigeon-holed, and the arduous task of putting my creativity back together seems just as daunting as writing itself sometimes does. I have been able to write a lot of more abstract work lately, focusing on stream of consciousness, and floating more into the ethereal and abstract than the concrete, but, as always, returning with the force of an emotional wave to the concrete.
Get it? Good.
Back to the MFA magazine work still at hand. After hearing back in marginal amounts from my contacts at the different places I have queried, I am becoming more and more discouraged with the future of magazines in this Great Recession. I hope they don't go the way of the newspapers and begin to dwindle until they fade out and we're left with People, Good Housekeeping/Gardening, and "Everything Else" magazine. Though I'm sure that would be the ideal place to submit my story on how the WWE affected my childhood and eventual ability to decipher imagination from reality, but that I graciously praise it for assisting in my 'boundless' creativity now. I use that term in quotations and more or less lightly because, of course, I do think there is an end to my bounds...not like the universe in Stephen Hawking's theories.
The project for my mentor is tough and trying, lengthy and rather redundant. I just realized a week ago I missed a deadline as I thought the assignment was due partnered with this one. Oops. I expect to be docked some serious points for not turning it in on time, but all I can plead is insanity. Or unemployment. Or poet. That always works.
Writing about the WWP for the umpteenth time seems to be an exercise in driving further into the story and discovering the real meat behind the figures (the opposite of ribs behind the meat, I suppose), but writing about it again and again is getting to me a bit, and reminiscing about my grandfather's painful Alzheimer's diagnosis and the aftermath of it is difficult to continue through.
And Allison just went home on Idol. She was the penultimate pick I had in the contest; won, of course, by Adam Lambert who is like the universe expanding. But she is so precocious (yes, I do realize Simon also used that phrase), and talented for only 16 (recently 17) that she deserved to be in the finals, and with her vocals, it should have been a no-contest. But with Dopey Gokey and Kris I-Want-To-Be-Howie-Day Allen up there instead, I'm disappointed and debating saying sionara to the remainder of the season.
Now time to say the same to this blog and refocus on work for another 1/2 hour before bed. Ciao.
That's tres languages for those keeping track. Ahora, cuatro.
Not that I have not been impressed with my own writing as of late (but judging from the double negatives I just used, I'd say my writing isn't improving...I'll leave it there for a later reminder of when my downfall began to occur), but I feel stifled, creatively pigeon-holed, and the arduous task of putting my creativity back together seems just as daunting as writing itself sometimes does. I have been able to write a lot of more abstract work lately, focusing on stream of consciousness, and floating more into the ethereal and abstract than the concrete, but, as always, returning with the force of an emotional wave to the concrete.
Get it? Good.
Back to the MFA magazine work still at hand. After hearing back in marginal amounts from my contacts at the different places I have queried, I am becoming more and more discouraged with the future of magazines in this Great Recession. I hope they don't go the way of the newspapers and begin to dwindle until they fade out and we're left with People, Good Housekeeping/Gardening, and "Everything Else" magazine. Though I'm sure that would be the ideal place to submit my story on how the WWE affected my childhood and eventual ability to decipher imagination from reality, but that I graciously praise it for assisting in my 'boundless' creativity now. I use that term in quotations and more or less lightly because, of course, I do think there is an end to my bounds...not like the universe in Stephen Hawking's theories.
The project for my mentor is tough and trying, lengthy and rather redundant. I just realized a week ago I missed a deadline as I thought the assignment was due partnered with this one. Oops. I expect to be docked some serious points for not turning it in on time, but all I can plead is insanity. Or unemployment. Or poet. That always works.
Writing about the WWP for the umpteenth time seems to be an exercise in driving further into the story and discovering the real meat behind the figures (the opposite of ribs behind the meat, I suppose), but writing about it again and again is getting to me a bit, and reminiscing about my grandfather's painful Alzheimer's diagnosis and the aftermath of it is difficult to continue through.
And Allison just went home on Idol. She was the penultimate pick I had in the contest; won, of course, by Adam Lambert who is like the universe expanding. But she is so precocious (yes, I do realize Simon also used that phrase), and talented for only 16 (recently 17) that she deserved to be in the finals, and with her vocals, it should have been a no-contest. But with Dopey Gokey and Kris I-Want-To-Be-Howie-Day Allen up there instead, I'm disappointed and debating saying sionara to the remainder of the season.
Now time to say the same to this blog and refocus on work for another 1/2 hour before bed. Ciao.
That's tres languages for those keeping track. Ahora, cuatro.
Van Gogh's Ear
So as the old story goes, Van Gogh chopped off his ear in a fit of madness and mailed it to a lover, forever solidifying his reputation as insane...and a genius. Well word comes out today, through a new book, that Van Gogh's ear may have been chopped off by his friend, and roommate at the time, Paul Gauguin, in a fit of rage. The new book claims Gauguin chopped it off with a sword during an argument, and for practical reason (Van Gogh to enhance his reputation, Gauguin to keep himself out of jail) both agreed to keep the truth a secret and begin a hoax that has lived on for more than 100 years.
Fiesta!
Happy Cinco Seis de Mayo,
Well, close enough anyway. Yes, that is entirely my fault for forgetting that it was cinco de mayo yesterday and posting several times without even a mention of it. And while I have never really celebrated cinco de mayo, per say, I have some Mexican friends and some very enthusiastic fiesta seekers (not to be confused with siesta seekers, namely the cat). So here's to anyone excited for it. Personally, I'm much more enthralled by the idea of el dia de los muertos--the day of the dead, as it's a very fascinating subject, idea and cultural belief. I'd like to do a series of poems one day about it, or even perhaps write some stories or a novel set during that time.
Lofty dreams can only have fulfillments lesser than them, I understand, but if I were to set any of them too low, all would fall apart, I expect.
Well, close enough anyway. Yes, that is entirely my fault for forgetting that it was cinco de mayo yesterday and posting several times without even a mention of it. And while I have never really celebrated cinco de mayo, per say, I have some Mexican friends and some very enthusiastic fiesta seekers (not to be confused with siesta seekers, namely the cat). So here's to anyone excited for it. Personally, I'm much more enthralled by the idea of el dia de los muertos--the day of the dead, as it's a very fascinating subject, idea and cultural belief. I'd like to do a series of poems one day about it, or even perhaps write some stories or a novel set during that time.
Lofty dreams can only have fulfillments lesser than them, I understand, but if I were to set any of them too low, all would fall apart, I expect.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Missing Poet
Craig Arnold, poet and English professor, at the University of Wyoming, has disappeared on a volcano on a tiny island in Japan. While most of the poetic blogs I follow have pasted the search notice into their blogs, I haven't posted anything since I would feel rather guilty by doing so. I haven't read any of Craig Arnold's work, that I can remember anyway, and I haven't followed his career, so I would feel bad pretending that I knew about him and his current missing status before I looked on the other blogs and saw it. Nonetheless, he is missing and they're scaling down the search now as he has been missing for more than one week.
Bob Hicok!
So I finally found an interview with Bob Hicok, after searching far and wide; however, it is about the current economy and less about his writing process, etc., which is what I was really hoping I'd hear. That or some of his incredible poetry. Nevertheless, here we are! Voila!
En Espanol Por Favor
I must thank Mr. Withey over at Bacon for his teaching abilities....something I did not realize I was so affected by until yesterday. I was chatting with two of the Hispanic fifth graders during the after school program and was conjugating verbs and remembering vocabulary I haven't used in years. Somehow I immediately knew ohos were eyes and lapises was a pen, and not a pencil. Stunning as I remember only squeaking by in Spanish, while many other classmates flourished; however, I know many of them have forgotten more Spanish than I have.
So why am I writing this? Well, we all know America is quickly becoming a bilingual nation and I believe somewhere in our near future, the need to know both English and Spanish will necessitate all schools to begin teaching children Spanish as early as pre-school. I don't believe Spanish will become a national language, as it would take more than 100 years for all students coming through the school systems to become the elderly population and truly have a bilingual population, or enough so as to approve a second national language. On a personal level, I'd love to learn Spanish in its entirety, or as close to its entirety as possible. Perhaps one day I will purchase Rosetta Stone, assuming this economy does turn around. But for as long as I am unemployed or the low man on the totem pole, I risk losing my job and with fewer and fewer districts hiring, the competition will be fierce.
Yes, being bilingual could set me apart, but I took five years of Spanish and remember about 4 or 5 months worth. If I were to begin Rosetta Stone, I expect about a three or four year learning process before I can claim to be conversational, and most likely I'll never be able to claim fluent.
So why am I writing this? Well, we all know America is quickly becoming a bilingual nation and I believe somewhere in our near future, the need to know both English and Spanish will necessitate all schools to begin teaching children Spanish as early as pre-school. I don't believe Spanish will become a national language, as it would take more than 100 years for all students coming through the school systems to become the elderly population and truly have a bilingual population, or enough so as to approve a second national language. On a personal level, I'd love to learn Spanish in its entirety, or as close to its entirety as possible. Perhaps one day I will purchase Rosetta Stone, assuming this economy does turn around. But for as long as I am unemployed or the low man on the totem pole, I risk losing my job and with fewer and fewer districts hiring, the competition will be fierce.
Yes, being bilingual could set me apart, but I took five years of Spanish and remember about 4 or 5 months worth. If I were to begin Rosetta Stone, I expect about a three or four year learning process before I can claim to be conversational, and most likely I'll never be able to claim fluent.
Future of Newspapers
The industry that was once my career intention (reporter) seems to be fading quick. Growing up I wanted to be a journalist. I loved to write, loved to learn, and yearned (unintentional rhyme, I promise) to expose and uncover shading dealings, break earth-shattering stories in the world, and investigate my pants off. Yet I realized I liked to write more when it came to creative writing, as opposed to investigative reporting, and I found I enjoyed more the process of teaching others to investigate and write, than I did doing it myself or learning it from others. It took a few years, but I realized that my passions are writing and teaching, and not necessarily reporting. But in this current economic environment, I'm left wondering where I would be if I had stuck with my original intention and became a newspaper reporter.
Not only is the industry hard-pressed to find truly 'talented' people, but they have a surplus of 'talent' coming through their doors every year. Before the bust, newspaper journalism had three times as many reporters as they needed, and had well over three hundred people apply for every opening, which, as a standard earning amount, is at a job that earns far less than most others.
I had a friend who squeaked by on his $23,000 year reporting gig while he substitute taught on his days off and held down some early morning work (which was actually late-night work since he worked 3-11 p.m. for the paper usually) as a server at a breakfast joint. He complained of little free time, little money, and tons and tons of stress. Yet he stuck with it because it was his passion and like me, he yearned to find that story that would expose this catastrophe and he would be exulted and praised for years to come. That story never came and he was laid off last year and is currently working as a 30-hour-week administrative assistant at lawn and gardening supply center, which, as I can imagine, is pretty slow work during the colder months and in this economy can't be very prosperous during the warmer months.
Warren Buffet recently said that he would not invest in the newspaper industry because he doesn't know where their end will finally stop. He sees many others going out of business and more than that switching to totally online formats or filing for tax exemption and non-profit status (which is something I have long blogged about as the answer to newspapers' woes). If the world's greatest investor (and as I stated yesterday, an intelligent, leading liberal in the capitalist world) sees no bottom in sight for newspapers, but does for housing and unemployment, it's time for a radical shift.
Which brings me to a quick sidenote. Did you know that if a newspaper does file to be a non-profit, advertisers can still advertise in the paper, and for a fraction of the cost? They simply make a donation to the paper instead of pay them to run their ad. Seems a no-brainer considering the advertising company can write off their tax-deductible donation and the paper receives the additional funds at no penalty and can only expand and grow from there.
The main problem though is funding. To make every newspaper in the US a non-profit would be equal to the cost of the war in Iraq, although roughly only the cost of 45 days there.
End the war; improve literacy! That should be our nation's mantra at the moment, but there's still plenty of work to be done, lots of criminals to persecute, and a world still brittle because of strained relations and old disputes.
In addition, the amount of funding for a newspaper only allows it to remain at half of its current size, and may not provide the funding to maintain an online presence. Each newspaper would then be forced to generate enough donations to keep its online presence strong or choose between print or online publishing a few days per week. Plus, no newspaper would be able to charge subscription fees for online usage, nor could they place classifieds inside their pages. As a non-profit, that becomes a conflict of interest. The only loophole I see is to link on a published edition to an outsourced classifieds webpage still operated by the newspaper, but external from its non-profit operations. A loophole yes, but one that I doubt few people would get up-in-arms about.
Not only is the industry hard-pressed to find truly 'talented' people, but they have a surplus of 'talent' coming through their doors every year. Before the bust, newspaper journalism had three times as many reporters as they needed, and had well over three hundred people apply for every opening, which, as a standard earning amount, is at a job that earns far less than most others.
I had a friend who squeaked by on his $23,000 year reporting gig while he substitute taught on his days off and held down some early morning work (which was actually late-night work since he worked 3-11 p.m. for the paper usually) as a server at a breakfast joint. He complained of little free time, little money, and tons and tons of stress. Yet he stuck with it because it was his passion and like me, he yearned to find that story that would expose this catastrophe and he would be exulted and praised for years to come. That story never came and he was laid off last year and is currently working as a 30-hour-week administrative assistant at lawn and gardening supply center, which, as I can imagine, is pretty slow work during the colder months and in this economy can't be very prosperous during the warmer months.
Warren Buffet recently said that he would not invest in the newspaper industry because he doesn't know where their end will finally stop. He sees many others going out of business and more than that switching to totally online formats or filing for tax exemption and non-profit status (which is something I have long blogged about as the answer to newspapers' woes). If the world's greatest investor (and as I stated yesterday, an intelligent, leading liberal in the capitalist world) sees no bottom in sight for newspapers, but does for housing and unemployment, it's time for a radical shift.
Which brings me to a quick sidenote. Did you know that if a newspaper does file to be a non-profit, advertisers can still advertise in the paper, and for a fraction of the cost? They simply make a donation to the paper instead of pay them to run their ad. Seems a no-brainer considering the advertising company can write off their tax-deductible donation and the paper receives the additional funds at no penalty and can only expand and grow from there.
The main problem though is funding. To make every newspaper in the US a non-profit would be equal to the cost of the war in Iraq, although roughly only the cost of 45 days there.
End the war; improve literacy! That should be our nation's mantra at the moment, but there's still plenty of work to be done, lots of criminals to persecute, and a world still brittle because of strained relations and old disputes.
In addition, the amount of funding for a newspaper only allows it to remain at half of its current size, and may not provide the funding to maintain an online presence. Each newspaper would then be forced to generate enough donations to keep its online presence strong or choose between print or online publishing a few days per week. Plus, no newspaper would be able to charge subscription fees for online usage, nor could they place classifieds inside their pages. As a non-profit, that becomes a conflict of interest. The only loophole I see is to link on a published edition to an outsourced classifieds webpage still operated by the newspaper, but external from its non-profit operations. A loophole yes, but one that I doubt few people would get up-in-arms about.
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Boston Glob(e)
In what could mean a huge strike against intelligence, literacy, and journalism in Massachusetts, The Boston Globe has received its initial 60-day shutdown notice from The NY Times Co., which owns it. While the unions refer to it as a 'bullying' tactic, it has shown a lot of promise as unions are still at the table to produce $20+ million in cuts to the newspaper, employees, benefits, and concessions, which will ultimately erase nearly half of the $50 million the newspaper lost last year, and may erase most of the projected $75 million it will lose this year.
That's an incredible amount of money. Incredible. Especially for a newspaper, but what I like about this is staying power and perseverance. There's no quit when it comes to anything in New England, as any hearty fisherman will prove, and the endurance and perseverance of unions is the stuff of legends. But what I didn't know was that there is a 'job guarantee' clause in all employee contracts, essentially protecting each employee from a layoff for any reason, other than self-enabled. Essentially tenure for teachers doesn't even do half of that. That is twice as amazing as any deficit. Anyone should be so lucky as to have that. And perhaps that's the necessary thing to go as it would alleviate tons of problems through some attrition, redundancies, and layoffs.
I don't think the Globe will turn into a glob, a stain on the hands of Boston as its former building crumbles on the south shore, and the memory of an intelligent and provocative newspaper wanes. But I do think it needs some major changes, but then again what newspaper doesn't? Could The Globe be a trendsetter? Hmm...
It's a sad world for the newspaper industry, but what this recession is proving to us, is that the world has an insatiable appetite for news, and print journalism is never out of fashion. We just need to update how we present the news...on the internet, preferably, seems to be the wave of the future. And Boston, like the majority of New England needs to be a trendsetter. Less in print, more online, seems to be the answer to the shrinking physical readership of the newspaper, though internet traffic has increased 'each week for the past two years.' I think that tells you something about the effect the closure would have on Boston and Massachusetts in general, and the overall tenacity and insatiability of Boston's literate population.
That's an incredible amount of money. Incredible. Especially for a newspaper, but what I like about this is staying power and perseverance. There's no quit when it comes to anything in New England, as any hearty fisherman will prove, and the endurance and perseverance of unions is the stuff of legends. But what I didn't know was that there is a 'job guarantee' clause in all employee contracts, essentially protecting each employee from a layoff for any reason, other than self-enabled. Essentially tenure for teachers doesn't even do half of that. That is twice as amazing as any deficit. Anyone should be so lucky as to have that. And perhaps that's the necessary thing to go as it would alleviate tons of problems through some attrition, redundancies, and layoffs.
I don't think the Globe will turn into a glob, a stain on the hands of Boston as its former building crumbles on the south shore, and the memory of an intelligent and provocative newspaper wanes. But I do think it needs some major changes, but then again what newspaper doesn't? Could The Globe be a trendsetter? Hmm...
It's a sad world for the newspaper industry, but what this recession is proving to us, is that the world has an insatiable appetite for news, and print journalism is never out of fashion. We just need to update how we present the news...on the internet, preferably, seems to be the wave of the future. And Boston, like the majority of New England needs to be a trendsetter. Less in print, more online, seems to be the answer to the shrinking physical readership of the newspaper, though internet traffic has increased 'each week for the past two years.' I think that tells you something about the effect the closure would have on Boston and Massachusetts in general, and the overall tenacity and insatiability of Boston's literate population.
Economical Things
Warren Buffet was interviewed (again) on CNBC this morning and asked when he sees the recession ending, what his best/worst investments over the past year were, and when he thinks the bottoms of all the different markets will occur and when we'll see a recovery start to unfold.
That's a pretty tall order, especially when they posed the same questions to him less than a month ago. It seems CNBC's reliance on Buffet (and many times Donald Trump) as the canary in the coal mine failed in late 2007 as the recession hit, but they refuse to acknowledge it. (I don't fault Buffet as few to no one could have predicted the full scale of this downturn and few realized the compounded and convoluted schemes and risks taken over the past decade would unravel simultaneously.) Yet, they still harp on him as the crystal ball-holder who, at times, has been correct in predicting unprecedented changes in fiscal opportunities, crashes, and upswings.
True, he has been the guiding light at the end of the tunnel, but a lot of his investments have a lot of luck involved. He isn't a god of the markets by any means (heck, we could give him his own show akin to Jim Cramer's if he were...wait...), yet he is one of the most successful and popular investors of the past few decades. Instead of relying on his skepticism, and now optimism, why not focus upon his stance as a conscientious LIBERAL when it comes to investments, business taxes, and government vs. the market. While CNBC maintains a hearty conservative stance they still glorify a staunch LIBERAL who supported Obama, supports higher taxes on those making $250,000 (did somebody say buzz-phrase?), which includes him and his company, and supports regulations and the closing of corporate and fiscal loopholes in order to reign in a ballooning national deficit and debt, and curtail free-for-all business expenditures (bonuses, private jets, elaborate office redecoration, etc.).
But they won't focus on that. Only that 'Obama will stifle new business, lending and jobs with his proposed programs!' to quote on CNBC pundit. Buffet disagrees. Raising taxes now, even on the wealthiest is a horrible idea destined to fail and drive us further into this depression, to paraphrase the arguments of several others a few weeks ago. Buffet disagrees. There is a ton of money on the sidelines of this market and people are beginning to jump in in order to profit from this downturn, after nearly a year of seeing all their investments flounder and fail. Buffet agrees with the sidelines opinion, but suggests many who have the kind of money to wait patiently on the sidelines, and those only menially affected by job losses, have little to no cares about when job losses bottom out (which is the true indicator of when money from the sidelines will return) and are only a leading indicator, not the signal and the cure for the end of the recession/depression.
He also sees the Obama administration's $3.6 trillion budget as 'fair,' while the CNBC pundits refer to it as outrageous and 'a path to hell' to echo the opinions of some other foreign leaders. While I agree that it's mighty in size, it does account for the roughly $1 trillion that stood unaccounted for in the past 18 months, which makes up the remaining size of the deficit. What does that mean? Essentially Obama has only increased our 2010 budget by the cost of 6 months in Iraq and Afghanistan, when compared to the cost of the 2009 budget that excluded the wars and other yearly costs, which the former administration referred to as 'incidental.' Seems pretty small in comparison now, doesn't it?
(Should we refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'incidental wars' now? I'm sure veterans would be happy about that. The Happenstance Conflict in Iraq. The Oops Battles of 2001-20??. But that's another idea...)
Buffet also agrees taxes need to be raised to offset inflation and the national deficit, but the scale of roughly $300-$700 a year for the average American family is a small price to pay to ensure jobs and an eventual unemployment rate (when the increased taxes would be enabled) of less than 4%. 4%?! That's incredible. And that's a rate for a world of less spending/more saving, more thrifty shoppers, and more conservative buyers on all fronts.
I doubt we'll see a return to the frivolity of 2005-2006, and I doubt we'll see a turnaround this year. But I do see a bottom this year. So perhaps I'm optimistic, but just not as optimistic as Buffet. Then again, maybe a turnaround to me means something different than to Warren Buffet. Perhaps it's different to me than CNBC. And by that degree, maybe CNBC's idea of a turnaround or 'profit' is different from the majority of Americans. It's time they realized not all business and 'American business' (as they like to run commercials proclaiming and exulting) is multi-million dollar. If I make $10,000 year as a freelance writer, I'm hoping for tax increases and an improved job market. Not a chance to invest $5 million into a booming tech stock.
CNBC, broaden to survive. Expand your idea to fit the current conditions or risk alienating yourselves. The strict conservative ideals of 'yesteryear' aren't robust enough to thrive in this times and in the coming economies. Survive, yes. Prosper, yes. But at what cost to the entrepreneurial spirit?
That's a pretty tall order, especially when they posed the same questions to him less than a month ago. It seems CNBC's reliance on Buffet (and many times Donald Trump) as the canary in the coal mine failed in late 2007 as the recession hit, but they refuse to acknowledge it. (I don't fault Buffet as few to no one could have predicted the full scale of this downturn and few realized the compounded and convoluted schemes and risks taken over the past decade would unravel simultaneously.) Yet, they still harp on him as the crystal ball-holder who, at times, has been correct in predicting unprecedented changes in fiscal opportunities, crashes, and upswings.
True, he has been the guiding light at the end of the tunnel, but a lot of his investments have a lot of luck involved. He isn't a god of the markets by any means (heck, we could give him his own show akin to Jim Cramer's if he were...wait...), yet he is one of the most successful and popular investors of the past few decades. Instead of relying on his skepticism, and now optimism, why not focus upon his stance as a conscientious LIBERAL when it comes to investments, business taxes, and government vs. the market. While CNBC maintains a hearty conservative stance they still glorify a staunch LIBERAL who supported Obama, supports higher taxes on those making $250,000 (did somebody say buzz-phrase?), which includes him and his company, and supports regulations and the closing of corporate and fiscal loopholes in order to reign in a ballooning national deficit and debt, and curtail free-for-all business expenditures (bonuses, private jets, elaborate office redecoration, etc.).
But they won't focus on that. Only that 'Obama will stifle new business, lending and jobs with his proposed programs!' to quote on CNBC pundit. Buffet disagrees. Raising taxes now, even on the wealthiest is a horrible idea destined to fail and drive us further into this depression, to paraphrase the arguments of several others a few weeks ago. Buffet disagrees. There is a ton of money on the sidelines of this market and people are beginning to jump in in order to profit from this downturn, after nearly a year of seeing all their investments flounder and fail. Buffet agrees with the sidelines opinion, but suggests many who have the kind of money to wait patiently on the sidelines, and those only menially affected by job losses, have little to no cares about when job losses bottom out (which is the true indicator of when money from the sidelines will return) and are only a leading indicator, not the signal and the cure for the end of the recession/depression.
He also sees the Obama administration's $3.6 trillion budget as 'fair,' while the CNBC pundits refer to it as outrageous and 'a path to hell' to echo the opinions of some other foreign leaders. While I agree that it's mighty in size, it does account for the roughly $1 trillion that stood unaccounted for in the past 18 months, which makes up the remaining size of the deficit. What does that mean? Essentially Obama has only increased our 2010 budget by the cost of 6 months in Iraq and Afghanistan, when compared to the cost of the 2009 budget that excluded the wars and other yearly costs, which the former administration referred to as 'incidental.' Seems pretty small in comparison now, doesn't it?
(Should we refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'incidental wars' now? I'm sure veterans would be happy about that. The Happenstance Conflict in Iraq. The Oops Battles of 2001-20??. But that's another idea...)
Buffet also agrees taxes need to be raised to offset inflation and the national deficit, but the scale of roughly $300-$700 a year for the average American family is a small price to pay to ensure jobs and an eventual unemployment rate (when the increased taxes would be enabled) of less than 4%. 4%?! That's incredible. And that's a rate for a world of less spending/more saving, more thrifty shoppers, and more conservative buyers on all fronts.
I doubt we'll see a return to the frivolity of 2005-2006, and I doubt we'll see a turnaround this year. But I do see a bottom this year. So perhaps I'm optimistic, but just not as optimistic as Buffet. Then again, maybe a turnaround to me means something different than to Warren Buffet. Perhaps it's different to me than CNBC. And by that degree, maybe CNBC's idea of a turnaround or 'profit' is different from the majority of Americans. It's time they realized not all business and 'American business' (as they like to run commercials proclaiming and exulting) is multi-million dollar. If I make $10,000 year as a freelance writer, I'm hoping for tax increases and an improved job market. Not a chance to invest $5 million into a booming tech stock.
CNBC, broaden to survive. Expand your idea to fit the current conditions or risk alienating yourselves. The strict conservative ideals of 'yesteryear' aren't robust enough to thrive in this times and in the coming economies. Survive, yes. Prosper, yes. But at what cost to the entrepreneurial spirit?
CT Native Does on NBC Set
So I read that same title and had to investigate. Turns out a West Hartford, CT native, and an NBC executive, collapsed and was pronounced dead on the production set of a new series for NBC/Sci-Fi Channel. She was 44. They gave no explanation or cause for her death and provided no summary of how she was admitted to the hospital or under what circumstances she may have been living/have died from.
Story here.
Story here.
New Poem Up Online
http://bostonpoetry.com/hw/2.html
Got an e-mail that my latest poem is now up online and is one of the featured poems in the new issue of Hawk and Whippoorwill, a revived journal begun in the 1970s that has been shut down in the interim. A link to view it in its entirety (all of 10 or so lines) is at the bottom of the listing. I still haven't received my contributor's copy of the journal yet, but that's alright. What's important is the acceptance and promotion of my work in yet another fantastic journal.
Got an e-mail that my latest poem is now up online and is one of the featured poems in the new issue of Hawk and Whippoorwill, a revived journal begun in the 1970s that has been shut down in the interim. A link to view it in its entirety (all of 10 or so lines) is at the bottom of the listing. I still haven't received my contributor's copy of the journal yet, but that's alright. What's important is the acceptance and promotion of my work in yet another fantastic journal.
Friday, May 1, 2009
The Ruess of Legends
The bones of Everett Ruess, the vagabond poet and naturalist, who disappeared in the 1930s have been discovered in a rock crevice in isolated southern Utah. A local Navajo man claimed that his family had seen other Indians kill and rob Ruess as he journeyed into the desert on a naturalist excursion. After pinpointing on a map approximately where the incident occurred, searchers found the remains and DNA tested them against the DNA of Ruess' nieces and nephews.
He has been the stuff of legends. Some stories label him as being reincarnated as an animal or as the actual landscape, i.e. rock, cacti, etc.
http://www.everettruess.net/
He has been the stuff of legends. Some stories label him as being reincarnated as an animal or as the actual landscape, i.e. rock, cacti, etc.
http://www.everettruess.net/
Obama to Name New Supreme Court Justice
Obama will have the opportunity, and extremely early in his presidency, to nominate and name his first Supreme Court Justice as Justice Souter has announced his impending retirement. What this means is that Obama will nominate at least one justice during his 'first' term (remember Justice Ginsberg just had surgery and is still undergoing treatment for the very difficult and taxing pancreatic cancer) and possibly more. And then if he is nominated for a second term, which I believe depends less on politics and more about how America climbs out of The Great Recession, then he will most likely get to nominate one o two more. These justices aren't getting any younger and with retirements, sicknesses and other ailments beginning to take their toll, it seems that a changing of the guard is necessary in the Supreme Court as well.
What will all this mean? A ratification of the conservative-moderate ideals that have long been the staple of the Supreme Court? A shake-up by the appointment of a very liberal justice? Or will Obama simply replace one liberal-leaning justice with another, or appoint someone of moderate political leaning? Either way, I think he has some big decisions to make that will greatly impact the country politically, while simultaneously trying to create and reinforce the largest bi-partisan campaign in recent memory (I doubt Lincoln's Team of Rivals is a proper comparison to Obama's current strife; he hasn't made many friends and no Republicans are voting for any of his proposals).
There's a lot of questions and a few names on the shortlist. Let's just hope that whomever is appointed is free of tax issues so we can move beyond that focal point.
What will all this mean? A ratification of the conservative-moderate ideals that have long been the staple of the Supreme Court? A shake-up by the appointment of a very liberal justice? Or will Obama simply replace one liberal-leaning justice with another, or appoint someone of moderate political leaning? Either way, I think he has some big decisions to make that will greatly impact the country politically, while simultaneously trying to create and reinforce the largest bi-partisan campaign in recent memory (I doubt Lincoln's Team of Rivals is a proper comparison to Obama's current strife; he hasn't made many friends and no Republicans are voting for any of his proposals).
There's a lot of questions and a few names on the shortlist. Let's just hope that whomever is appointed is free of tax issues so we can move beyond that focal point.
Deceased CFO Gets Bonus
So, while current dominating headlines dwell on Miss California's outspoken stance against same-sex marriage (and her recent appearance in an anti-gay marriage ad), and the evolving (though simultaneously devolving) circus that is American Idol, most news outlets, or those who maintain total impartiality, have been focusing on the outrage of Freddie Mac. Yes, it's true they are the latest company to encounter the contractual obligations to pay bonuses to top executives and then experience the debacle afterward, but only the above-stated few have mentioned that a nearly $1 million bonus has been paid to the estate of David Kellermann, the former CFO who apparently committed suicide recently.
I understand contractual obligations, but are contracts really so unbreakable that they still require a deceased person to be paid a bonus for work completed up to and including the day previous to the bonus being processed and paid. That seems a bit...um...well, you know.
It's an issue the liberal news media has pounced upon, while the conservative stations have strayed away from the story for fears of backlash and outrage akin to the AIG bonuses. After all, Freddie Mac was one of the first to receive a bailout, and a large and comprehensive one at that, so the question arises first if a bonus was due (though Mr. Kellermann was appointed to clean up the mess, so I'll side with the group that says he should receive a bonus of some sort), but the second and more glaring issue is whether the bonus should have stopped being paid upon his death.
The way out: if there is a clause in the contract stating such payment will be forwarded to his estate, family, widow, etc., in the event of his death and/or incarceration, which I believe is going to happen with many other executives in the future as we work our collective way out of The Great Recession.
I hate to be bringing up the issue or harping on anything focusing upon a very publicized suicide, but it seems there are just too many questions to ignore the problems inherent in the decisions to pay the bonuses.
I understand contractual obligations, but are contracts really so unbreakable that they still require a deceased person to be paid a bonus for work completed up to and including the day previous to the bonus being processed and paid. That seems a bit...um...well, you know.
It's an issue the liberal news media has pounced upon, while the conservative stations have strayed away from the story for fears of backlash and outrage akin to the AIG bonuses. After all, Freddie Mac was one of the first to receive a bailout, and a large and comprehensive one at that, so the question arises first if a bonus was due (though Mr. Kellermann was appointed to clean up the mess, so I'll side with the group that says he should receive a bonus of some sort), but the second and more glaring issue is whether the bonus should have stopped being paid upon his death.
The way out: if there is a clause in the contract stating such payment will be forwarded to his estate, family, widow, etc., in the event of his death and/or incarceration, which I believe is going to happen with many other executives in the future as we work our collective way out of The Great Recession.
I hate to be bringing up the issue or harping on anything focusing upon a very publicized suicide, but it seems there are just too many questions to ignore the problems inherent in the decisions to pay the bonuses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)