The Dow dropped over 750 points this afternoon, after it became clear that the House of Representatives would not pass the much-needed $700 billion bailout bill. The bill is meant to restore some confidence in America's financial systems by removing some of the so-called "toxic" debt from the ledgers of flailing banks and other financial institutions.
The situation we're in is a perfect storm in more ways than one might think. There are the obvious factors that have contributed: The greed on Wall Street, the Community Reinvestment Act (which may be the single root, if there was one), the enormous national debt (have you ever seen $11 trillion written out? $11,000,000,000,000...now you have), and the large amount of credit which is the shaky foundation of our strong economy of the past several years.
The one that might not be so obvious is the one that has been staring us in the face, every day for the past several months: We are now about 50 days from electing our next president, as is evidenced by the major posturing on both sides of the aisle. The bailout plan failed to go through today, and whoever has a finger is wagging it, placing blame.
The Dems are blaming the Republicans for failing to deliver a rescue plan to the American people, although 95 of their own Blue voted against it themselves. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi didn't help the bipartisan effort at all when she railed against the Bush administration and the Republicans just prior to the vote. No doubt that turned a few GOPers off. I'm not alone in speculating that what she did was purposeful and calculated. She knew that she'd piss them off enough to where they'd vote Nay out of spite. She could then turn around and place the blame on the Republicans for the failure of the package. After all, she's had a full two weeks to state her opinion...why give it right before the vote?
As for the Republicans, other than a demonstration of opposition to Pelosi, why would they have voted No to the deal? Several of them stated that they were just reflecting the will of the voters back home. Indeed, the vast majority of voters are furious about the costly bailout and the perception of reward for the Wall Street Fat Cats who got us in this mess. Indeed, there is much in this legislation that flies in the face of free market sensibilities and capitalism. Indeed, it is the job of the Representative to bring this sentiment to the floor of the House.
Sometimes (in rare circumstance), however, it must fall on the Representative to depart from the will of his or her constituency and vote, instead, for the choice of wisdom. That time is now. The people have been heard, the dead bill is proof. But the people do not realize just how dire the situation is.
Hope of the bailout is all that has been propping up the market, for 2 weeks now. The only reason we haven't seen the Dow drop below 10,000 is because hope was on the way. That hope was delayed today, perhaps for good reason. Now that the point has been made, though, it's time for politics to take a backseat, and for Republicans and Democrats to do what is right, come together, and pass this relief package, for the good of the nation and for the good of the furious public.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
McCain Suspends Reality
What is John McCain thinking? He was hoping to project a noble air when he suspended his campaign for president yesterday, but I think he went a bit too far.
The reasoning he gave for his surprise announcement was that the current economic crisis is too important for the future of the country for him to have any of his focus on his campaign. But is it too important for his campaign staff to maintain any focus on his campaign? What are they going to be doing while John is in Washington leading the charge to find a solution to the crisis? Are they all going to be meditating and focusing their energies on boosting his mental capacity to a point that he can have an "Aha!" moment?
Dave Letterman, with whom McCain cancelled a scheduled appearance yesterday, pretty much roasted McCain for this drastic move. Dave's no professional pundit or analyst, but he's no dope either. His observation that Palin should be keeping the "Straight Talk Express" moving forward is spot on.
What McCain did removed all doubt that this is a political move, to increase his capital with the American public, who are now sure to see him as a candidate who really is committed to putting "country first." He could have stopped short of complete suspension of all campaign activities (ads, fundraising, printing signs...EVERYTHING) and asked for a postponement of the debate which is scheduled for Friday. This would have shown his dedication to his full-time job as a U.S. Senator in this time of need and also allowed the also-important task of informing the American public about their main choices for the next presidency.
Well, one might say, he doesn't want the American public distracted from this crisis by the presidential race. Similarly, what is the public going to do? Channel their energies into their representatives in Congress? No, all they can do is pretty much play a waiting game while the same folks who created the mess try to fix it (but I digress).
Barack Obama's reaction to McCain's overture to suspend his own campaign as well was a bit overstepping and inaccurate. He stated that a president should be able to do two things at once. No one can do two things at once, and expect them to be done as well as if those two things received focused attention separately. Besides, what's Obama been doing the past couple days anyway? He's been holed up in his hotel practicing for the debate (getting used to the idea of being without teleprompters), popping out every now and again to feed the press a few more soundbites.
I don't care what other Congressmen or Congresswomen say, both Obama and McCain should be in Washington trying to first understand the economic mess that we're in (yeah, good luck with that) and trying to formulate solutions. If no solution is found come Friday, the debate should be suspended. But there's absolutely no reason, short of political posturing, to suspend either of the campaigns.
The reasoning he gave for his surprise announcement was that the current economic crisis is too important for the future of the country for him to have any of his focus on his campaign. But is it too important for his campaign staff to maintain any focus on his campaign? What are they going to be doing while John is in Washington leading the charge to find a solution to the crisis? Are they all going to be meditating and focusing their energies on boosting his mental capacity to a point that he can have an "Aha!" moment?
Dave Letterman, with whom McCain cancelled a scheduled appearance yesterday, pretty much roasted McCain for this drastic move. Dave's no professional pundit or analyst, but he's no dope either. His observation that Palin should be keeping the "Straight Talk Express" moving forward is spot on.
What McCain did removed all doubt that this is a political move, to increase his capital with the American public, who are now sure to see him as a candidate who really is committed to putting "country first." He could have stopped short of complete suspension of all campaign activities (ads, fundraising, printing signs...EVERYTHING) and asked for a postponement of the debate which is scheduled for Friday. This would have shown his dedication to his full-time job as a U.S. Senator in this time of need and also allowed the also-important task of informing the American public about their main choices for the next presidency.
Well, one might say, he doesn't want the American public distracted from this crisis by the presidential race. Similarly, what is the public going to do? Channel their energies into their representatives in Congress? No, all they can do is pretty much play a waiting game while the same folks who created the mess try to fix it (but I digress).
Barack Obama's reaction to McCain's overture to suspend his own campaign as well was a bit overstepping and inaccurate. He stated that a president should be able to do two things at once. No one can do two things at once, and expect them to be done as well as if those two things received focused attention separately. Besides, what's Obama been doing the past couple days anyway? He's been holed up in his hotel practicing for the debate (getting used to the idea of being without teleprompters), popping out every now and again to feed the press a few more soundbites.
I don't care what other Congressmen or Congresswomen say, both Obama and McCain should be in Washington trying to first understand the economic mess that we're in (yeah, good luck with that) and trying to formulate solutions. If no solution is found come Friday, the debate should be suspended. But there's absolutely no reason, short of political posturing, to suspend either of the campaigns.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Honey Bunches of Metallica
I find myself constantly having to remind my oldest daughter that she can't just have the good stuff in life, she has to learn to do the things she doesn't enjoy either. This comes up a lot, from cleaning up her toys...
"Time to clean up your toys Elena."
"Awww man! I don't like cleaning up. You do it Daddy."
...to picking out only the oat clusters in the box of Honey Bunches of Oats...
"Elena, what about the flakes?"
"I don't like the flakes."
"You can just eat the oats. You have to eat the junk if you want the good stuff."
(The cereal thing really gets to me. If she just eats the oats, I'll have to put the flakes back in the box, since my father's compulsion to not waste food lives in me as well. That would just increase the flakes-to-oats ratio which means that people who play by the rules, like Daddy, have to eat even more junk. And that's just not fair.)
So anyway, what does this have to do with the new Metallica album, "Death Magnetic?" Well, it makes me feel like I'm eating a bowl of Honey Bunches of Oats. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but I have to suffer the junk to get there.
I almost didn't buy the album. In fact, I can't remember why I did. But I'm glad I did. The good and bad is balanced about 50/50. In my iTunes database, I've given 4 of the 10 songs a 5-star rating, and one a 4-star rating.
And it's not just certain songs that I would consider to be the junk, it's portions of the songs too. This is what makes the cereal analogy all the more fitting. You don't really have a choice. If you want to get to the good, thrashing, old-style-Metallica riffs, you have to suffer through some of the lesser material.
For instance, on the track "The Day That Never Comes," which is also their first single I think, it takes a good 3-4 minutes to get through the ballad portion (which is not all that bad) to get to the really catchy and energized speed metal. And even then, I am forced to wince as the lyrics finish off with a cheesy repetition of "Love is a four-letter word." I mean, guys, come on...
Well, at least they're not saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah" anymore.
Really, though, all in all, it's a good album, and I find myself listening to it a lot (at least those 4 songs). As many online reviews have opined, it's pretty much right there between "...And Justice for All" and the black album. It's worth a listen if you call yourself a pre-black Metallica fan.
"Time to clean up your toys Elena."
"Awww man! I don't like cleaning up. You do it Daddy."
...to picking out only the oat clusters in the box of Honey Bunches of Oats...
"Elena, what about the flakes?"
"I don't like the flakes."
"You can just eat the oats. You have to eat the junk if you want the good stuff."
(The cereal thing really gets to me. If she just eats the oats, I'll have to put the flakes back in the box, since my father's compulsion to not waste food lives in me as well. That would just increase the flakes-to-oats ratio which means that people who play by the rules, like Daddy, have to eat even more junk. And that's just not fair.)
So anyway, what does this have to do with the new Metallica album, "Death Magnetic?" Well, it makes me feel like I'm eating a bowl of Honey Bunches of Oats. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but I have to suffer the junk to get there.
I almost didn't buy the album. In fact, I can't remember why I did. But I'm glad I did. The good and bad is balanced about 50/50. In my iTunes database, I've given 4 of the 10 songs a 5-star rating, and one a 4-star rating.
And it's not just certain songs that I would consider to be the junk, it's portions of the songs too. This is what makes the cereal analogy all the more fitting. You don't really have a choice. If you want to get to the good, thrashing, old-style-Metallica riffs, you have to suffer through some of the lesser material.
For instance, on the track "The Day That Never Comes," which is also their first single I think, it takes a good 3-4 minutes to get through the ballad portion (which is not all that bad) to get to the really catchy and energized speed metal. And even then, I am forced to wince as the lyrics finish off with a cheesy repetition of "Love is a four-letter word." I mean, guys, come on...
Well, at least they're not saying "Yeah, yeah, yeah" anymore.
Really, though, all in all, it's a good album, and I find myself listening to it a lot (at least those 4 songs). As many online reviews have opined, it's pretty much right there between "...And Justice for All" and the black album. It's worth a listen if you call yourself a pre-black Metallica fan.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Sarah Palin and Modern Feminism
For those of you who don't know, or could not have guessed from my name, I am not a woman. Nor do I have any great depth of expertise on the subject of what it is like to be a woman in the modern United States. So while I am by no means qualified to offer an in-depth analysis on the issue of modern feminism, surely I'm allowed to offer an opinion.
Unless you live under a rock, you know that Republican presidential nominee John McCain threw the 2008 political race into a tizzy when he nominated Sarah Palin as his running-mate. While she differs significantly from Hillary Clinton on an ideological level (as Gloria Steinem notes, the only thing she shares with Clinton is a chromosome), she is still a woman who has been given the nod to become next in line for the most powerful position in the world. I figured that surely women all over the country would at least be proud of her for that. It seems I was wrong, and that is the basis of this entry.
Maybe it is my understanding of the feminism movement that is outdated, or even completely ignorant. I had always thought (assumed?) that feminism was about getting women equal rights and treatment, de jure and de facto. The right to vote. The right to serve in the military. The right to a promotion. The right to succeed or fail just like any man living under our Constitution. If you believe in those rights, do you qualify as a feminist? Would you be accepted into their fold?
Apparently not. In the same commentary, Gloria Steinam suggests that Palin is out of touch with the needs and wants of the modern American woman. It seems she is saying that in order to be considered a feminist, or a woman worthy of representing the advancement of other women, Palin needs to also adhere to a specific set of beliefs, that also happen to be the same beliefs shared by the Democratic Party platform. If a woman doesn't believe in the unfettered access of all women to an abortion, or if a woman doesn't believe that men should be stepping up around the house and carry their fair load of common domestic chores, there's no way she can be considered a feminist.
There seems to be no place, in Steinam's feminism, for an ambitious and achieving woman who is also pro-life, who is for an abstinence-only sex-ed curriculum, who dares to suggest the inclusion of creation theory in the classroom. It seems that the feminist movement has, at worst, been hijacked by the liberal movement. At best, it has evolved to become more restrictive and intolerant of lifestyles and family choices that deviate from some standard.
But what is that standard? Again, it appears that Steinam has outlined it, fairly clearly. In her piece, she states that Palin "opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality" then goes on to list these issues:
So is Steinem, who has long been a pioneering voice in the women's rights arena and whose opinions on the matter would likely reflect the current state of the movement, saying that these myriad issues should be considered when evaluating a woman's worthiness of being an icon of progress? Is she saying that Palin, indisputably an accomplished and successful woman, is actually a detriment to feminism because she doesn't toe the line on each of these issues?
I think that is the message here.
But don't take it just from me. As I said right up front, I'm a fairly typical white American male who may be so out-of-touch with women's issues as to be completely unqualified to construct such observations.
So, instead, take it from Camille Paglia, who put together this terrifically balanced piece on Salon.com (registration may be required).
Paglia, who calls herself a "dissident feminist" (I'll have to read more to know what she means by that), contends that "Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership." She insinuates that Steinem, and other modern feminists, have promoted a "shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades [that] has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be."
It seems as though feminism has evolved from what I assumed it to be, to seem more of an extension of the current Democratic platform. When Palin is criticized by modern feminists such as Steinem, it seems obvious that there is more that a woman has to do to be praised as a pioneer than simply breaking through the traditional barriers to achieve.
Unless you live under a rock, you know that Republican presidential nominee John McCain threw the 2008 political race into a tizzy when he nominated Sarah Palin as his running-mate. While she differs significantly from Hillary Clinton on an ideological level (as Gloria Steinem notes, the only thing she shares with Clinton is a chromosome), she is still a woman who has been given the nod to become next in line for the most powerful position in the world. I figured that surely women all over the country would at least be proud of her for that. It seems I was wrong, and that is the basis of this entry.
Maybe it is my understanding of the feminism movement that is outdated, or even completely ignorant. I had always thought (assumed?) that feminism was about getting women equal rights and treatment, de jure and de facto. The right to vote. The right to serve in the military. The right to a promotion. The right to succeed or fail just like any man living under our Constitution. If you believe in those rights, do you qualify as a feminist? Would you be accepted into their fold?
Apparently not. In the same commentary, Gloria Steinam suggests that Palin is out of touch with the needs and wants of the modern American woman. It seems she is saying that in order to be considered a feminist, or a woman worthy of representing the advancement of other women, Palin needs to also adhere to a specific set of beliefs, that also happen to be the same beliefs shared by the Democratic Party platform. If a woman doesn't believe in the unfettered access of all women to an abortion, or if a woman doesn't believe that men should be stepping up around the house and carry their fair load of common domestic chores, there's no way she can be considered a feminist.
There seems to be no place, in Steinam's feminism, for an ambitious and achieving woman who is also pro-life, who is for an abstinence-only sex-ed curriculum, who dares to suggest the inclusion of creation theory in the classroom. It seems that the feminist movement has, at worst, been hijacked by the liberal movement. At best, it has evolved to become more restrictive and intolerant of lifestyles and family choices that deviate from some standard.
But what is that standard? Again, it appears that Steinam has outlined it, fairly clearly. In her piece, she states that Palin "opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality" then goes on to list these issues:
- Creationism vs evolution
- Global warming
- Gun control
- Reproductive rights
- Sex education
- Hunting
- Education reform
- Fair pay for women
- Energy subsidies
- Oil drilling
- Fossil fuel use
So is Steinem, who has long been a pioneering voice in the women's rights arena and whose opinions on the matter would likely reflect the current state of the movement, saying that these myriad issues should be considered when evaluating a woman's worthiness of being an icon of progress? Is she saying that Palin, indisputably an accomplished and successful woman, is actually a detriment to feminism because she doesn't toe the line on each of these issues?
I think that is the message here.
But don't take it just from me. As I said right up front, I'm a fairly typical white American male who may be so out-of-touch with women's issues as to be completely unqualified to construct such observations.
So, instead, take it from Camille Paglia, who put together this terrifically balanced piece on Salon.com (registration may be required).
Paglia, who calls herself a "dissident feminist" (I'll have to read more to know what she means by that), contends that "Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership." She insinuates that Steinem, and other modern feminists, have promoted a "shameless Democratic partisanship over the past four decades [that] has severely limited American feminism and not allowed it to become the big tent it can and should be."
It seems as though feminism has evolved from what I assumed it to be, to seem more of an extension of the current Democratic platform. When Palin is criticized by modern feminists such as Steinem, it seems obvious that there is more that a woman has to do to be praised as a pioneer than simply breaking through the traditional barriers to achieve.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why do all the trees lean toward Cleveland?
When my wife and I decided to take the kids to Ohio this month to see her parents, I figured I might as well see where the Steelers would be and maybe attend my first game ever (I know, hard to believe). Since we'd be heading down to the 'burgh (that'd be Pittsburgh for all y'all who don't know) for our first weekend, I was hoping they'd be playing at home. Unfortunately they were playing away on this Sunday. Fortunately, that away game was in Cleveland, a short 30 minute drive from my in-laws.
What luck! What could be better that watching the Steelers play the loathesome Browns in Cleveland, on Sunday Night Football? (Well, obviously, watching the same matchup in Pittsburgh on Monday Night Football, but I'll take it.)
After days of searching the internet ticket brokers for just the right seats at the right price, I settled on a pair (for my father-in-law and me) on the 50 yard line, 9 rows behind the Steelers bench. I was stoked! I packed my Steelers t-shirt (my only team garb outside of my Terrible Towel...I'm a bit stingy when it comes to buying clothes) and off we went.
On the Friday night before the game, big Hurricane Ike made landfall at Galviston, TX. On Saturday before the game, I checked the track of the now broken hurricane and saw that the center would be smack dab over Cleveland at 9pm on Sunday night. This was great! Football, beer, and natural disaster all rolled into one! This was getting better every day.
On game day Sunday, the storm started to hit. The winds started picking up around 1pm and eventually maxed out with gusts of about 40 MPH, though the rains would come until that night at the game. The trees in my in-laws huge backyard were bending over but holding, thanks to the plentiful rainfall several days before.
6pm: Time to leave. This would put us at Browns Stadium about 45 min to an hour before the 8:15 kickoff, plenty of time to take in the sights and sounds. We hit the East 9th Street traffic at about 6:30 and spent the next 1/2 hour going 2 miles to a parking garage. Quick 15 minute walk put us at the door of Browns Stadium where scalpers gathered.
(If ever there was a model of a broken market, it is the ticket scalpers standing right next to a guy wearing a sign reading "I NEED TICKETS." Still can't figure that one out.)
At the gate was a guy handing out Cleveland's pathetic answer to the Terrible Towel: a little Browns flag attached to a stick by a single grommet. I tried to refuse the refuse, but he insisted, so I grudgingly took one, thinking I could use it for toilet paper or fire (or both) if the need ever arose. I handed it off to Gary quickly. By the time we got through the pat down (I think I got extra love because I was wearing a Steelers shirt) and to our seats, it was 7:20.
One hour to game time and what to do? Warm ups were pretty dull, though it was cool to see the players so close up. There was Jeff Reed practicing kicks, Sepulveda practicing punts, Big Ben and Byron Leftwich warming up their throwing arms. We decided to head up to the upper seats to see what the view was like.
Like most stadiums, Cleveland Browns Stadium has a series of switchback ramps for getting up to the upper seats. Of course there were throngs of people heading up. Occasionally one would notice my Steelers shirt and bark in my face "Woof! Woof!" At times I'd try to pause and decipher this strange Clevelandese language, assuming these were the sounds they had been taught to make in school. I eventually gave up, concluding that it was basically unintelligible.
(At some point, my father-in-law, Gary, realized why all these people were singling me out to vent their enthusiasm. Up until then, he didn't realize I had worn my Steelers shirt. Once he did, though, he stayed a good 5 feet behind me the rest of the evening. In telling his friends about the game, he says he still hasn't decided if I was stupid or brave.)
About halfway up the ramp to the top, we both realized that we'd have to go down, against the flow of maddened Brownies. I was not looking forward to this. At the top, we stepped out towards the upper-level seats and were greeted by a huge gust of Ike's wind from the back that I was sure would strip me of my clothing and toss me right out onto the field where I'd be promptly arrested for streaking (now that would have been a story for the grandkids!). We quickly stepped to the side, in front of a wall that would shield us from the wind.
We stood up there for about 15 minutes, taking in the whole energy of the stadium, until it was about 20 minutes until game time. Part of me didn't want to go back down, knowing the abuse I was in for. But I stood tall, put on my Dirty Harry "Go ahead, make my day" look and started the descent.
As I said, Gary had wised up by now and would not walk beside me any more; he stayed a good 5-10 feet behind me the whole way down. I'd slow down for him to catch up, but he'd slow down too, refusing to be associated with this Steelers nutcase who had the nerve to come to the Dawg Pound in a Steelers shirt.
The Cleveland fans were surprisingly tame on the way down, compared with what I had been expecting. I was bracing to be spit on, shoved, or have beer "accidentally" spilled on me. Instead, all I got was a few people in my face screaming "F--- you!", a few chants of "Ass-hole!", and a whole lot of barking. There were other Steelers fans, of course, who mostly had jerseys (meaning that they were much more willing to spend money on team apparel). Many of them would exchange high-fives with me and join in chants of "Here we go!" Many of them, I could tell, were worn down by the taunting and seemed resolved to just look straight ahead and get to their seats as fast as possible. From those who were in the spirit, though, it was nice to have the intermittent moments of comraderie.
.
By the time we made it back to our seats, it was a whole lot more crowded. We waited the 15 minutes until game time. There was a tribute to Ernie Davis, the first black football player to win the Heisman, playing for Syracuse. The legendary Jim Brown was there to dedicate the placard for Davis. Also there for the tribute and the coin toss was Dennis Quaid, who plays Davis' coach in the upcoming movie about Davis' breakthrough contributions to football. Even though he was just a blur from 100 yards away, I can now say I saw Dennis Quaid.
The Browns won the toss and the Steelers kicked off the game. The game was what it was, and I won't offer a play-by-play. Needless to say the Steelers won, 10-6, sending the Browns to an 0-and-2 start to their season, and the Steelers to 2-and-0. It was neat being right there and being able to look down at the sidelines and see Mike Tomlin standing always wise and resolute, a stark contrast to the energized, animated, always-pacing Bill Cowher. It was neat the see Big Ben debriefing with Leftwich or his receivers after an offensive flameout. To see Troy Palomalu's hair constantly getting in his way. To see the unflappable smile on Hines Ward's face, up close.
There was some guy two rows ahead of us and a few seats to the right who chanted "Washington...You suck Washington!" whenever the offense was on the sideline, until it made him hoarse. The funny thing was, I don't think there was any way, with the din of the crowd and the distance between them, that Nate Washington could have heard him.
It was easier to walk out of the stadium at the end of the game...I had an easy comeback for the hecklers who persisted in their teases and taunts: "Check the scoreboard, pal!" This was the 10th straight win by the Steelers over the Brownies. With every win, it's easier to understand why all the trees lean toward Cleveland...Cleveland sucks. Just check the scoreboard.
What luck! What could be better that watching the Steelers play the loathesome Browns in Cleveland, on Sunday Night Football? (Well, obviously, watching the same matchup in Pittsburgh on Monday Night Football, but I'll take it.)
After days of searching the internet ticket brokers for just the right seats at the right price, I settled on a pair (for my father-in-law and me) on the 50 yard line, 9 rows behind the Steelers bench. I was stoked! I packed my Steelers t-shirt (my only team garb outside of my Terrible Towel...I'm a bit stingy when it comes to buying clothes) and off we went.
On the Friday night before the game, big Hurricane Ike made landfall at Galviston, TX. On Saturday before the game, I checked the track of the now broken hurricane and saw that the center would be smack dab over Cleveland at 9pm on Sunday night. This was great! Football, beer, and natural disaster all rolled into one! This was getting better every day.
On game day Sunday, the storm started to hit. The winds started picking up around 1pm and eventually maxed out with gusts of about 40 MPH, though the rains would come until that night at the game. The trees in my in-laws huge backyard were bending over but holding, thanks to the plentiful rainfall several days before.
6pm: Time to leave. This would put us at Browns Stadium about 45 min to an hour before the 8:15 kickoff, plenty of time to take in the sights and sounds. We hit the East 9th Street traffic at about 6:30 and spent the next 1/2 hour going 2 miles to a parking garage. Quick 15 minute walk put us at the door of Browns Stadium where scalpers gathered.
(If ever there was a model of a broken market, it is the ticket scalpers standing right next to a guy wearing a sign reading "I NEED TICKETS." Still can't figure that one out.)
At the gate was a guy handing out Cleveland's pathetic answer to the Terrible Towel: a little Browns flag attached to a stick by a single grommet. I tried to refuse the refuse, but he insisted, so I grudgingly took one, thinking I could use it for toilet paper or fire (or both) if the need ever arose. I handed it off to Gary quickly. By the time we got through the pat down (I think I got extra love because I was wearing a Steelers shirt) and to our seats, it was 7:20.
One hour to game time and what to do? Warm ups were pretty dull, though it was cool to see the players so close up. There was Jeff Reed practicing kicks, Sepulveda practicing punts, Big Ben and Byron Leftwich warming up their throwing arms. We decided to head up to the upper seats to see what the view was like.
Like most stadiums, Cleveland Browns Stadium has a series of switchback ramps for getting up to the upper seats. Of course there were throngs of people heading up. Occasionally one would notice my Steelers shirt and bark in my face "Woof! Woof!" At times I'd try to pause and decipher this strange Clevelandese language, assuming these were the sounds they had been taught to make in school. I eventually gave up, concluding that it was basically unintelligible.
(At some point, my father-in-law, Gary, realized why all these people were singling me out to vent their enthusiasm. Up until then, he didn't realize I had worn my Steelers shirt. Once he did, though, he stayed a good 5 feet behind me the rest of the evening. In telling his friends about the game, he says he still hasn't decided if I was stupid or brave.)
About halfway up the ramp to the top, we both realized that we'd have to go down, against the flow of maddened Brownies. I was not looking forward to this. At the top, we stepped out towards the upper-level seats and were greeted by a huge gust of Ike's wind from the back that I was sure would strip me of my clothing and toss me right out onto the field where I'd be promptly arrested for streaking (now that would have been a story for the grandkids!). We quickly stepped to the side, in front of a wall that would shield us from the wind.
We stood up there for about 15 minutes, taking in the whole energy of the stadium, until it was about 20 minutes until game time. Part of me didn't want to go back down, knowing the abuse I was in for. But I stood tall, put on my Dirty Harry "Go ahead, make my day" look and started the descent.
As I said, Gary had wised up by now and would not walk beside me any more; he stayed a good 5-10 feet behind me the whole way down. I'd slow down for him to catch up, but he'd slow down too, refusing to be associated with this Steelers nutcase who had the nerve to come to the Dawg Pound in a Steelers shirt.
The Cleveland fans were surprisingly tame on the way down, compared with what I had been expecting. I was bracing to be spit on, shoved, or have beer "accidentally" spilled on me. Instead, all I got was a few people in my face screaming "F--- you!", a few chants of "Ass-hole!", and a whole lot of barking. There were other Steelers fans, of course, who mostly had jerseys (meaning that they were much more willing to spend money on team apparel). Many of them would exchange high-fives with me and join in chants of "Here we go!" Many of them, I could tell, were worn down by the taunting and seemed resolved to just look straight ahead and get to their seats as fast as possible. From those who were in the spirit, though, it was nice to have the intermittent moments of comraderie.
.
By the time we made it back to our seats, it was a whole lot more crowded. We waited the 15 minutes until game time. There was a tribute to Ernie Davis, the first black football player to win the Heisman, playing for Syracuse. The legendary Jim Brown was there to dedicate the placard for Davis. Also there for the tribute and the coin toss was Dennis Quaid, who plays Davis' coach in the upcoming movie about Davis' breakthrough contributions to football. Even though he was just a blur from 100 yards away, I can now say I saw Dennis Quaid.
The Browns won the toss and the Steelers kicked off the game. The game was what it was, and I won't offer a play-by-play. Needless to say the Steelers won, 10-6, sending the Browns to an 0-and-2 start to their season, and the Steelers to 2-and-0. It was neat being right there and being able to look down at the sidelines and see Mike Tomlin standing always wise and resolute, a stark contrast to the energized, animated, always-pacing Bill Cowher. It was neat the see Big Ben debriefing with Leftwich or his receivers after an offensive flameout. To see Troy Palomalu's hair constantly getting in his way. To see the unflappable smile on Hines Ward's face, up close.
There was some guy two rows ahead of us and a few seats to the right who chanted "Washington...You suck Washington!" whenever the offense was on the sideline, until it made him hoarse. The funny thing was, I don't think there was any way, with the din of the crowd and the distance between them, that Nate Washington could have heard him.
It was easier to walk out of the stadium at the end of the game...I had an easy comeback for the hecklers who persisted in their teases and taunts: "Check the scoreboard, pal!" This was the 10th straight win by the Steelers over the Brownies. With every win, it's easier to understand why all the trees lean toward Cleveland...Cleveland sucks. Just check the scoreboard.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Another chip out of free markets
Those opposed to the war in Iraq oft decry the hundreds of billions of dollars that they see as being ill-spent in support of that conflict. Surely there are better things to spend that money on, they say. While this may be true, there are worse things as well. Witness the pledged bailout of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by our own federal government, to the tune of up to $200,000,000,000.
What characteristics does a company need to possess that allows it to be classified as "critical to the economy?" If anyone knows, please let me know. If I build a large company one day, I want to make sure I build it towards these characteristics.
Bear Stearns apparently possesses these characteristics, as the Federal Reserve deemed it "too important" an institution to allow to fail. This set up the Fed to arrange the dime-on-the-dollar purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMC.
I'm not an economist, nor do I pretend to be, on TV or in real life, so I won't even attempt to take on the myriad variables and considerations that have underpinned this move by the Fed. I am, however, a believer in free markets, who sees this form of life support for a failed company as being hazardous in the long term.
In the short term, the buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may actually produce real benefits for the economy as well as for the consumer. It will return some level of confidence to the credit market and make money more freely available to borrowers.
In the long term, though, we may just be pumping artificial life into an already defunct carcass. And we all know what happens to dead things when we try to bring them back to life. Free markets are marked by the ups and downs that they produce. Companies and even whole industries die, which may produce temporary and sometimes deep ebbs in the economy. But then new ones are born which again send the economy marching upwards.
It's kind of like the first steps of sea turtles. I had the luck to witness this one night many years ago on Topsail Island, here in North Carolina. Dozens and dozens of these little hatchlings dug their way out of the sand and started flip-flopping towards the ocean. They'd get to the edge of the surf only to be sent backwards by an incoming wave. But they'd get up and go at it again. Two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back. Eventually they'd make it out into the deeper and calmer waters, where most of them would be eaten by predators...but that's for another analogy.
The economy's long-term progression is like those sea turtles (without the probable eventuality of being eaten by something bigger). It's progressive expansion occurs through repeated cycles of contraction and expansion. Sometimes the contractions are big and painful. By putting these companies on life support, we are not eliminating the painful large contraction that would result from years of unsound investments by these large banks, we are merely delaying it. As I heard Ron Paul say yesterday, we are just letting the bubble continue to grow. When it does pop, and it will (it has to), it will be much larger and more painful than if the government had not meddled.
What characteristics does a company need to possess that allows it to be classified as "critical to the economy?" If anyone knows, please let me know. If I build a large company one day, I want to make sure I build it towards these characteristics.
Bear Stearns apparently possesses these characteristics, as the Federal Reserve deemed it "too important" an institution to allow to fail. This set up the Fed to arrange the dime-on-the-dollar purchase of Bear Stearns by JPMC.
I'm not an economist, nor do I pretend to be, on TV or in real life, so I won't even attempt to take on the myriad variables and considerations that have underpinned this move by the Fed. I am, however, a believer in free markets, who sees this form of life support for a failed company as being hazardous in the long term.
In the short term, the buyout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may actually produce real benefits for the economy as well as for the consumer. It will return some level of confidence to the credit market and make money more freely available to borrowers.
In the long term, though, we may just be pumping artificial life into an already defunct carcass. And we all know what happens to dead things when we try to bring them back to life. Free markets are marked by the ups and downs that they produce. Companies and even whole industries die, which may produce temporary and sometimes deep ebbs in the economy. But then new ones are born which again send the economy marching upwards.
It's kind of like the first steps of sea turtles. I had the luck to witness this one night many years ago on Topsail Island, here in North Carolina. Dozens and dozens of these little hatchlings dug their way out of the sand and started flip-flopping towards the ocean. They'd get to the edge of the surf only to be sent backwards by an incoming wave. But they'd get up and go at it again. Two steps forward, one step back, two steps forward, one step back. Eventually they'd make it out into the deeper and calmer waters, where most of them would be eaten by predators...but that's for another analogy.
The economy's long-term progression is like those sea turtles (without the probable eventuality of being eaten by something bigger). It's progressive expansion occurs through repeated cycles of contraction and expansion. Sometimes the contractions are big and painful. By putting these companies on life support, we are not eliminating the painful large contraction that would result from years of unsound investments by these large banks, we are merely delaying it. As I heard Ron Paul say yesterday, we are just letting the bubble continue to grow. When it does pop, and it will (it has to), it will be much larger and more painful than if the government had not meddled.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Ain't no black hole swallowing me today!
I'm awake (and, thus, alive) this morning, which means that the Large Hadron Collider, near Geneva, Switzerland, which came online at 1:30am EST did not produce strangelets which could have turned the Earth into a lifeless, cosmic lump of goo. Nor did it produce the feared black hole that could have instantly swallowed us all.
I have to admit that even though the reassurances were made, I did feel a sense of dread as I went to sleep last night. It's hard not to, when something like that is totally out of your control. But I'm alive and well (at least subjectively) and glad to be off to Ohio today.
I have to admit that even though the reassurances were made, I did feel a sense of dread as I went to sleep last night. It's hard not to, when something like that is totally out of your control. But I'm alive and well (at least subjectively) and glad to be off to Ohio today.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Biden's Fiscal Capacity
I wonder if anyone else is asking this question: How does one serve for 30+ years as a United States Senator, including at least 2 decades with a six-figure income, and only have $150,000 net worth to show for it? That's Joe Biden, Obama's choice for Veep should he win the presidency.
Perhaps I'm being too petty in my judgements here. Perhaps there's a perfectly good explanation for why Biden appears to be so lousy at personal finance. After all, with the Senate's generous pension and health care plans, maybe there's no need to save for the future like the vast majority of Americans. Maybe he can afford to throw the budget out the window and just redirect all that money towards his club memberships, school for his kids, the mortgage on his family compound (if there is one), and his nice cars.
Now I sound bitter and jealous...not the case at all. I hope that I, too, have the disposable income one day to be able to support such a lifestyle. But that comes after my primary responsibilities, the first of which is delaying gratification for the future, so that I have a sound future. That's how most Americans should approach it as well. If Biden cannot lead by example here, does that mean he's out of touch with the rest of us? Perhaps his fiscal habits are just a microcosm of the government's own...spend all that you have without regard for the obligations of the future.
Perhaps I'm being too petty in my judgements here. Perhaps there's a perfectly good explanation for why Biden appears to be so lousy at personal finance. After all, with the Senate's generous pension and health care plans, maybe there's no need to save for the future like the vast majority of Americans. Maybe he can afford to throw the budget out the window and just redirect all that money towards his club memberships, school for his kids, the mortgage on his family compound (if there is one), and his nice cars.
Now I sound bitter and jealous...not the case at all. I hope that I, too, have the disposable income one day to be able to support such a lifestyle. But that comes after my primary responsibilities, the first of which is delaying gratification for the future, so that I have a sound future. That's how most Americans should approach it as well. If Biden cannot lead by example here, does that mean he's out of touch with the rest of us? Perhaps his fiscal habits are just a microcosm of the government's own...spend all that you have without regard for the obligations of the future.
Friday, September 5, 2008
"...certain unalienable rights..."
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." --Abraham LincolnGeorge Will has an(other) incredible piece in the latest issue of Newsweek. He uses his space this week to explore the evolution of the assumed "rights" of the citizens in this country. Why is this important? Because this evolution is in lockstep with this nation's steady march away from freedom and towards socialism.
Our Declaration of Independence, whose words were crafted carefully and deliberately, defines our most basic rights:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.It goes on to define the basic (and, as some would argue, the only) function of government: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
So there you have your three rights as a citizen of this country: Your right to your life, your right to your liberty, and your right to pursue happiness for yourself. There are a couple key points to make here about these rights:
- The Declaration says that they come from the Creator, or God. Now, it does not matter whether you believe in God or not, or whether you belive He exists. The essence of this statement is that these three rights are innate to your existence as a human being. From the moment you come into this world, they are yours.
- Your personal rights cannot step on, or interfere with, those same rights as others. As Ronald Reagan once famously put it: "I have the right to swing my arm as much as I want, just so long as I stop short of your nose."
These days the number of rights that people believe they own, or are entitled to, has ballooned far beyond those original three. People now believe they have a right to the "American dream," or a right to own a home, or a right to health care, or a right to have a solvent and secure retirement, a right to secure investments. From Mr. Will's column:
At the nation's founding, Americans believed that government exists to protect people in the exercise of their pre-existing "natural" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Now Americans believe that government exists to create new rights for them, and to solve their problems...Indeed, these things they are given, by an ever-growing government that funds them through increasingly burdensome taxation. This is where the line is crossed, and the unraveling of our freedom begins. You see, in order for the government to fund my health care, they have to tax you. This compulsory taxation is in direct conflict with your right to pursue happiness as you see fit, as you now have less means to do so.
These rights that we look to government to supply differ substantially in character from those given in the Declaration. Again, those "unalienable rights" are ours inherently, and cannot be taken from us, regardless of the conditions we live under (the human spirit always longs for freedom). Rights that are supplied to us remain under constant threat of removal. To state it another way, of that which government giveth, government can taketh away. Be careful what you wish for.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The slow and sad sunset on Metallica
I ran across a new station the other day on my XM radio. It was an all-Metallica, all-the-time station which I assume is a run up to the release of their new album. As someone who cut my metal teeth on Metallica in high school, I couldn't have been more excited. If you can't read between the lines, my car isn't the most audio-capable vehicle on the road. I've got a tape deck and radio. I used to have a Sony Discman but it's such a pain to change a disk when driving. Plus, who even uses CDs anymore, other than as a source from which to rip the MP3s?
But I digress. It only took a couple of days to realize that the bulk of the music Metallica has in its library is absolute JUNK. (Now as I write this, "Sanitarium" just started playing from my Shuffle playlist...one of the few that made the cut.) I can remember distinctly when the corner was turned, and Metallica went from delivering truly inspired musical lyrics wrapped in a thick, dense sound.
It was the so-called Black album. It was almost like when Prince changed his name (not that I liked Prince before, during, or after). They got cocky and arrogant and decided to become trendsetters. If you remember, that album was called the "Black" album because it didn't have a title. It was just a solid black cover with a dark grey picture of a coiled snake in the corner. I can see how it played out:
Hetfield: "Hey, you know every band out there is titling their albums. That's so old and uncool. We're Metallica. Let's skip the title."
Lars: "Dude, that would be, like, so, like, you know, cool. It's never been, like, done before."
Kirk: "But what would we do for cover artwork if we don't have a title to guide it?"
Lars: "Shut up Kirk...you know we never give you any creative control."
Hetfield: "So what would we do for cover artwork if we don't have a title?"
Lars: "Good question dude."
Jason: "I gotta tell you guys, I don't like where this is going. I may have to quit the band."
Hetfield: "Whatever dude. You never looked like you were happy to be playing with us anyway, with that constant scowl and everything."
Jason: "That was for my ima--"
Hetfield: "What if we go with an all black cover? No title equals null artwork."
Kirk: "Did you just say 'null?'"
Lars: "Love it! And we could put a snake on it. Maybe with, like, no contrast so people have to squint to see it."
Hetfield: "Yeah dude, snakes exude meanness. That would be like so suggestive."
Kirk: "Did you just say 'exude?'"
Jason: "I'm telling you, I'm gonna quit..."
Hetfield: "You know what, f!@# it...this is bold new direction. Every other band has long hair too, let's cut ours off."
Jason: "Now I'm definitely quitting."
Lars: "BUUURRP! Yo James, pass me, like, a beer."
And so it was, they cut their hair, wrote some crappy songs while sitting on the throne and pushed out the Black album. Where they couldn't think of lyrics, they just said "Yeah, yeah, yeah." That was the inflection point that took Metallica from a band that mattered to one that dropped instantly to the bottom of the pile.
Over the years, they have tried to raise themselves from the stink heap, but it was always through ridiculous projects such as the S&M album (Symphony&Metallica, get it?). Their songs continued to devolve into the inane. Their music became less harsh, less refined, less studied, less innovative and more like they were just producing their jam sessions. Occasionally, a worthy throwback would emerge, such as "Frantic" on the St. Anger album, or "Hero of the Day" on the Load album. But for the most part, a return to their roots has been a hope unfulfilled.
So I'll stick with my Lightning, Master and Justice for the time being and be content that I at least have those classics to retreat to when I need a taste of heavy metal brilliance.
But I digress. It only took a couple of days to realize that the bulk of the music Metallica has in its library is absolute JUNK. (Now as I write this, "Sanitarium" just started playing from my Shuffle playlist...one of the few that made the cut.) I can remember distinctly when the corner was turned, and Metallica went from delivering truly inspired musical lyrics wrapped in a thick, dense sound.
It was the so-called Black album. It was almost like when Prince changed his name (not that I liked Prince before, during, or after). They got cocky and arrogant and decided to become trendsetters. If you remember, that album was called the "Black" album because it didn't have a title. It was just a solid black cover with a dark grey picture of a coiled snake in the corner. I can see how it played out:
Hetfield: "Hey, you know every band out there is titling their albums. That's so old and uncool. We're Metallica. Let's skip the title."
Lars: "Dude, that would be, like, so, like, you know, cool. It's never been, like, done before."
Kirk: "But what would we do for cover artwork if we don't have a title to guide it?"
Lars: "Shut up Kirk...you know we never give you any creative control."
Hetfield: "So what would we do for cover artwork if we don't have a title?"
Lars: "Good question dude."
Jason: "I gotta tell you guys, I don't like where this is going. I may have to quit the band."
Hetfield: "Whatever dude. You never looked like you were happy to be playing with us anyway, with that constant scowl and everything."
Jason: "That was for my ima--"
Hetfield: "What if we go with an all black cover? No title equals null artwork."
Kirk: "Did you just say 'null?'"
Lars: "Love it! And we could put a snake on it. Maybe with, like, no contrast so people have to squint to see it."
Hetfield: "Yeah dude, snakes exude meanness. That would be like so suggestive."
Kirk: "Did you just say 'exude?'"
Jason: "I'm telling you, I'm gonna quit..."
Hetfield: "You know what, f!@# it...this is bold new direction. Every other band has long hair too, let's cut ours off."
Jason: "Now I'm definitely quitting."
Lars: "BUUURRP! Yo James, pass me, like, a beer."
And so it was, they cut their hair, wrote some crappy songs while sitting on the throne and pushed out the Black album. Where they couldn't think of lyrics, they just said "Yeah, yeah, yeah." That was the inflection point that took Metallica from a band that mattered to one that dropped instantly to the bottom of the pile.
Over the years, they have tried to raise themselves from the stink heap, but it was always through ridiculous projects such as the S&M album (Symphony&Metallica, get it?). Their songs continued to devolve into the inane. Their music became less harsh, less refined, less studied, less innovative and more like they were just producing their jam sessions. Occasionally, a worthy throwback would emerge, such as "Frantic" on the St. Anger album, or "Hero of the Day" on the Load album. But for the most part, a return to their roots has been a hope unfulfilled.
So I'll stick with my Lightning, Master and Justice for the time being and be content that I at least have those classics to retreat to when I need a taste of heavy metal brilliance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)