Thursday, July 14, 2011
Life in the fast lane
With the national debt sitting at 13.7 trillion dollars, the president and minions (not onions, but those 535 legislative folk elected by us) are "fighting" for us trying to come to a deficit reduction agreement. Will this work?
The Republicans want to accomplish budget balancing without increasing taxes. The Democrats want the wealthier among us to pay more. The Republicans want drastic cuts in spending. With a budget deficit at roughly 1.5 trillion dollars both seem to have a mathematical arguement.
The rub is they are not talking about balancing next year's budget. They expect us to believe things will get better if they take 10 years to get to balance. That means there could be an additonal eight to ten trillion added to the national debt before the budget is ever balanced. With the current national debt equal to our current Gross Domestic Product and Moody's bond rating service downgrading our debt instruments publicly, how can we rationally expect to sell that much new debt over the next ten years? At what interest rate? Who will buy it as an investment expecting a rate of return and return of the principal amount?
The current budget "negotiations" will result in a market for U.S. Treasury securities limited to those with ulterior motives. Those who want a position that will give them power over the United States. The average investor will not want to take the risk becasue they cannot afford it. The average financial terrorist will have the finances to take the risk and the inclination to press the advantage. That is to dictate to the debtor nation policy, economic decisions, etc. Think it can't happen?
We have engaged in deficit spending for decades and have little tangible to show for it. The attempt to create a socially less riskye society was noble to the more charitable of us, but left us with a deteriorated education system, less manufacturing capacity and jobs, and loss of control of our financial resources since we have to pay the debt service and entitlements first. We borrow just to stay even.
Nothing short of immediate budget balance will yield a tangible financial benefit in the near future. That is a long shot for one reason. The government is too big to control. Try asking people from who and from where one would get a consolidated statemnet of operations for the federal government. How much was the deficit really? All the information that is published is estimated long after the fiscal year is closed. There is no set of documents that a leader can sit down to review with his department heads and say "you are over budget, get it fixed now!!!!!!". That is how any CEO leads his "successful" company. If this can't be done by the federal government and done now, then it is too big to control. It must be smaller
and manageable.
It is against this background that the current negotiation in the government should be viewed. Think its impossible? Only if you don't try. It would be drastic action. It may have to play out over a budget year. But it most certainly must be the yardstick against with all candidates in 2010/12 are measured.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Going Off the Grid?
In difficult times, common sense should be our guide. Look at what you do each day and ask two things. What's the goal, what's the benefit. Simplify each task, simplify each with only the most essential and productive tasks.
Family budgets are the same. Spending sensibly should be the goal no matter what the environment but during times between jobs its more critical. The common sense part of reviewing spending is made tougher when your target is the household telephone. That great icon of the baby boom generation may now be a Smithsonian style relic.
Why you say? As time has gone on, everyone in our household has acquired a cell phone. As teenagers my children were told they could have a bare bones phone so we could get in tough with them if need be without having to bother other parents. friends of the children, etc. As they moved out of the house, they took the cell phones with them, combining the cell phones in to their new household.
My wife and I also got cell phones for emergency calls relating to aging parents. The result? A family of five with five different phones, none of them nailed to a wall or sitting on a side table.
The mobility - time issue is not the only benefit of these new phones. Miniaturization has taken the technology to a level of convenience unheard of in recent history. The sub compact car was such an inconvenience its use was limited to only a percentage of the total trips one takes in an average day. Gas mileage was a plus, insurance rates were not. Micro technology has made cell phones almost stealthy.
The time honored, time worn home phone of the fifties family has changed places with the cell phone. With a cellphone, its almost as if you can carry your communication household with you wherever you go. Its not multi-tasking anymore, it's everytasking. Everywhere, every time, anytime, all the time. Any phone limited by working at only one location is a relic. A souvenir of the past.
Getting rid of the home phone implies leaving our childhood behind, leaving familiarity in the dust. It took over a month to come to terms with cutting off our home phone number. What cost am I leaving out of the analysis? Who have I forgotten to notify. If I forget someone or come company, doctor, creditor, how will they call and "Hey, you forgot me+. My cell number isn't in the book. Did I remember to put the cell down as an alternative? Finally, you just say "DO IT".
Now its done. The monthly budget is one terminated bill better off. All is right with the world. It made so much sense. We will be fine. Now where is that converter box the TV guys kept yelling about.
Family budgets are the same. Spending sensibly should be the goal no matter what the environment but during times between jobs its more critical. The common sense part of reviewing spending is made tougher when your target is the household telephone. That great icon of the baby boom generation may now be a Smithsonian style relic.
Why you say? As time has gone on, everyone in our household has acquired a cell phone. As teenagers my children were told they could have a bare bones phone so we could get in tough with them if need be without having to bother other parents. friends of the children, etc. As they moved out of the house, they took the cell phones with them, combining the cell phones in to their new household.
My wife and I also got cell phones for emergency calls relating to aging parents. The result? A family of five with five different phones, none of them nailed to a wall or sitting on a side table.
The mobility - time issue is not the only benefit of these new phones. Miniaturization has taken the technology to a level of convenience unheard of in recent history. The sub compact car was such an inconvenience its use was limited to only a percentage of the total trips one takes in an average day. Gas mileage was a plus, insurance rates were not. Micro technology has made cell phones almost stealthy.
The time honored, time worn home phone of the fifties family has changed places with the cell phone. With a cellphone, its almost as if you can carry your communication household with you wherever you go. Its not multi-tasking anymore, it's everytasking. Everywhere, every time, anytime, all the time. Any phone limited by working at only one location is a relic. A souvenir of the past.
Getting rid of the home phone implies leaving our childhood behind, leaving familiarity in the dust. It took over a month to come to terms with cutting off our home phone number. What cost am I leaving out of the analysis? Who have I forgotten to notify. If I forget someone or come company, doctor, creditor, how will they call and "Hey, you forgot me+. My cell number isn't in the book. Did I remember to put the cell down as an alternative? Finally, you just say "DO IT".
Now its done. The monthly budget is one terminated bill better off. All is right with the world. It made so much sense. We will be fine. Now where is that converter box the TV guys kept yelling about.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Hell's Bells
If you went to college and took any kind of economics course, you were introduced to the bell curve. That simplistic little shape that makes up a monument in Philadelphia also is a staple of mathematicians who try to explain this nations economy.
It starts out simple enough. In the beginning, a company is new and its products or services are innovations because unique sells as well as price and function. "You too can call the space shuttle from your living room" gets a lot of attention. The more people want this new fangled phone thingy, the more units get sold. Assuming of course that phone thingy is a good idea and actually works. At this point, the left side of the bell, sales go up as does revenue, as do profits, as do jobs. Time passes and competition develops. This forces prices down making the thingy more affordable, meaning the market for the thingy gets bigger. At the top of the bell curve, everything is rosey.
Then a new product happens, replacing the thingy and we have the right side of the bell. Everything declines as consumers move on the to the "gizzy". This thing can take a picture of the Mars probe nearing the planet and lets you vote on a name for the first Martian. It does not yet have a universal language feature so we can tell him what we named him. Sales of the thingy decline as it is replaced by the gizzy.
On economy is a huge number of bell curves taken together. All kinds of products, all kinds of companies, some trying to remake themselves while others just disappear. The bell curve also works for skill sets. Individual skills are replaced as technology advances, workers are replaced by those who have newer skills applicable to new technologies. Jobs change in character or go away entirely.
Employment statistics are the result of bell curves super-imposed on each other. Some companies are growing while others are dying. Some are adding employees while others are laying off. Always, the supply of new jobs must compensate for those lost (terminated).
The foundation of innovation and productivity is education. It is no co-incidence that the decline of Americas economic fortunes has coincided with the decline of its education system relative to other countries. In the fifties and sixties America was well ahead of other nations in productivity. Our workers could handle more complicated tasks using more advance equipment. The larger wage cost per hour was more than offset by the number of units our workers could produce in that hour. Today, other nations have caught up with our level of education lowering their labor cost per hour and taking jobs away from us.
This is part of a recipe for a nation in decline. Other factors are hurting us but the way we teach and what we teach is a big part. Who should focus on changing that is the key to the solution. Stay tuned for that one.
It starts out simple enough. In the beginning, a company is new and its products or services are innovations because unique sells as well as price and function. "You too can call the space shuttle from your living room" gets a lot of attention. The more people want this new fangled phone thingy, the more units get sold. Assuming of course that phone thingy is a good idea and actually works. At this point, the left side of the bell, sales go up as does revenue, as do profits, as do jobs. Time passes and competition develops. This forces prices down making the thingy more affordable, meaning the market for the thingy gets bigger. At the top of the bell curve, everything is rosey.
Then a new product happens, replacing the thingy and we have the right side of the bell. Everything declines as consumers move on the to the "gizzy". This thing can take a picture of the Mars probe nearing the planet and lets you vote on a name for the first Martian. It does not yet have a universal language feature so we can tell him what we named him. Sales of the thingy decline as it is replaced by the gizzy.
On economy is a huge number of bell curves taken together. All kinds of products, all kinds of companies, some trying to remake themselves while others just disappear. The bell curve also works for skill sets. Individual skills are replaced as technology advances, workers are replaced by those who have newer skills applicable to new technologies. Jobs change in character or go away entirely.
Employment statistics are the result of bell curves super-imposed on each other. Some companies are growing while others are dying. Some are adding employees while others are laying off. Always, the supply of new jobs must compensate for those lost (terminated).
The foundation of innovation and productivity is education. It is no co-incidence that the decline of Americas economic fortunes has coincided with the decline of its education system relative to other countries. In the fifties and sixties America was well ahead of other nations in productivity. Our workers could handle more complicated tasks using more advance equipment. The larger wage cost per hour was more than offset by the number of units our workers could produce in that hour. Today, other nations have caught up with our level of education lowering their labor cost per hour and taking jobs away from us.
This is part of a recipe for a nation in decline. Other factors are hurting us but the way we teach and what we teach is a big part. Who should focus on changing that is the key to the solution. Stay tuned for that one.
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Shooting - An Act of Stupidity
The Act -
We live in a nation with free speech guaranteed by it's constituion and Bill of Rights. Amendment 1 in the Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievenaces." Simply put, we are guaranteed a two way transaction. There is a speaker and a listener. Both have responsibilites to the Constitution. The speaker should not yell fire in a crwded theatre when there is no fire. The listener should let the speaker finish a point and can respond verbally. On Saturday last, a U.S. Congresswoman and multiple bustanders were shot in public. The congresswoman was a democrat in a very conservative state with open carry gun laws. She was shot in an public gathering
The Weapon -
The Aftermath -
We live in a nation with free speech guaranteed by it's constituion and Bill of Rights. Amendment 1 in the Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an established religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievenaces." Simply put, we are guaranteed a two way transaction. There is a speaker and a listener. Both have responsibilites to the Constitution. The speaker should not yell fire in a crwded theatre when there is no fire. The listener should let the speaker finish a point and can respond verbally. On Saturday last, a U.S. Congresswoman and multiple bustanders were shot in public. The congresswoman was a democrat in a very conservative state with open carry gun laws. She was shot in an public gathering
The Weapon -
The Aftermath -
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Deficit From the Bottom Up
It seems the federal deficit has become the new version of American Idol. We started with great interest in the subject, then after week after week of exposure to this topic, we get saturated with the coverage (or exposure) and flip the channel to another video diversion. To complete the analogy, maybe the appropriate replacement programming would be ABC's "Wipeout".
The Constitution dictates that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives (Article 1 Section 7). Simply put, the House of Representatives does the budget and initiates all spending bills.
One of the cornerstones of conservative thought is that taxes should be as low as possible. The wisdom of that position is that you leave more money in the pockets of the people that earned it and they will spend some (increased economic activity, higher tax revenue) and they will save some (more money flowing in to banks, some of which can be loaned to companies and citizens who spend it, thus creating economic activity that is taxable also).
When you hear talk about the size and chronic nature of the deficit, the debate almost always comes with a call for lower taxes creating higher revenue. A few lone rangers (Senator Coburn comes to mind) stay on topic and bring up spending but most don't. That's exactly backwards and the heart of the problem.
The representatives of the people can establish taxes, which is the bureaucracy's balanced budget spending amount. If taxes are deemed to high, the people's representatives vote to lower them and spending must be adjusted accordingly. Our politicians have corrupted the process so we think of spending as a separate issue from revenue. No one (or not enough) has the courage to battle spending down to the revenue level. If you watch the news, the greatest amount of air time is devoted to the spending bills. That exposure causes the elected officials to "protect" the current spending levels no matter what. If it fits within government revenues, that's fine. If it doesn't, thou shalt not reduce spending. Although the preceding seems to be carved in stone, no one holding the stone tablet can be remotely compared to Moses or his higher higher up authority.
We can't solve the deficit because the political debate has been hijacked by those who would narrow it down to only a small portion of the issue. Revenue? Don't increase taxes to cover spending. Spending? Don't cut it to match revenue, just establish what is off limits, add lip service to cutting what is left, and leave the gap (known as deficit) to be reported and subsequently buried in arcane reporting of actual numbers and ignored by the politicians and citizens alike.
Please note that many states and municipalities have a balanced budget amendment in their Constitution or city charters. The one's that don't are making news for another reason these days. I refer to the "b" word, bankruptcy. Laugh, chortle, and guffaw at Oklahoma all you want America. We have such an amendment. The same with the other states who require living within their annual income, and champion not using a giant credit public card. When California, New York, and maybe our Federal government are in default or filing bankruptcy, the rest of us will be chugging along in life minding our checkbooks.
Once again the wisdom of the little common man and woman (please note veiled reference to traditional marriage here) will triumph.
The Constitution dictates that all revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives (Article 1 Section 7). Simply put, the House of Representatives does the budget and initiates all spending bills.
One of the cornerstones of conservative thought is that taxes should be as low as possible. The wisdom of that position is that you leave more money in the pockets of the people that earned it and they will spend some (increased economic activity, higher tax revenue) and they will save some (more money flowing in to banks, some of which can be loaned to companies and citizens who spend it, thus creating economic activity that is taxable also).
When you hear talk about the size and chronic nature of the deficit, the debate almost always comes with a call for lower taxes creating higher revenue. A few lone rangers (Senator Coburn comes to mind) stay on topic and bring up spending but most don't. That's exactly backwards and the heart of the problem.
The representatives of the people can establish taxes, which is the bureaucracy's balanced budget spending amount. If taxes are deemed to high, the people's representatives vote to lower them and spending must be adjusted accordingly. Our politicians have corrupted the process so we think of spending as a separate issue from revenue. No one (or not enough) has the courage to battle spending down to the revenue level. If you watch the news, the greatest amount of air time is devoted to the spending bills. That exposure causes the elected officials to "protect" the current spending levels no matter what. If it fits within government revenues, that's fine. If it doesn't, thou shalt not reduce spending. Although the preceding seems to be carved in stone, no one holding the stone tablet can be remotely compared to Moses or his higher higher up authority.
We can't solve the deficit because the political debate has been hijacked by those who would narrow it down to only a small portion of the issue. Revenue? Don't increase taxes to cover spending. Spending? Don't cut it to match revenue, just establish what is off limits, add lip service to cutting what is left, and leave the gap (known as deficit) to be reported and subsequently buried in arcane reporting of actual numbers and ignored by the politicians and citizens alike.
Please note that many states and municipalities have a balanced budget amendment in their Constitution or city charters. The one's that don't are making news for another reason these days. I refer to the "b" word, bankruptcy. Laugh, chortle, and guffaw at Oklahoma all you want America. We have such an amendment. The same with the other states who require living within their annual income, and champion not using a giant credit public card. When California, New York, and maybe our Federal government are in default or filing bankruptcy, the rest of us will be chugging along in life minding our checkbooks.
Once again the wisdom of the little common man and woman (please note veiled reference to traditional marriage here) will triumph.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Does the NCAA make a difference?
Here it is New Years Day. The climax of life's great pleasures, the annual football orgie. Wall to wall excess. The last and biggest of 35 bowl games named after everyone but your local chemical cockroach killing company. What was a tight little fraternity of 8 or nine bowls has fallen victim to the philosophy of "everybody" must get a trophy to feel good about themselves, or must get a bowl check and the extra month of practice to feel good about themselves. That's read have something to sell to recruits. These things are now named after everything from potato chips to cars.
Parallel to this is the circus that is Cam Newton and the Ohio State five. Newton's father (a preacher no less) supposedly shopped his son's services around for something like $150,000 to $180,000. Newton was let off the hook because it could not be proven that the player did not know what the father was doing. At Ohio State, Terrel Pryor and four other starters were suspended for selling team memorabilia to outsiders and pocketing the money. Total value of the money changing hands was about $2,000 to $2,500 per player. The suspension was for the first five games NEXT YEAR. Head Coach Jim Tressel said they could only play in the Sugar Bowl if they promised to return next year. What?????
Big time college football has gotten too big for the NCAA rule book. The enforcement division cannot keep up with number of violations if it wants to investigate each incident thoroughly. The only solution is to cut the ticky tack violations out of the rules and just punish "major" misconduct. This is the direction the conference consolidation is taking us.
Eventually, the BCS conferences will leave the NCAA and form their own umbrella organization. The BCS conferences are where the football money is and football money is power. Money means TV, TV means market size. With rare exceptions, the BCS conferences cover the top TV markets in the country. The ones they don't have are covered by mid-major football programs that are gradually migrating to BCS conferences. TCU to the Big East is a logical stretch but it still happened.
The new non NCAA umbrella will pay the players a stipend and that will be no problem given the TV money that flows to the major schools. What Oklahoma and Georgia opened up in 1982 (that right of schools to sign there own TV contracts) is at the core of this. That's where the "BIG Ten" network, the "SEC Network, et al, came from.
Until the conference re-alignment is done, and its isn't yet, we will have the above contradictions in the definition of a "player" in the NCAA. We will still have our post season orgy that climaxes today. But pause for a moment today and reflect on where we have come from. The Four Horsemen, Doc Blanchard, Roger Staubauch are fond memories of the baby boomer's childhoods or before. Things aren't that way any more. Pleased pass the Fiesta Bowl chips and call the shop and see if my bowl game muffler is installed yet. I have seen the enemy and he just converted third and long.
Parallel to this is the circus that is Cam Newton and the Ohio State five. Newton's father (a preacher no less) supposedly shopped his son's services around for something like $150,000 to $180,000. Newton was let off the hook because it could not be proven that the player did not know what the father was doing. At Ohio State, Terrel Pryor and four other starters were suspended for selling team memorabilia to outsiders and pocketing the money. Total value of the money changing hands was about $2,000 to $2,500 per player. The suspension was for the first five games NEXT YEAR. Head Coach Jim Tressel said they could only play in the Sugar Bowl if they promised to return next year. What?????
Big time college football has gotten too big for the NCAA rule book. The enforcement division cannot keep up with number of violations if it wants to investigate each incident thoroughly. The only solution is to cut the ticky tack violations out of the rules and just punish "major" misconduct. This is the direction the conference consolidation is taking us.
Eventually, the BCS conferences will leave the NCAA and form their own umbrella organization. The BCS conferences are where the football money is and football money is power. Money means TV, TV means market size. With rare exceptions, the BCS conferences cover the top TV markets in the country. The ones they don't have are covered by mid-major football programs that are gradually migrating to BCS conferences. TCU to the Big East is a logical stretch but it still happened.
The new non NCAA umbrella will pay the players a stipend and that will be no problem given the TV money that flows to the major schools. What Oklahoma and Georgia opened up in 1982 (that right of schools to sign there own TV contracts) is at the core of this. That's where the "BIG Ten" network, the "SEC Network, et al, came from.
Until the conference re-alignment is done, and its isn't yet, we will have the above contradictions in the definition of a "player" in the NCAA. We will still have our post season orgy that climaxes today. But pause for a moment today and reflect on where we have come from. The Four Horsemen, Doc Blanchard, Roger Staubauch are fond memories of the baby boomer's childhoods or before. Things aren't that way any more. Pleased pass the Fiesta Bowl chips and call the shop and see if my bowl game muffler is installed yet. I have seen the enemy and he just converted third and long.
Making Choices - Not Limitless
I like to live vicariously through Tom Silva and Norm Abrams. For those who aren't schooled in Public Broadcasting, they are the principals on "This Old House". The current project gives me pause for reflection.
The "old house" is getting an outside deck on several levels. For safety as well as appearance, the decks have railings surrounding them. The decking material itself is a recycled composite with some plastics in it. The rails and posts are all plastic. In this lies the conundrum.
Plastics are petroleum based. They are used in construction to replace actual wood, which saves our forests, which is an environmental benefit. The plastic material is made of, among other things, petroleum. Petroleum is about 80% imported, some from our least favorite trading partners. Namely Venezuela, several middle east countries, etc. In this particular transaction, we are saving or preserving our forests, greening America, at the expense of running up our trade deficit. One raw resource replaces another. Is this a net benefit.
A trade deficit is paid for by U.S. dollars. Currency is similar to any other product or commodity. If the supply is greater than the demand, the price goes down. If the world economy is flooded with U.S. dollars, the exchange rate goes down. The dollar is worth less in terms of other currencies. Since we have a trade deficit overall and we pay our bills mostly in dollars, the price of the goods we import goes up when the value (exchange rate) of the dollar goes down. Thus, the cost of the plastics that goes in to our wonderful "old house" that entertains me so much, goes up. Meaning the cost of the house renovation goes up. Meaning fewer people can afford to renovate their houses if they use the same product. Meaning we want to return to wood if it is the cheaper material, cutting down the trees we try to save. In order to keep the renovation market vibrant, employing more carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and loggers who cut down trees.
Is it a net benefit to replace the use of one dwindling resource by using another dwindling resource that is imported? Maybe in the short term, but not a long term solution if you consider the overall economy. My parents and Scoutmaster in my childhood and adolescence taught me to leave a campsite better than you left it. That's the admirable goal of most environmentalists. What we face today is a declining economy as long as we continue to rely so heavily on imports for what amounts to a basic necessity of life, spelled P-E-T-R-O-E-U-M.
Nuff said about the obvious.
The "old house" is getting an outside deck on several levels. For safety as well as appearance, the decks have railings surrounding them. The decking material itself is a recycled composite with some plastics in it. The rails and posts are all plastic. In this lies the conundrum.
Plastics are petroleum based. They are used in construction to replace actual wood, which saves our forests, which is an environmental benefit. The plastic material is made of, among other things, petroleum. Petroleum is about 80% imported, some from our least favorite trading partners. Namely Venezuela, several middle east countries, etc. In this particular transaction, we are saving or preserving our forests, greening America, at the expense of running up our trade deficit. One raw resource replaces another. Is this a net benefit.
A trade deficit is paid for by U.S. dollars. Currency is similar to any other product or commodity. If the supply is greater than the demand, the price goes down. If the world economy is flooded with U.S. dollars, the exchange rate goes down. The dollar is worth less in terms of other currencies. Since we have a trade deficit overall and we pay our bills mostly in dollars, the price of the goods we import goes up when the value (exchange rate) of the dollar goes down. Thus, the cost of the plastics that goes in to our wonderful "old house" that entertains me so much, goes up. Meaning the cost of the house renovation goes up. Meaning fewer people can afford to renovate their houses if they use the same product. Meaning we want to return to wood if it is the cheaper material, cutting down the trees we try to save. In order to keep the renovation market vibrant, employing more carpenters, plumbers, electricians, and loggers who cut down trees.
Is it a net benefit to replace the use of one dwindling resource by using another dwindling resource that is imported? Maybe in the short term, but not a long term solution if you consider the overall economy. My parents and Scoutmaster in my childhood and adolescence taught me to leave a campsite better than you left it. That's the admirable goal of most environmentalists. What we face today is a declining economy as long as we continue to rely so heavily on imports for what amounts to a basic necessity of life, spelled P-E-T-R-O-E-U-M.
Nuff said about the obvious.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Bubba - Say its really so
Here went the merry go round of University of Tulsa Sports. Nolan Richardson was at Tulsa for five years, then Arkansas and a national title. Tubby Self was here four years, went to sweet 16's then Georgia and Kentucky, now Minnesota. Bill Self was at Tulsa for three or four years, made it to the elite eight, then left for Illinois and then Kansas (national title). Enter Buzz Peterson, exit Buzz Peterson/ One NIT Title.
We now have Doug Wojcik, who has been here five years going on six and this year had his most talented roster until those lousy knees got in the way. Last night, the remainder of Wojcik's team shone brightly, winning a double overtime game after three straight losses. Wojcik has rebuilt a program from rock bottom in to a solid contender with great demographics. Only one senior graduating from this roster.
Whats that tell you? That a little school can get good coaches for a time. The question is what is the quality of the roster and infra-structure they leave behind? Richardson had a rebuilding job and solved with his own juco national championship players from Western Texas. He left a treasure trove of players for JD Barnett to continue winning. Smith, Steve Robinson and Buzz Peterson likewise. Self, and Wojcik solved it one piece at a time by recruiting from the high schools and flat out coaching everybody up. Remember Wojcik's warriors were on their 4th point guard last night, and when Shane Hiermann went out, in came Bryson Pope who shone brightly. This year is Wojcik's best coaching performance of his TU career.
All that to say yesterday's announcement that Bubba Cunningham was staying was more evidence that TU is solidly entrenched in quality, and is of singular importance. Over five years Cunningham has "presided" over facilities improvements, as well as hiring Todd Graham, Wojcik and others. Presided may too benign a description. LEAD is more accurate. The comprehensive program BC has lead is number one in CUSA based on total championships won.
Prior to Bubba Cunningham, Judy McLeod was our AD for 10 years plus. Just for comic relief, in 1999, McLeod hired Keith Burns as head football coach. Burns came to TU from Arkansas where he was the defensive coordinator (?) and a position coach. Result? Records of (5-7) (1-10) (1-11), fired. Who'd we get to save us from that era? Steve Kragthorpe, he of CUSA title and multiple bowl game fame. Then, onward to Louisville. McLeod also lead the facility improvements at TU.
Conclusion, pay your athletic director very well and keep him or her. The above named coaches were and are indespensible. They and their players are the showcase. But the showcase must have a framework, a pedestal, hinges and rollers, and a building to protect the showcase, a foundation for the building, etc. That's the AD among many other things. Not just a gladhander, though some get by with that. Athletic directors are leaders whose value is what doesn't go wrong as well as what goes right. The not yet ready for leadership It's our good fortune Kansas sisn't get him.head coach passed on, the disciplinary control over NCAA rules so penalties don't dismantle a reputation and a team. Tulsa has Bubba Cunningham for who knows how long.
We now have Doug Wojcik, who has been here five years going on six and this year had his most talented roster until those lousy knees got in the way. Last night, the remainder of Wojcik's team shone brightly, winning a double overtime game after three straight losses. Wojcik has rebuilt a program from rock bottom in to a solid contender with great demographics. Only one senior graduating from this roster.
Whats that tell you? That a little school can get good coaches for a time. The question is what is the quality of the roster and infra-structure they leave behind? Richardson had a rebuilding job and solved with his own juco national championship players from Western Texas. He left a treasure trove of players for JD Barnett to continue winning. Smith, Steve Robinson and Buzz Peterson likewise. Self, and Wojcik solved it one piece at a time by recruiting from the high schools and flat out coaching everybody up. Remember Wojcik's warriors were on their 4th point guard last night, and when Shane Hiermann went out, in came Bryson Pope who shone brightly. This year is Wojcik's best coaching performance of his TU career.
All that to say yesterday's announcement that Bubba Cunningham was staying was more evidence that TU is solidly entrenched in quality, and is of singular importance. Over five years Cunningham has "presided" over facilities improvements, as well as hiring Todd Graham, Wojcik and others. Presided may too benign a description. LEAD is more accurate. The comprehensive program BC has lead is number one in CUSA based on total championships won.
Prior to Bubba Cunningham, Judy McLeod was our AD for 10 years plus. Just for comic relief, in 1999, McLeod hired Keith Burns as head football coach. Burns came to TU from Arkansas where he was the defensive coordinator (?) and a position coach. Result? Records of (5-7) (1-10) (1-11), fired. Who'd we get to save us from that era? Steve Kragthorpe, he of CUSA title and multiple bowl game fame. Then, onward to Louisville. McLeod also lead the facility improvements at TU.
Conclusion, pay your athletic director very well and keep him or her. The above named coaches were and are indespensible. They and their players are the showcase. But the showcase must have a framework, a pedestal, hinges and rollers, and a building to protect the showcase, a foundation for the building, etc. That's the AD among many other things. Not just a gladhander, though some get by with that. Athletic directors are leaders whose value is what doesn't go wrong as well as what goes right. The not yet ready for leadership It's our good fortune Kansas sisn't get him.head coach passed on, the disciplinary control over NCAA rules so penalties don't dismantle a reputation and a team. Tulsa has Bubba Cunningham for who knows how long.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Keep both chins up - It will happen
The idea of searching for a job in this economy is daunting. The interplay between jobs that are disappearing and new ones created to take their place is heavily weighted in favor the disappeared. Add to that the reality of being at the stage of life where your chin is plural (double), in other words sixty years old, it becomes uber daunting.
Its easy to get caught in no man's land when it comes to strategy. Total networking, a form of salesmanship, or internet/Linked-in. Do search companies (employment agencies) work? Just how do you connect with the right people when you've never met them?
Rule 1 has to be, find a strategy that keeps you engaged and refreshed. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even if you never had a tendency towards depression before, you are vulnerable during times of job loss. Sliding down that hole is a bigger obstacle than anything because it is the first thing that happens to the job seeker.
First, concentrate on the fact that this is not your fault. You were not fired, you were laid off. There wasn't anything you could have done to prevent it. It was out of your hands. When you accept that, you will have conquered the 800 pound gorilla in the room with you.
Second, develop a strategy for focusing on something outside of the job search. It has to be something you do everyday as a mental and spiritual vacation. Mediation, yoga, an exercise routine, writing, something that you can accomplish and refresh your mind.
Third, talk to your spouse. This is a time of your life where you don't have to be meeting the next deadline, living up to the bosses expectations, making sure the next performance evaluation has a snowballs chance in hell of including a raise. Your spouse is your biggest fan and also a resource. The time focused on each other is a means of recharging your spirit.
Fourth, seek out people that know more than you do. Ask them how to search, where to search, what is out there to go after. The tendency toward isolation is in all of us.
Resisting isolation will bear fruit in the sense that while you are asking the questions, you are also networking. You are in the job hunt, activley pursuing a resolution to your employment and having some success doing it in another persons presence.
Notice I didn't give any advise about the search itself. The foundation of the search process is the searcher. A clear, informed mind will find a solution. The process is important but has to be executed by that clear committed mind. Taking care of your mind, your outlook on the situation, and utilizing that wondrous asset on the couch next to you (spouse) is the beginning of it all. And this time of your life is only temporary. REALLY HONEST TO BRETT FAVRE WITHOUT A DOUBT
Its easy to get caught in no man's land when it comes to strategy. Total networking, a form of salesmanship, or internet/Linked-in. Do search companies (employment agencies) work? Just how do you connect with the right people when you've never met them?
Rule 1 has to be, find a strategy that keeps you engaged and refreshed. The two are not mutually exclusive. Even if you never had a tendency towards depression before, you are vulnerable during times of job loss. Sliding down that hole is a bigger obstacle than anything because it is the first thing that happens to the job seeker.
First, concentrate on the fact that this is not your fault. You were not fired, you were laid off. There wasn't anything you could have done to prevent it. It was out of your hands. When you accept that, you will have conquered the 800 pound gorilla in the room with you.
Second, develop a strategy for focusing on something outside of the job search. It has to be something you do everyday as a mental and spiritual vacation. Mediation, yoga, an exercise routine, writing, something that you can accomplish and refresh your mind.
Third, talk to your spouse. This is a time of your life where you don't have to be meeting the next deadline, living up to the bosses expectations, making sure the next performance evaluation has a snowballs chance in hell of including a raise. Your spouse is your biggest fan and also a resource. The time focused on each other is a means of recharging your spirit.
Fourth, seek out people that know more than you do. Ask them how to search, where to search, what is out there to go after. The tendency toward isolation is in all of us.
Resisting isolation will bear fruit in the sense that while you are asking the questions, you are also networking. You are in the job hunt, activley pursuing a resolution to your employment and having some success doing it in another persons presence.
Notice I didn't give any advise about the search itself. The foundation of the search process is the searcher. A clear, informed mind will find a solution. The process is important but has to be executed by that clear committed mind. Taking care of your mind, your outlook on the situation, and utilizing that wondrous asset on the couch next to you (spouse) is the beginning of it all. And this time of your life is only temporary. REALLY HONEST TO BRETT FAVRE WITHOUT A DOUBT
Advertise? - Where?
Counselors Chris Trail and G.T. Bynum propose raising additional revenue by placing ads on city vehicles. Congratulations for thinking outside the billboard. Is this really a net addition to city revenue?
First, both Trail and Bynum are intelligent men. Trail has run a restaurant widely known in Tulsa. That industry in a notoriously tough environment in which to survive, let alone profit and prosper. Bynum has a more diverse career going on. His public utterances on city issues are at least articulate and original, even if I don't always agree with him. The source of the idea is credible.
It's also not all that practical. The proposal was to advertise on city vehicles and property. The vehicles are a problem. They are small and already have verbiage and/or ID numbers on them. How much space is left on a truck or sedan? Further, given the available space, the vehicles would have to stationary or travelling very slow for anyone to read the ad. And by the way, could this advertising include police cars and fire trucks? I wonder if that's even legal. I am certainly not ready to see a fire truck racing by me on a call while extolling the value of a Little Debbie snack cake. Something of a credibility issue there.
As far as city property, would the signage ordinances even allow it? The TMAPC is from time to time hearing cases and requests about variances to the sign ordinances for billboards. If the Bynum - Trail idea envisions billboards, who would pay to construct it? What are the operating costs if it is digital? If these are the more standard wood frame or metal frame sings, who maintains them?
Most importantly, who establishes the rates the city will charge? Surely there isn't an employee already on the city payroll that has experiencing establishing ad rates in this market. Is this another "consultant" the city will have to hire?
Keep in mind this idea is VOAB (Void of Any Benefit) if its not a net positive cash flow. And it could well become another boondoggle if all the costs are not tracked through a newly established enterprise fund that accumulates all the costs and revenues from the advertising activity.
Bynum was careful to emphasize that this is something to evaluated first (my words, not his). True enough, here's hoping that evaluation is with an open mind. The devil is in the details.
First, both Trail and Bynum are intelligent men. Trail has run a restaurant widely known in Tulsa. That industry in a notoriously tough environment in which to survive, let alone profit and prosper. Bynum has a more diverse career going on. His public utterances on city issues are at least articulate and original, even if I don't always agree with him. The source of the idea is credible.
It's also not all that practical. The proposal was to advertise on city vehicles and property. The vehicles are a problem. They are small and already have verbiage and/or ID numbers on them. How much space is left on a truck or sedan? Further, given the available space, the vehicles would have to stationary or travelling very slow for anyone to read the ad. And by the way, could this advertising include police cars and fire trucks? I wonder if that's even legal. I am certainly not ready to see a fire truck racing by me on a call while extolling the value of a Little Debbie snack cake. Something of a credibility issue there.
As far as city property, would the signage ordinances even allow it? The TMAPC is from time to time hearing cases and requests about variances to the sign ordinances for billboards. If the Bynum - Trail idea envisions billboards, who would pay to construct it? What are the operating costs if it is digital? If these are the more standard wood frame or metal frame sings, who maintains them?
Most importantly, who establishes the rates the city will charge? Surely there isn't an employee already on the city payroll that has experiencing establishing ad rates in this market. Is this another "consultant" the city will have to hire?
Keep in mind this idea is VOAB (Void of Any Benefit) if its not a net positive cash flow. And it could well become another boondoggle if all the costs are not tracked through a newly established enterprise fund that accumulates all the costs and revenues from the advertising activity.
Bynum was careful to emphasize that this is something to evaluated first (my words, not his). True enough, here's hoping that evaluation is with an open mind. The devil is in the details.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
THERE'S A FLAW IN THE OINTMENT
It's now 15 months since my own personal recession started. With the increased amount of time to watch our elected officials pull us out of the recession and the high unemployment rates comes greater clarity.
I remember Ronald Reagan once intoned on his radio commentary " Government in, of, and by itself has no wealth. The only wealth government can have is that which government has taken away from the governed.". In other words those who actually did the work to create the wealth in the first place. The late ex-President's remarks implied that government does not (should not?) create wealth. Further, government does not create anything that brings wealth. Not because it is without collective intellect, not because it is inherantly evil (that can't be true because government is made up of US), not because government is without justification in some form. Government cannot exist without "our" money to spend. Government by itself does not earn a living and pay the bills. It takes from us what it needs to survive.
This protracted recession has been plied with "stimulus" from the public treasury. Banks were propped up when they did not generate liquidiy on their own. Jobs are not being created in sufficient numbers to bring down unemployment. What's going on here?
The House and Senate are wrangling over passing or changing the Bush tax cuts. The biggest issue is what to about the wealthy. In fact, part of that debate revolves around what is wealthy? At least part of the debate of wealthy is how to include profitable existing companies and the small businesses that average Americans start from zero. How much do we tax the very people we all either work for or want to work for?
How about a short business lesson. First, the profit is not a luxury. It's evidence of greed. It's a requirement for any company to survive. That's becauase the legal definition of net income does not include all the spending required for that company to compete in it's market place. Profits go to develop new products, explore and penetrate new markets for existing products. Profit is also what pays for employee raises, cost increases in benefits, cost increases on inputs to the company's products, and the asset base the business requires. Bulldozers, flower delivery trucks, and vertical boring mills don't last forever but niether do they routinely wear in less than a year.
Profit is also what drives the hiring of additional employees, and one facet of convicing management to replace the ones that leave. What else gets paid out of profits? Federal, state, local..........governments, through taxes. Higher taxes mean lower profits, a shrunken pool of resources to continue the business in a healthy state.
Any business has a life cycle, just like its products. They start out as an innovation of some kind and conintue on a rising tide of sales volume. As the product matures (ages) adn competition develops, sales dollars level off. When that happens, other newer products take over the market and the original leader in the market place declines in sales volume. Eventually, the mature product becomes obsolete and sales revenue disappears.
That cycle describles the marriage between companies, profits, and a healthy a healthy job market. The mature comapanies' workforces go through layoffs and at the same time new jobs are created by the newer products and companies in the same economy. Profitable companies that successfully develop replacement products and processes as the maketplace requires maintain a stable or growing employee base. Those that don't, shrink or cease to exist.
Over time, the U.S. has lost jobs, mostly manufacturing, to foreign countries for a variety of reasons. Wage rates are the predominant reason, but also countries that have less developed governmental bureaucracies have been more attractive. Singapore offered a five year tax holiday to companies that would open offices there in the 1980's and 1990's. America has become a population of people trying to sell each other insurance or investments. Nothing against people who work in those pursuits, just a metaphor. We have ceased to be the planets chief innovator.
The debate in Washington is over raising more revenue. The federal government is trapped in to doing this due to the moutainous (even by federal standards) level of the deficit. The above narrative is to say simply this. How do we reduce the deficit? More revenue? Less spending? If government takes more moeny out of the economy (tax rate increases over 2009) less will be available to companies to stay competitve and growing. Are the rates limited to personal income rates? That includes a lot of people who put the self employment income on their 1040's. Those companies will be less likely to grow in to job creating engines.
The foundation of job creation is the relationship between companies on the rise and companies on the decline. Those on the rise come largely from sole propietor's that invest time, talent, and hard work to start what eventually become new enterprises. There is a flaw in the remedy politicans seem want for our economy. That's right, ours, the American citizenry. Just ask Cheter Cadieu Sr. (QuikTrip) or T. D. Williamson Sr. (TD Williamson Inc.) how that works, then pass on what you learn to Washington.
I remember Ronald Reagan once intoned on his radio commentary " Government in, of, and by itself has no wealth. The only wealth government can have is that which government has taken away from the governed.". In other words those who actually did the work to create the wealth in the first place. The late ex-President's remarks implied that government does not (should not?) create wealth. Further, government does not create anything that brings wealth. Not because it is without collective intellect, not because it is inherantly evil (that can't be true because government is made up of US), not because government is without justification in some form. Government cannot exist without "our" money to spend. Government by itself does not earn a living and pay the bills. It takes from us what it needs to survive.
This protracted recession has been plied with "stimulus" from the public treasury. Banks were propped up when they did not generate liquidiy on their own. Jobs are not being created in sufficient numbers to bring down unemployment. What's going on here?
The House and Senate are wrangling over passing or changing the Bush tax cuts. The biggest issue is what to about the wealthy. In fact, part of that debate revolves around what is wealthy? At least part of the debate of wealthy is how to include profitable existing companies and the small businesses that average Americans start from zero. How much do we tax the very people we all either work for or want to work for?
How about a short business lesson. First, the profit is not a luxury. It's evidence of greed. It's a requirement for any company to survive. That's becauase the legal definition of net income does not include all the spending required for that company to compete in it's market place. Profits go to develop new products, explore and penetrate new markets for existing products. Profit is also what pays for employee raises, cost increases in benefits, cost increases on inputs to the company's products, and the asset base the business requires. Bulldozers, flower delivery trucks, and vertical boring mills don't last forever but niether do they routinely wear in less than a year.
Profit is also what drives the hiring of additional employees, and one facet of convicing management to replace the ones that leave. What else gets paid out of profits? Federal, state, local..........governments, through taxes. Higher taxes mean lower profits, a shrunken pool of resources to continue the business in a healthy state.
Any business has a life cycle, just like its products. They start out as an innovation of some kind and conintue on a rising tide of sales volume. As the product matures (ages) adn competition develops, sales dollars level off. When that happens, other newer products take over the market and the original leader in the market place declines in sales volume. Eventually, the mature product becomes obsolete and sales revenue disappears.
That cycle describles the marriage between companies, profits, and a healthy a healthy job market. The mature comapanies' workforces go through layoffs and at the same time new jobs are created by the newer products and companies in the same economy. Profitable companies that successfully develop replacement products and processes as the maketplace requires maintain a stable or growing employee base. Those that don't, shrink or cease to exist.
Over time, the U.S. has lost jobs, mostly manufacturing, to foreign countries for a variety of reasons. Wage rates are the predominant reason, but also countries that have less developed governmental bureaucracies have been more attractive. Singapore offered a five year tax holiday to companies that would open offices there in the 1980's and 1990's. America has become a population of people trying to sell each other insurance or investments. Nothing against people who work in those pursuits, just a metaphor. We have ceased to be the planets chief innovator.
The debate in Washington is over raising more revenue. The federal government is trapped in to doing this due to the moutainous (even by federal standards) level of the deficit. The above narrative is to say simply this. How do we reduce the deficit? More revenue? Less spending? If government takes more moeny out of the economy (tax rate increases over 2009) less will be available to companies to stay competitve and growing. Are the rates limited to personal income rates? That includes a lot of people who put the self employment income on their 1040's. Those companies will be less likely to grow in to job creating engines.
The foundation of job creation is the relationship between companies on the rise and companies on the decline. Those on the rise come largely from sole propietor's that invest time, talent, and hard work to start what eventually become new enterprises. There is a flaw in the remedy politicans seem want for our economy. That's right, ours, the American citizenry. Just ask Cheter Cadieu Sr. (QuikTrip) or T. D. Williamson Sr. (TD Williamson Inc.) how that works, then pass on what you learn to Washington.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Tonight at 7:00 Central....................
LaBron James returns to Cleveland, Ohio to play his first game in that city after his elongated, over elevated, over publicized move to the Miami Heat. This is not just a run of the mill event, it's Cleveland and its storied but tortured sports history.
The drive. Ninety nine yards in the closing minutes by the Denver Broncos and John Elway. No Super Bowl for the real Browns. The fumble. The next year, again versus the Broncos and Elway, Ernest Byner loses the ball before not after goiing in to the endzone for the winnig touchdown. Once more, no Browns Super Bowl.
Go back in history. In 1954, Willie Mays made the catch of his life against the Indians in the World Series. An over the shoulder grab nearly to the center field wall. Giants win the series, Giants win the series, Giants win the series. The Indians never return until 1996 when closer Jose Mesa and his 100 MPH fastball blew up in the ninth inning and gave the Braves that piece of history.
This is the city that lost the Browns to Baltimore because of a prudent financial decision. Cleveland's economy was in a down cycle and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new stadium just wasn't rational. So Art Modell left for Baltimore, itself jilted when the Colts ran off and eloped with Indianapolis. This is the city that got a new set of Browns years later and drafted Tim Couch as its quarterback of the future. Couch was a better piece of furniture than a passer.
Remember that the Los Angeles Rams were the Cleveland Rams before they moved west. Remember that this was the city reffered to as the "mistake on the lake" when Dennis Kucinich was mayor. Remember, if memory serves that Cleveland either declared, or came close to declaring bankruptcy in the 1970's. Remember this was the city that referred to its NBA franchise as the "Cadavers", not Cavaliers, in the teams early years. This is the city where the river that flows through it caught fire, chemical slicks float on the surface. This city has been left at the alter without a bride, the border without a visa, the drive through window without a menu.
LaBron James can't be held accountable for the past that is Cleveland's. He didn't create the history. He can't be held accountable for his decision. Owners routinely trade players before their contracts are done, though some players have rights of refusal. Why shouldn't the dethroned King James be able to make a decision after he has completed his contract?
What James did was rub Cleveland's nose in the situation of the floor. The length of the tease, the one hour "decision" show, the mysterious process he went through with Cav's owner Dan Gilbert.
Tonight's game warrants an answer for all the above. Clevelanders will blame James for everything they can think of. By the time the game starts, they will think its his fault the intern forgot the donuts for the planning meeting. Will he do the powder throw tonight? Is it nostalgia when the memory turns your stomach in to a brick?
When I lived in the Akron-Cleveland area, it was as a child and adolescent. When I look back on those memories, its as an adult recounting youth. We always had heros. Most of them were athletes and the adulation connected the adults and the kids for some really special moments. James jumped in to that process as a high school aged man, then left for greener pastures. He can't be faulted for that. Show the guy some repect and say thank you for the time with us. You will never have it that good with the fans again.
The drive. Ninety nine yards in the closing minutes by the Denver Broncos and John Elway. No Super Bowl for the real Browns. The fumble. The next year, again versus the Broncos and Elway, Ernest Byner loses the ball before not after goiing in to the endzone for the winnig touchdown. Once more, no Browns Super Bowl.
Go back in history. In 1954, Willie Mays made the catch of his life against the Indians in the World Series. An over the shoulder grab nearly to the center field wall. Giants win the series, Giants win the series, Giants win the series. The Indians never return until 1996 when closer Jose Mesa and his 100 MPH fastball blew up in the ninth inning and gave the Braves that piece of history.
This is the city that lost the Browns to Baltimore because of a prudent financial decision. Cleveland's economy was in a down cycle and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a new stadium just wasn't rational. So Art Modell left for Baltimore, itself jilted when the Colts ran off and eloped with Indianapolis. This is the city that got a new set of Browns years later and drafted Tim Couch as its quarterback of the future. Couch was a better piece of furniture than a passer.
Remember that the Los Angeles Rams were the Cleveland Rams before they moved west. Remember that this was the city reffered to as the "mistake on the lake" when Dennis Kucinich was mayor. Remember, if memory serves that Cleveland either declared, or came close to declaring bankruptcy in the 1970's. Remember this was the city that referred to its NBA franchise as the "Cadavers", not Cavaliers, in the teams early years. This is the city where the river that flows through it caught fire, chemical slicks float on the surface. This city has been left at the alter without a bride, the border without a visa, the drive through window without a menu.
LaBron James can't be held accountable for the past that is Cleveland's. He didn't create the history. He can't be held accountable for his decision. Owners routinely trade players before their contracts are done, though some players have rights of refusal. Why shouldn't the dethroned King James be able to make a decision after he has completed his contract?
What James did was rub Cleveland's nose in the situation of the floor. The length of the tease, the one hour "decision" show, the mysterious process he went through with Cav's owner Dan Gilbert.
Tonight's game warrants an answer for all the above. Clevelanders will blame James for everything they can think of. By the time the game starts, they will think its his fault the intern forgot the donuts for the planning meeting. Will he do the powder throw tonight? Is it nostalgia when the memory turns your stomach in to a brick?
When I lived in the Akron-Cleveland area, it was as a child and adolescent. When I look back on those memories, its as an adult recounting youth. We always had heros. Most of them were athletes and the adulation connected the adults and the kids for some really special moments. James jumped in to that process as a high school aged man, then left for greener pastures. He can't be faulted for that. Show the guy some repect and say thank you for the time with us. You will never have it that good with the fans again.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Christmas Parade? - Shariah Law?
The controversy that blew up this morning makes me wonder as well as wander.
Tulsa has had a traditional "Christmas Parade" for years. I remember going to it in the 1950's with my own parents. It's been labeled a "Christmas Parade" throughout its history. So this year a new sponsor renamed it, "Holiday Parade".
In the first chapter of the Book of Acts we find the following statement by Jesus himself. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will be my witnesses in Jersusalem, and in all Judea, and to the ends of the earth." This was spoken to the Apostles by Jesus himeslf after His crucifixion and before He ascended to Heaven. This verse is commonly called "The Great Commission". In many denominations, and in my mind, this is interpreted as Jesus speaking to all Christians throughout time. Why is it a problem to use the word "Christmas" which includes the word "Christ", making it a candidate for exclusion in favor of the blander and less meaningful "Holidays"?
This on the heels of a court decision that delays the effective date of State question 755 "State Question 755 poses a clear violation of my religious freedoms," the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said. "Throughout American history, the courts have found in favor of the Constitution." according to Maneer Awad who filed the initial legal action. The question bans the recognition of Islamic Shariah law in Okalhoma as well as other portions of international law. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101201_16_A13_CUTLIN506944
The U.S. Consitution's Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establiishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise excercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances." The first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution is about "freedom of religion". Is that not a message rrom the founding fathers on their prioirties?
The two events are dis-similar but joined by subject. No law was passed in the parade issue. A change in sponsors brought a change in title. The question is "why?". What is it about the presence of the the word "Christ" that must be dealt with? It's not even a standalone word, it a syllable. Its been the topic of the parade since I was a child, a time when dirt was a relatively new substance. Is the Great Commission fading from our conscious will as a group?
The state question is a different type of story. Over 70% of those voting on this question in the last election voted yes for the ban. Webster's Student Dictionary, pub date 1999, defines "respecting" as "about or concerning". The same volume defines the root "respect" as "concern or consideration". In other words favoring.
We live in a time when committment and sacrifice are waning. The great commission was enunciated shortly before the ascention and before the stoning of Stephen for merely speaking out in defense of Jesus teaching. The Constitution was written after a war for independence based on principles. Today, the divorce rate (committment to marriage and one's spouse) is rising. Voting (committment to one's democracy) is lower than ever. Church membership, in the mainstream denominations, is in great decline. That trend is only partially offset by the rise of the Mega Churches such as John Hagee, Rick Warren, and locally Bob Yandian, Willy George, and others. Change and evolution are good things in a lot of areas of life. Society without fundamental foundations is like houses built on sand. They may start with a foundation but it soon cracks, costs a lot to repair, and ends up not supporting what it was intended to.
Tulsa has had a traditional "Christmas Parade" for years. I remember going to it in the 1950's with my own parents. It's been labeled a "Christmas Parade" throughout its history. So this year a new sponsor renamed it, "Holiday Parade".
In the first chapter of the Book of Acts we find the following statement by Jesus himself. "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. And you will be my witnesses in Jersusalem, and in all Judea, and to the ends of the earth." This was spoken to the Apostles by Jesus himeslf after His crucifixion and before He ascended to Heaven. This verse is commonly called "The Great Commission". In many denominations, and in my mind, this is interpreted as Jesus speaking to all Christians throughout time. Why is it a problem to use the word "Christmas" which includes the word "Christ", making it a candidate for exclusion in favor of the blander and less meaningful "Holidays"?
This on the heels of a court decision that delays the effective date of State question 755 "State Question 755 poses a clear violation of my religious freedoms," the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said. "Throughout American history, the courts have found in favor of the Constitution." according to Maneer Awad who filed the initial legal action. The question bans the recognition of Islamic Shariah law in Okalhoma as well as other portions of international law. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20101201_16_A13_CUTLIN506944
The U.S. Consitution's Bill of Rights states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establiishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise excercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of greivances." The first sentence of the first amendment to the Constitution is about "freedom of religion". Is that not a message rrom the founding fathers on their prioirties?
The two events are dis-similar but joined by subject. No law was passed in the parade issue. A change in sponsors brought a change in title. The question is "why?". What is it about the presence of the the word "Christ" that must be dealt with? It's not even a standalone word, it a syllable. Its been the topic of the parade since I was a child, a time when dirt was a relatively new substance. Is the Great Commission fading from our conscious will as a group?
The state question is a different type of story. Over 70% of those voting on this question in the last election voted yes for the ban. Webster's Student Dictionary, pub date 1999, defines "respecting" as "about or concerning". The same volume defines the root "respect" as "concern or consideration". In other words favoring.
We live in a time when committment and sacrifice are waning. The great commission was enunciated shortly before the ascention and before the stoning of Stephen for merely speaking out in defense of Jesus teaching. The Constitution was written after a war for independence based on principles. Today, the divorce rate (committment to marriage and one's spouse) is rising. Voting (committment to one's democracy) is lower than ever. Church membership, in the mainstream denominations, is in great decline. That trend is only partially offset by the rise of the Mega Churches such as John Hagee, Rick Warren, and locally Bob Yandian, Willy George, and others. Change and evolution are good things in a lot of areas of life. Society without fundamental foundations is like houses built on sand. They may start with a foundation but it soon cracks, costs a lot to repair, and ends up not supporting what it was intended to.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Back from the dead
The University of Tulsa football team continues its resurrection this Saturday. After a season opening heartbreak at East Carolina (51-49) in which a 6'6" receiver out jumped a 6'0" (if that) TU defender for the decisive score, TU suffered the ignominy of losing to Oklahoma State (65-28) in which the entire OSU roster out jumped TU's best for the whole game. The turnaround benchmark was the victory over Notre Dame (28-27) followed by a (64-27) pasta-ing or pasting of Rice University. Tulsa's roster accepted the acclaim for an historic victory, let it go and prepared for a new game one week later, and surgically took apart that opponent.
That OSU team has pummeled nearly everyone on the way to this Saturday. It has a change to pull off the Boone Pickens Christmas gift, beating Texas and OU in the same year. That Notre Dame hasn't beaten anyone of note but itself on the way to a worse season than last year. TU has one loss margin that was likely correct (OSU), and one win that was richly deserved and earned (Notre Dame).
Now TUlsa goes to Houston to face off against the other Houston based school, one of the West division leaders. A win would give Tulsa a tie breaker advantage over Houston (head to head win). Tulsa's other nemesis (SMU) owns an earlier (21-18) win over the Hurricane, so first place is not entirely in the Hurricane's hands. It is on the horizon if they can take it.
But consider the way this weekend's game looks to the players and coaches at Tulsa. No matter what the venue Houston plays in, or the number of fans that attend the game, or the attitude and volume the Houston fans produce, it cannot compare with the same factors Tulsa faced in South Bend, Indiana and overcame. Tulsa will have to take the confidence it gained at Notre Dame and the focus and clarity of purpose it showed against Rice and focus all on Houston. Tulsa has shown the tools to beat Houston.
What's all this got to do with a blog by a still unemployed accounting and finance worker bee? Greatness is not just found in large scale movements or accomplishments. Greatness is found in the small as well as large. The fallacy of the BCS conferences in any sport is that they limit themselves. They look for and find their supremacy only in the large scale stadia, the large TV markets, the large population centers, the large universities with their huge dollar budgets to spend on sports. Volume and size are not the totality of greatness. Greatness is not only grandeur. Success is not just spectacle.
Greatness is also in what you overcome on the way to your accomplishment, not the size of what you end up with. Writing a great book can be done with double A batteries as one of the tools. It doesn't take much talent to find a lunker bass with a fast boat and on-board radar. It just takes money and time. Finding the lunker by just looking the signs of structure and knowing the lake does take talent. It also takes time.
We all can achieve great things. Pursue it for yourself. We're are small compared to Boone Pickens wealth and touchdown Jesus, but not bereft of skills, value, and ability. We are not insignificant. Pursue jobs over time and learn as you go. Follow what the job search experts tell you to do. Always remembering you can overcome anything, even that which is bigger than you.
That OSU team has pummeled nearly everyone on the way to this Saturday. It has a change to pull off the Boone Pickens Christmas gift, beating Texas and OU in the same year. That Notre Dame hasn't beaten anyone of note but itself on the way to a worse season than last year. TU has one loss margin that was likely correct (OSU), and one win that was richly deserved and earned (Notre Dame).
Now TUlsa goes to Houston to face off against the other Houston based school, one of the West division leaders. A win would give Tulsa a tie breaker advantage over Houston (head to head win). Tulsa's other nemesis (SMU) owns an earlier (21-18) win over the Hurricane, so first place is not entirely in the Hurricane's hands. It is on the horizon if they can take it.
But consider the way this weekend's game looks to the players and coaches at Tulsa. No matter what the venue Houston plays in, or the number of fans that attend the game, or the attitude and volume the Houston fans produce, it cannot compare with the same factors Tulsa faced in South Bend, Indiana and overcame. Tulsa will have to take the confidence it gained at Notre Dame and the focus and clarity of purpose it showed against Rice and focus all on Houston. Tulsa has shown the tools to beat Houston.
What's all this got to do with a blog by a still unemployed accounting and finance worker bee? Greatness is not just found in large scale movements or accomplishments. Greatness is found in the small as well as large. The fallacy of the BCS conferences in any sport is that they limit themselves. They look for and find their supremacy only in the large scale stadia, the large TV markets, the large population centers, the large universities with their huge dollar budgets to spend on sports. Volume and size are not the totality of greatness. Greatness is not only grandeur. Success is not just spectacle.
Greatness is also in what you overcome on the way to your accomplishment, not the size of what you end up with. Writing a great book can be done with double A batteries as one of the tools. It doesn't take much talent to find a lunker bass with a fast boat and on-board radar. It just takes money and time. Finding the lunker by just looking the signs of structure and knowing the lake does take talent. It also takes time.
We all can achieve great things. Pursue it for yourself. We're are small compared to Boone Pickens wealth and touchdown Jesus, but not bereft of skills, value, and ability. We are not insignificant. Pursue jobs over time and learn as you go. Follow what the job search experts tell you to do. Always remembering you can overcome anything, even that which is bigger than you.
Tyranny of the minority?
A lawsuit was filed yesterday challenging the constitutionality of state question 751. That's the one that requires all official state communications to be in English or Native American languages. A local attorney filed the suit on behalf of Delilah Gentges, a local resident. A previous action to prevent the state question, as well as SQ 751, from being on the November second ballot at all, failed. Gentges was a plaintiff in that action as well.
Normalcy seems to be under attack in today's society. We speak English in the United States. We do so exclusively because that's what is taught in our homes and our schools. Its not done that way with malicious intent. Its tradition and its practical. One common language is universally understandable. Public discourse is accurately communicated.
When I lived in Houston, Texas, I was taught rudimentary Spanish starting in the fourth grade. That was a voluntary act on the part of the school district. There was a significant Spanish speaking population close to our city, Mexico. Mexico had not yet come to America, but we might want to visit there some day. When my family moved to Ohio, the Spanish stopped. Why? It wasn't needed. Our closest "foreign" neighbor was Canada. There is no official language called "Canadian" so no need to teach it, though I still don't understand what a "hoser" is.
There is a difference between personal initiative in learning a language, organizational initiative in teaching students a skill they "might" need later in life, and a mandate or requirement that mandates multiple languages. Simply put, its the free market. If a language variant is needed and beneficial, the free market will come up with a way to handle that. The free market will also ignore a non English language if it chooses because in the free market majority rules.
The state question stated that English was mandated for all state communications was practical. The suit is not. Legal immagration demands the immigrant learn Endglish, at least conversationally. It also demands the immigrant learn our history. If the immigration process is followed, the individual will learn English.
The simply truth is the SQ 751 simply put in black and white a practical limitation on state publications that would both save money and require a part of the legal immigration process be observed. The idea received a 74% yes vote. How can those facts be ignored by the filing of a law suit on behalf of one person or even one class of people?
Normalcy seems to be under attack in today's society. We speak English in the United States. We do so exclusively because that's what is taught in our homes and our schools. Its not done that way with malicious intent. Its tradition and its practical. One common language is universally understandable. Public discourse is accurately communicated.
When I lived in Houston, Texas, I was taught rudimentary Spanish starting in the fourth grade. That was a voluntary act on the part of the school district. There was a significant Spanish speaking population close to our city, Mexico. Mexico had not yet come to America, but we might want to visit there some day. When my family moved to Ohio, the Spanish stopped. Why? It wasn't needed. Our closest "foreign" neighbor was Canada. There is no official language called "Canadian" so no need to teach it, though I still don't understand what a "hoser" is.
There is a difference between personal initiative in learning a language, organizational initiative in teaching students a skill they "might" need later in life, and a mandate or requirement that mandates multiple languages. Simply put, its the free market. If a language variant is needed and beneficial, the free market will come up with a way to handle that. The free market will also ignore a non English language if it chooses because in the free market majority rules.
The state question stated that English was mandated for all state communications was practical. The suit is not. Legal immagration demands the immigrant learn Endglish, at least conversationally. It also demands the immigrant learn our history. If the immigration process is followed, the individual will learn English.
The simply truth is the SQ 751 simply put in black and white a practical limitation on state publications that would both save money and require a part of the legal immigration process be observed. The idea received a 74% yes vote. How can those facts be ignored by the filing of a law suit on behalf of one person or even one class of people?
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Fan
Little old Tulsa (the University of....) is the smallest enrollment in division 1 football. That division has multiple former names so I can't tell you if my current name for it is correct. Let's just say the big boys. I don't really care how they market themselves. We all know some of them are the ones that pay players more than I make on unemployment. Tulsa is one of many institutions that don't do this. "The many" are the usual names you normally would think. The church schools (Baptists, Presbyterians, et al). The academics (Northwestern, Standford, so forth).
Saturday night, TU won a game against the U of Memphis. Memphis has been good in the past, they are not this year. Tulsa wound up and laid a (41-7) hay maker on them. Tulsa is now (3-2), Memphis (1-4).
I say all this because I admire the underdog. Not the put upon, sad sack that we see in the comics. I admire the everyday worker bee that keeps coming back. Practice one day at a time, do one class assignment at a time, play one game at a time. No one is promised a win if you do everything right. No one is guaranteed an "A" if they write the great American essay in a lit class. But if you approach life one day at a time, one task at a time, you earn the rightful rest of knowing what you did and the way you did it was right and good. And you earn the responsibility to come back tomorrow and do it all over again.
We spend so much time in this society identifying the "most beautiful", the "highest grossing", the "best actor or director". We have lost our concept of the greatness of the road travelled. We marvel at "Entertainment Tonight" and forget the neighbor that keeps the lawn net and clean or the family that raises their children to be compassionate adults.
Tulsa beat a Memphis team it probably should have. The University of Tulsa has roughly 2,500 undergrads and 1,700 graduate students (overgrads?). Memphis has tens of thousands of students and is in a much larger city. The greatness of collegiate athletics is that once the game is over, you get to go back to practice. Your opportunity is renewed, your preparation begins anew, your class assignments are still there. And you have the chance to win.
Blow off "Entertainment Tonight" and watch or listen to TU football. It has much more substance and its more fun. By the way, these guys play Notre Dame later this season. Presbyterians versus Catholics.
Saturday night, TU won a game against the U of Memphis. Memphis has been good in the past, they are not this year. Tulsa wound up and laid a (41-7) hay maker on them. Tulsa is now (3-2), Memphis (1-4).
I say all this because I admire the underdog. Not the put upon, sad sack that we see in the comics. I admire the everyday worker bee that keeps coming back. Practice one day at a time, do one class assignment at a time, play one game at a time. No one is promised a win if you do everything right. No one is guaranteed an "A" if they write the great American essay in a lit class. But if you approach life one day at a time, one task at a time, you earn the rightful rest of knowing what you did and the way you did it was right and good. And you earn the responsibility to come back tomorrow and do it all over again.
We spend so much time in this society identifying the "most beautiful", the "highest grossing", the "best actor or director". We have lost our concept of the greatness of the road travelled. We marvel at "Entertainment Tonight" and forget the neighbor that keeps the lawn net and clean or the family that raises their children to be compassionate adults.
Tulsa beat a Memphis team it probably should have. The University of Tulsa has roughly 2,500 undergrads and 1,700 graduate students (overgrads?). Memphis has tens of thousands of students and is in a much larger city. The greatness of collegiate athletics is that once the game is over, you get to go back to practice. Your opportunity is renewed, your preparation begins anew, your class assignments are still there. And you have the chance to win.
Blow off "Entertainment Tonight" and watch or listen to TU football. It has much more substance and its more fun. By the way, these guys play Notre Dame later this season. Presbyterians versus Catholics.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
A little love story
My son got married last Saturday. It was equal parts ceremony and celebration as all weddings should be. Members of all four sides of the family got to view this monumental occasion. Four? Grandparents of the bride and groom as well as grandparents of the mothers and fathers. Aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, the whole magical magilla. Weddings are a celebration of family as well as love and commitment.
A few thoughts on the future:
1) To the Bride and Groom. The order in the previous sentence is that way for a reason. First its easier to say. Second, it is the traditional role of the husband to respect his bride. This should be the husband's first thought every day. As an equal, not a superior to be sure. Anyway, it evens out when people say husband and wife.
2) Your union has all the elements of a Biblical Covenant. Having traded vows at an altar, in the sight of God and all the elements of the family. Also having exchanged gifts (the rings). Also having began the marriage with a public proclamation of the vows. As such, marriage should be treated as sacred. Each day should carry some reaffirmation of that from both husband and wife, to each other.
3) You now have the challenge of not keeping anything from your spouse while communicating it as a conversation. Whats bothering you bothers your spouse more when it comes out too late to help each other.
4) No conversation should be one way. As many times as needed, the phrase "what do you think?" should pop up. Followed immediately by open ears, not mouth. Silence is only appropriate when you're both asleep.
5) Make no decision unilaterally. This probably will not be the case 100% of the time. It isn't always practical. But whenever humanly possible, follow this rule followed by seeing item 4).
6) Always remember your spouse is not perfect, you aren't either, but the two together are infinitely stronger than the two separate. Solve problems together, not alone or individually. Yes those are two separate things.
No marriage is perfect. Its how you handle each imperfection that makes a strong marriage. And each time you successfully handle imperfection you are stronger for it. Each time you don't, you miss the best oppportuinity of your marriage.
A few thoughts on the future:
1) To the Bride and Groom. The order in the previous sentence is that way for a reason. First its easier to say. Second, it is the traditional role of the husband to respect his bride. This should be the husband's first thought every day. As an equal, not a superior to be sure. Anyway, it evens out when people say husband and wife.
2) Your union has all the elements of a Biblical Covenant. Having traded vows at an altar, in the sight of God and all the elements of the family. Also having exchanged gifts (the rings). Also having began the marriage with a public proclamation of the vows. As such, marriage should be treated as sacred. Each day should carry some reaffirmation of that from both husband and wife, to each other.
3) You now have the challenge of not keeping anything from your spouse while communicating it as a conversation. Whats bothering you bothers your spouse more when it comes out too late to help each other.
4) No conversation should be one way. As many times as needed, the phrase "what do you think?" should pop up. Followed immediately by open ears, not mouth. Silence is only appropriate when you're both asleep.
5) Make no decision unilaterally. This probably will not be the case 100% of the time. It isn't always practical. But whenever humanly possible, follow this rule followed by seeing item 4).
6) Always remember your spouse is not perfect, you aren't either, but the two together are infinitely stronger than the two separate. Solve problems together, not alone or individually. Yes those are two separate things.
No marriage is perfect. Its how you handle each imperfection that makes a strong marriage. And each time you successfully handle imperfection you are stronger for it. Each time you don't, you miss the best oppportuinity of your marriage.
A Catch within Health Reform
A debate erupted this morning about adult children out of work living at home with parents. First of all, I am convinced that one of the most important facets of the traditional family is the safety net feature. Not all kids progress in to careers at the same pace. They may need help from the family. That is a rational hope and expectation to the extent the family can provide it.
In the recently passed health care reform, insurance companies must provide coverage for dependent children up to age 26. A rational idea since the economy does not allow as many smooth transitions from education to self sufficiency as it once did. A further benefit for students who deliberately consider and try multiple options before settling on their true commitment.
However, the age 26 option carries with it a built in problem. In the IRS code, families filing a 1040 return get to claim an exemption for dependent children in one part of the tax return and a tax credit for dependent children in another part of the same return. How long before astute politicians seize on this anomaly between health reform and tax returns. Changing the tax regulations so the dependent age agrees with the 26 year old insurance reform age would reduce tax revenues.
So reform giveth and reform taketh away. In a time when burgeoning deficits threaten economic recovery, can we afford agreement between the two portions of federal law mentioned above?
In the recently passed health care reform, insurance companies must provide coverage for dependent children up to age 26. A rational idea since the economy does not allow as many smooth transitions from education to self sufficiency as it once did. A further benefit for students who deliberately consider and try multiple options before settling on their true commitment.
However, the age 26 option carries with it a built in problem. In the IRS code, families filing a 1040 return get to claim an exemption for dependent children in one part of the tax return and a tax credit for dependent children in another part of the same return. How long before astute politicians seize on this anomaly between health reform and tax returns. Changing the tax regulations so the dependent age agrees with the 26 year old insurance reform age would reduce tax revenues.
So reform giveth and reform taketh away. In a time when burgeoning deficits threaten economic recovery, can we afford agreement between the two portions of federal law mentioned above?
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saving Earth - One Issue at a Time
I'm all for keeping the earth clean, wisely husbanding resources, and other efforts at conservation. But the result needs to be a net benefit, not a benefit in one area of the environment and an offsetting degradation in another area. Consider the following items.
Yesterday, two young ladies showered outdoors in downtown Tulsa. The point they wished to highlight was, we should conserve water (hence the shower) by becoming vegans since beef production and processing uses an inordinate amount of water. If we all did this, beef consumption would be replaced by plant products (squash, green beans, beets, etc.). Except, the net benefit is in question. The change to vegan would require greater production of vegetables. In order to successfully grow veggies, you have to water them. That added veggie growing, water consumption lowers the net gain over beef. The consumption driven increase in vegetable growing would require more vegetables to be washed in preparation for shipping, and more water consumption in the cooking process (steamed or boiled). That further reduces the net water savings. Feed for beef cattle (hay and oats) has to grown to nourish the beef cattle, so water savings for being vegan goes back up by some amount. Further, what's the impact of putting more land area under plow for veggies rather than cattle feed? Not sure there.
Another example is ethanol. Story goes, if we use ethanol in motor vehicles we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce air pollution. How do we get ethanol? In the U.S. we grow corn and refine that in to ethanol. Ethanol can also be created from sugar cane. Both of those divert land area from the production of corn or sugar for human consumption, otherwise known as food. That diversion is an upward pressure on the cost of land. At some point in time raising food prices in general or reducing the amount of food the U.S. can export to other countries. Up ward pressure on land prices eventually works its way through the economy to higher housing prices. Is the a net benefit to the overall economy? that's in the eye of the beholder or home buyer.
The fundamental point is this. All efforts at conservation involve ending or adjusting human consumption. These efforts have both costs and benefits. Some may be net benefits for non economic reasons. Many carry their own set of costs. The ripple effect of conservation efforts (costs and benefits) ultimately traces back to one fundamental fact, total human consumption. Human consumption is driven by human population.
Are we capable of controlling the earth's population? First making the decision to do that, then carrying out that decision. Of course not. That would be the ultimate in-humanity. It would be a serious, if not fatal, degradation of our personal/individual humanity. Each generation should recognize we are stewards of the earth's resources. We should also approach the material benefits of environmentalism with skepticism. None are ever all good, or all benefits.
Yesterday, two young ladies showered outdoors in downtown Tulsa. The point they wished to highlight was, we should conserve water (hence the shower) by becoming vegans since beef production and processing uses an inordinate amount of water. If we all did this, beef consumption would be replaced by plant products (squash, green beans, beets, etc.). Except, the net benefit is in question. The change to vegan would require greater production of vegetables. In order to successfully grow veggies, you have to water them. That added veggie growing, water consumption lowers the net gain over beef. The consumption driven increase in vegetable growing would require more vegetables to be washed in preparation for shipping, and more water consumption in the cooking process (steamed or boiled). That further reduces the net water savings. Feed for beef cattle (hay and oats) has to grown to nourish the beef cattle, so water savings for being vegan goes back up by some amount. Further, what's the impact of putting more land area under plow for veggies rather than cattle feed? Not sure there.
Another example is ethanol. Story goes, if we use ethanol in motor vehicles we will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce air pollution. How do we get ethanol? In the U.S. we grow corn and refine that in to ethanol. Ethanol can also be created from sugar cane. Both of those divert land area from the production of corn or sugar for human consumption, otherwise known as food. That diversion is an upward pressure on the cost of land. At some point in time raising food prices in general or reducing the amount of food the U.S. can export to other countries. Up ward pressure on land prices eventually works its way through the economy to higher housing prices. Is the a net benefit to the overall economy? that's in the eye of the beholder or home buyer.
The fundamental point is this. All efforts at conservation involve ending or adjusting human consumption. These efforts have both costs and benefits. Some may be net benefits for non economic reasons. Many carry their own set of costs. The ripple effect of conservation efforts (costs and benefits) ultimately traces back to one fundamental fact, total human consumption. Human consumption is driven by human population.
Are we capable of controlling the earth's population? First making the decision to do that, then carrying out that decision. Of course not. That would be the ultimate in-humanity. It would be a serious, if not fatal, degradation of our personal/individual humanity. Each generation should recognize we are stewards of the earth's resources. We should also approach the material benefits of environmentalism with skepticism. None are ever all good, or all benefits.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Midguided Pastors et al
First, Pastor Terry Jones of the Florida micro church announces he will burn multiple Korans on September 11. That date is of course tied to the largest hostile attack on the mainland United States since the War of 1812. Emphasis on the word "burn". Not only does he seek to insert his activity on a day of intense tragedy, he does it a way that hearkens back to an infamous image of Nazi Germany in the 1930's. What more unamerican act can there be than burning instruments of free speech and thought?
Then, Jones continues his ersatz media campaign by announcing his negotiation with the New York Imam who wants to build a mosque very close to the now destroyed World Trade Center site. If this is successful he will call off the offensive burning. As if he is a necessary intermediary in a larger process. Next, he appears before cameras again to say the deal either is off or may be off.
"The Rev. Terry Jones said Thursday he would call off the planned burning of Korans based on a deal negotiated with the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the location of a mosque planned near ground zero in New York would be changed. But Imam Muhammad Musri said he was clear on Thursday when he told Jones that he could only set up a meeting with planners of the New York City mosque, whose leader said he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri. Jones responded by opening the door, if only a crack, that he would go forward with his plan on Saturday. "We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us." - Washington Times Website September 10, 2010
Book burning back on.
All this to say two simple things. Why is this pastor intent on this activity? He heads a congregation of 50 or so people. Forget the content of what they are doing for the moment. The public announcement screams publicity stunt. It could be that the hope was to marshall forces together so that the numbers of participants on the appointed day would be much larger. In that Pastor Jones failed. If his efforts were to force a change in the mosque construction, failed there too. There are so many more players involved than just Jones and the New York Imam. Standing before a mike stand won't work.
No this is a stunt. Its true meaning and plan is a mystery, as is this congregation and its "leader?". Whatever the case most important fact in this show has been unsaid until now. Jesus Christ admonished us to "turn the other cheek". That is, His followers are to be examples not enforcers. Koran burning is not in this teaching. Witnessing, praying, and living along side of is. We are not martyrs, but we are called to be fearless in our witness.
In this most important facet of our faith, Pastor Jones displays ignorance. Either purposeful or accidental.
Then, Jones continues his ersatz media campaign by announcing his negotiation with the New York Imam who wants to build a mosque very close to the now destroyed World Trade Center site. If this is successful he will call off the offensive burning. As if he is a necessary intermediary in a larger process. Next, he appears before cameras again to say the deal either is off or may be off.
"The Rev. Terry Jones said Thursday he would call off the planned burning of Korans based on a deal negotiated with the president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida that the location of a mosque planned near ground zero in New York would be changed. But Imam Muhammad Musri said he was clear on Thursday when he told Jones that he could only set up a meeting with planners of the New York City mosque, whose leader said he had spoken to neither the pastor nor Musri. Jones responded by opening the door, if only a crack, that he would go forward with his plan on Saturday. "We are just really shocked," Jones said of Musri. "He clearly, clearly lied to us." - Washington Times Website September 10, 2010
Book burning back on.
All this to say two simple things. Why is this pastor intent on this activity? He heads a congregation of 50 or so people. Forget the content of what they are doing for the moment. The public announcement screams publicity stunt. It could be that the hope was to marshall forces together so that the numbers of participants on the appointed day would be much larger. In that Pastor Jones failed. If his efforts were to force a change in the mosque construction, failed there too. There are so many more players involved than just Jones and the New York Imam. Standing before a mike stand won't work.
No this is a stunt. Its true meaning and plan is a mystery, as is this congregation and its "leader?". Whatever the case most important fact in this show has been unsaid until now. Jesus Christ admonished us to "turn the other cheek". That is, His followers are to be examples not enforcers. Koran burning is not in this teaching. Witnessing, praying, and living along side of is. We are not martyrs, but we are called to be fearless in our witness.
In this most important facet of our faith, Pastor Jones displays ignorance. Either purposeful or accidental.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)