I was watching a special on CNN regarding the economy, and something one of the panelists said really hit me. We've all been focused on trying to save the banks, or figuring out how to keep people in their homes... but there's something even bigger we need to think about.
The Great Depression was ended by the New Deal, but also by World War II, when we turned to manufacturing planes and tanks. After the war we needed to turn our economy to a post-wartime one, and started building houses, cars, and all those other things we didn't build and couldn't afford anyway while we were at war. Then we had a boom in manufacturing, our automobile industry was going strong and facing little competition from foreign brands.
Starting in the 70's and continuing into the 80's the boom was technology. I remember when my boss scoffed at the notion that everyone would have a computer on their desk one day! Now everyone not only has a computer, but a cellphone, likely an iPod, and multiple TVs. During this time we started to send manufacturing overseas and became more of a service-oriented society. Some companies like Dell and Microsoft did well in the manufacturing (or software) industries, but our manufacturing base largely began to disappear. No wonder China and India have become economic powerhouses.
Now it's the 2000's, and what is The Next Big Thing we need to build and consume? What's the next thing that everybody will have to have?
The only answer I see on the horizon is green technology. This could solve three problems at once -- our lack of jobs, particularly in manufacturing and retail; the massive environmental problems we will have if we continue to live the way we do; and it will stop our sending $700 billion a year overseas for foreign oil.
Green technology could affect almost every aspect of our lives. For cars, we could be looking at not only hybrid technology, but solar, hydrogen fuel cell, and advanced batteries. Fuel cells are being developed that could power our homes, our computers and other devices. Tankless water heaters already exist that could replace the old gas-powered ones that waste energy by heating and reheating the same water over and over again. How about solar-powered trains and buses? How many kids' toys need toxic batteries? Could those be replaced with some other green technology?
We already have a start on some of these, although there are difficulties with almost every technology currently out there. For instance, an investigation into Chinese companies who produce solar panels discovered that they were using toxic chemicals and dumping them into villages, sickening the people who live there. Not very environmentally happy! That's why we need to produce these here in the United States, where we can better regulate and control what goes into them.
It's a shame that one of our most ecologically fragile states, Alaska, has a far right-wing Governor in Sarah Palin who is so clueless when it comes to the environment. She refuses to admit that polar bears and whales need environmental protection. Her only concern is to drill and drill some more. Why? Because Alaskans get a cut of the profits, so the more she allows drilling the more she will be re-elected. Money in the pocket of your voters talks. She has absolutely no concern for the environmental health of the state she governs and refuses to acknowledge scientific data that is contrary to what she wants to do. We can no longer afford to leave the environment in the care of governors. Saving the environment through conservation measures and green technology must be mandated at the federal level.
Our oceans have large "dead spots," where not even plankton can survive due to pollution. No fish, no nothing. This is forcing fishermen to go farther and farther to get their catch. How much is our environment going to take before it collapses entirely? Enormous pieces of the Arctic ice shelf have been breaking off. Just last July a group of Russian researchers were forced to leave their station on an ice floe due to the ice becoming so thin. We are getting our warnings, and if we don't heed them, then we will be in for climate and landscape changes that will threaten our entire way of life.
We need to get this country back to making things, and not just consuming them. We need to quit sending money overseas to unfriendly countries who control the price of oil, and thereby control a large section of our economy. Remember what panic there was when the price of gas went up to $4 a gallon? This is not just an environmental issue, this is a national security issue. That's what the right-wing "drill, baby, drill" nuts never understood. Our nation can easily be strangled by cutting off oil, and no matter what Sarah Palin says, we don't have enough oil in the U.S. to put a drop in the bucket compared to what we use.
So I say -- bring on the green! It's our best chance at saving the economy, our environment, and securing our country.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Citigroup: Hello!! Reality calling!
UPDATE: Apparently Citigroup has decided that the plane wasn't worth the bad press (not to mention that the President kinda frowned on a bank that is taking taxpayer money treating itself to a new corporate jet). They have decided to forego the plane.
CEO tone-deafness continues. Citigroup, the bank that has taken (so far) $45 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is taking delivery on a new $50 million corporate jet. I demand my money back.
Did these guys learn nothing from the spectacle the Detroit Three CEOs made when they all flew their private corporate jets to Washington and got reamed new ones for it? Do CEOs think they live in an alternate universe? Where do they think this $45 billion is coming from??? It's coming from people who are struggling to pay their mortgages, who are burdened with the reality that they may lose their jobs tomorrow, who have seen the value of their homes drop like a rock. But the guys in the penthouse offices don't get it. Just like John Thain spending an unfathomable $1.2 million to redecorate his office, for crying out loud, Citigroup's head cheeses are tone deaf to reality. How many jobs could they have saved for $50 million? How many bank CEOs dine in private dining rooms with world-class chefs instead of having their admins bring in some deli? I have an idea... before any CEO gets any more taxpayer money to bail his ass out, let's plunk him down in a doublewide somewhere with a 10-year old car and only enough food money to go to McDonald's for a week. Maybe they'll begin to get a clue.
At some point I think these people just completely lose track of reality. Well, Obama needs to give them a dose. How about this -- any bank that has taken or intends to take taxpayer bailout money needs to turn over all the corporate perks, or one of the following two things will happen: 1) the bank will be nationalized, i.e., owned by the taxpayers whose money they are wasting, or 2) be allowed to fail.
Citigroup should get no more taxpayer bailout money. Period. If they fail, c'est la vie. As a taxpayer who flies cattle car class (when I can afford to fly at all) and who brings in PB&J sandwiches instead of eating in that private dining room, I for one am through with these guys who are living large on the struggling middle class taxpayer. Let 'em eat cake.
CEO tone-deafness continues. Citigroup, the bank that has taken (so far) $45 billion in taxpayer bailout money, is taking delivery on a new $50 million corporate jet. I demand my money back.
Did these guys learn nothing from the spectacle the Detroit Three CEOs made when they all flew their private corporate jets to Washington and got reamed new ones for it? Do CEOs think they live in an alternate universe? Where do they think this $45 billion is coming from??? It's coming from people who are struggling to pay their mortgages, who are burdened with the reality that they may lose their jobs tomorrow, who have seen the value of their homes drop like a rock. But the guys in the penthouse offices don't get it. Just like John Thain spending an unfathomable $1.2 million to redecorate his office, for crying out loud, Citigroup's head cheeses are tone deaf to reality. How many jobs could they have saved for $50 million? How many bank CEOs dine in private dining rooms with world-class chefs instead of having their admins bring in some deli? I have an idea... before any CEO gets any more taxpayer money to bail his ass out, let's plunk him down in a doublewide somewhere with a 10-year old car and only enough food money to go to McDonald's for a week. Maybe they'll begin to get a clue.
At some point I think these people just completely lose track of reality. Well, Obama needs to give them a dose. How about this -- any bank that has taken or intends to take taxpayer bailout money needs to turn over all the corporate perks, or one of the following two things will happen: 1) the bank will be nationalized, i.e., owned by the taxpayers whose money they are wasting, or 2) be allowed to fail.
Citigroup should get no more taxpayer bailout money. Period. If they fail, c'est la vie. As a taxpayer who flies cattle car class (when I can afford to fly at all) and who brings in PB&J sandwiches instead of eating in that private dining room, I for one am through with these guys who are living large on the struggling middle class taxpayer. Let 'em eat cake.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Tax cuts are nice, but not now
An economic stimulus plan should concentrate on creating middle-class jobs. This economy will continue to tank until we get unemployment back under 5 or 6%. As I've said in a previous post, if you've lost your job you're not going to buy anything; if you're worried about losing your job (and that's everybody who hasn't already lost it), you're not going to buy anything. If nobody buys anything stores and other companies will close. States will go bankrupt trying to pay unemployment benefits (and some already are). Nothing else matters if we don't have jobs for the middle class. Nothing.
I like parts of President Obama's stimulus plan. I agree that we need to spend some money on infrastructure. It will create jobs and at least the taxpayer will see something tangible for their money. However, construction projects like those proposed will primarily create jobs for men. What about us ladies?
I also like the environmental aspects of this plan, such as doubling the amount of power produced from renewable resources in three years and making federal buildings more energy efficient. Great ideas that will either create jobs or save the taxpayers money.
I like the idea that health care coverage would be provided for people who lose their jobs. The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. We have to get these costs under control in this country and provide coverage for catastrophic health care costs. It is simply the right thing to do.
But the tax breaks I don't like. Tax breaks are nice, everybody likes them. But we're living in a time when unemployment may well hit double digits; state and federal budgets are already in crisis; and we're spending over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that we don't have on the bank bailout and this stimulus plan. Look what happened when Bush gave us all a paltry $600 a piece. It did squat to help this economy, and that's because most people either put it in savings or paid bills with it. The same thing will happen with the tax break.
Anything else that is in this bill that has nothing to do with creating jobs, health care coverage or beefing up our long-neglected environmental protections should be taken out.
We simply cannot afford this plan, but we can't afford not to do something. We just need to do the right things.
I like parts of President Obama's stimulus plan. I agree that we need to spend some money on infrastructure. It will create jobs and at least the taxpayer will see something tangible for their money. However, construction projects like those proposed will primarily create jobs for men. What about us ladies?
I also like the environmental aspects of this plan, such as doubling the amount of power produced from renewable resources in three years and making federal buildings more energy efficient. Great ideas that will either create jobs or save the taxpayers money.
I like the idea that health care coverage would be provided for people who lose their jobs. The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. We have to get these costs under control in this country and provide coverage for catastrophic health care costs. It is simply the right thing to do.
But the tax breaks I don't like. Tax breaks are nice, everybody likes them. But we're living in a time when unemployment may well hit double digits; state and federal budgets are already in crisis; and we're spending over a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that we don't have on the bank bailout and this stimulus plan. Look what happened when Bush gave us all a paltry $600 a piece. It did squat to help this economy, and that's because most people either put it in savings or paid bills with it. The same thing will happen with the tax break.
Anything else that is in this bill that has nothing to do with creating jobs, health care coverage or beefing up our long-neglected environmental protections should be taken out.
We simply cannot afford this plan, but we can't afford not to do something. We just need to do the right things.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
George Anthony's living hell
I suppose it's horror enough to find that your 2-year old granddaughter has been murdered, but to have your daughter arrested for that crime is double hell. Casey Anthony has been arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of her little daughter. Casey's father George disappeared, leaving suicide notes and text messages to family and friends, but was later found before he had done any harm to himself.
I'm glad George Anthony is all right, and just on the off chance that he might see an earlier posting I had on this blog I have cut out a large portion of it. While I have an opinion whether or not Casey is guilty, it didn't seem appropriate to leave the posting as it was considering the recent events with George Anthony.
Caylee was not the only victim in this crime. Many family members and friends will never quite feel the same. The fact that this has been a staple on the news and on television has undoubtedly been very difficult for them, and to top it off there were many months before her remains were found and the family lost the hope that she would be found alive.
I just hope that in the end justice is done in this case. Caylee deserves no less.
I'm glad George Anthony is all right, and just on the off chance that he might see an earlier posting I had on this blog I have cut out a large portion of it. While I have an opinion whether or not Casey is guilty, it didn't seem appropriate to leave the posting as it was considering the recent events with George Anthony.
Caylee was not the only victim in this crime. Many family members and friends will never quite feel the same. The fact that this has been a staple on the news and on television has undoubtedly been very difficult for them, and to top it off there were many months before her remains were found and the family lost the hope that she would be found alive.
I just hope that in the end justice is done in this case. Caylee deserves no less.
Days of Our Lives on life support
Yesterday two long-time stars of Days of Our Lives (the only soap I bother to watch) left due to massive budget cuts. Deidre Hall joined the show in 1976, and played Marlena Evans Black. She left the show briefly for prime-time series Our House, which ran for two years, but then returned to Days. Drake Hogestyn joined in 1986 and played John Black. These two created one of the best (and longest lasting) supercouples in soap history.
The soap opera format may go the way of the brokerage firm, with only one or two surviving. The highest-rated soap is The Young and the Restless, but even it now draws approximately 5 million viewers, when soaps used to get as many as 30 million viewers for a big event (such as Luke and Laura's wedding on General Hospital).
Days has hit a real tsunami of bad news. One is the aging of the population who tend to watch soaps, and the fact that the demographic trends are not going the way the advertisers would like. Talk shows have become more popular and are cheaper to produce (there are very long cast lists for soap operas). Days is the only soap on NBC, so there are no soaps around it to draw viewers. The economy has forced some traditional soap advertisers to rethink whether that's the best place to spend their ad dollars. And a lot of people now watch their soaps either via their DVR or on YouTube where they can either bypass the ads or there aren't any at all.
I think in Days' case, and in the case of some other soaps as well, there are other factors at work. One is the aging of the stars on the show. I hate to say that, because I think Drake is still handsome even though he's in his mid-50's and Deidre is still a beautiful lady. But what happens in soaps with cast members who have been around a while is that they tend to end up in supercoupleship, their soap "kids" are grown, and there's not as much you can do with the characters. Look at Bo and Hope and Steve and Kayla -- they tend to end up as background because there's really nothing else you can do with the characters that hasn't been done at least twice before. (People can only die and come back to life so many times!) But Days has an even bigger problem, and that is that lately it has been the victim of really bad writing. I've been trying to hang in with this show because I've watched it for years, and particularly because I wanted to see John and Marlena through to the bitter end. However, the writing on this show is just horrible, and as I've always said about movies, if you don't have good writing then nothing else matters. You could throw all the pretty people and money you want at it and it won't work.
Speaking of pretty people, though, I want to put in a good word for some of the hunks on this show, namely Eric Martsolf, Jay Kenneth Johnson, and Shawn Christian. I sincerely hope that these guys get prime-time gigs or go on to something else bigger and better when and if Days ends its run. (JKJ has already appeared occasionally on Scrubs as a gynecologist.) There are some good actors and actresses on this show and it's a pity that the writing is so bad, but they always try to do the best they can with the drivel they're given.
So goodbye and good luck to Drake and Deidre, and to Days, I wish you good luck, tons of ad revenue, and better writers. :-)
The soap opera format may go the way of the brokerage firm, with only one or two surviving. The highest-rated soap is The Young and the Restless, but even it now draws approximately 5 million viewers, when soaps used to get as many as 30 million viewers for a big event (such as Luke and Laura's wedding on General Hospital).
Days has hit a real tsunami of bad news. One is the aging of the population who tend to watch soaps, and the fact that the demographic trends are not going the way the advertisers would like. Talk shows have become more popular and are cheaper to produce (there are very long cast lists for soap operas). Days is the only soap on NBC, so there are no soaps around it to draw viewers. The economy has forced some traditional soap advertisers to rethink whether that's the best place to spend their ad dollars. And a lot of people now watch their soaps either via their DVR or on YouTube where they can either bypass the ads or there aren't any at all.
I think in Days' case, and in the case of some other soaps as well, there are other factors at work. One is the aging of the stars on the show. I hate to say that, because I think Drake is still handsome even though he's in his mid-50's and Deidre is still a beautiful lady. But what happens in soaps with cast members who have been around a while is that they tend to end up in supercoupleship, their soap "kids" are grown, and there's not as much you can do with the characters. Look at Bo and Hope and Steve and Kayla -- they tend to end up as background because there's really nothing else you can do with the characters that hasn't been done at least twice before. (People can only die and come back to life so many times!) But Days has an even bigger problem, and that is that lately it has been the victim of really bad writing. I've been trying to hang in with this show because I've watched it for years, and particularly because I wanted to see John and Marlena through to the bitter end. However, the writing on this show is just horrible, and as I've always said about movies, if you don't have good writing then nothing else matters. You could throw all the pretty people and money you want at it and it won't work.
Speaking of pretty people, though, I want to put in a good word for some of the hunks on this show, namely Eric Martsolf, Jay Kenneth Johnson, and Shawn Christian. I sincerely hope that these guys get prime-time gigs or go on to something else bigger and better when and if Days ends its run. (JKJ has already appeared occasionally on Scrubs as a gynecologist.) There are some good actors and actresses on this show and it's a pity that the writing is so bad, but they always try to do the best they can with the drivel they're given.
So goodbye and good luck to Drake and Deidre, and to Days, I wish you good luck, tons of ad revenue, and better writers. :-)
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Casey Anthony needs a new lawyer
I'm talking about the case of the murder of little Caylee Anthony, which I have been following since she disappeared (I couldn't resist feeling sorry for that cute little girl and wishing I could just spot her somewhere)! Her mother, Casey, has been charged with her murder. I would like to suggest that she find herself another lawyer.
Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez, appears to want to take this to trial. I'm thinking that if he does, he may be attempting to try to pull an O.J. and get his client off by making the cops look like they bungled the case. If he does this he should have his license to practice law revoked permanently. Enough of slick lawyers trying to get their clients off by using these slimy methods. It never should have been done with O.J., and if Mr. Baez attempts these methods again the judge should make it clear he or she will not put up with that crap. Otherwise, these tactics will be used every time we have a high-profile case like this, and that would be yet another travesty of justice.
Let's hope that should this case go to trial it does not become yet another case of expert vs. expert, either. The defense can always find an expert who is willing to give contradictory testimony. Just for once, let's let the evidence be presented by the prosecution in a fair manner and not try to win by confusing the jury.
Casey's lawyer, Jose Baez, appears to want to take this to trial. I'm thinking that if he does, he may be attempting to try to pull an O.J. and get his client off by making the cops look like they bungled the case. If he does this he should have his license to practice law revoked permanently. Enough of slick lawyers trying to get their clients off by using these slimy methods. It never should have been done with O.J., and if Mr. Baez attempts these methods again the judge should make it clear he or she will not put up with that crap. Otherwise, these tactics will be used every time we have a high-profile case like this, and that would be yet another travesty of justice.
Let's hope that should this case go to trial it does not become yet another case of expert vs. expert, either. The defense can always find an expert who is willing to give contradictory testimony. Just for once, let's let the evidence be presented by the prosecution in a fair manner and not try to win by confusing the jury.
What's with the White House computers?
Due to the White House chief usher and the rest of the staff, President Bush and the former First Lady were moved out and within a few short hours the Obamas were moved into the White House on Election Day, including having all their clothes hung up in closets and shoes properly stored. When I move I don't get things straightened out for weeks.
Maybe the chief usher should also be given the responsibility of getting computers up and running at the White House!
Why in the world does the most powerful nation on the planet have a government that starts with no computers, no phones, no security badges, no nothing? You've got to be kidding me! Here's an executive order for you, President Obama -- that before you leave office somebody have a plan in place to have these things taken care of before the next President hits the Oval Office!
Maybe the chief usher should also be given the responsibility of getting computers up and running at the White House!
Why in the world does the most powerful nation on the planet have a government that starts with no computers, no phones, no security badges, no nothing? You've got to be kidding me! Here's an executive order for you, President Obama -- that before you leave office somebody have a plan in place to have these things taken care of before the next President hits the Oval Office!
Right-wing idiots go ballistic over bungled oath
I hear Barack Obama retook the oath of office because the right-wing blognuts have been turning themselves inside out speculating that he is not the rightful President because he didn't get the oath correct as written in the Constitution.
First, let's get one thing straight. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the new President's term begins at noon on that day, regardless of whether he takes an oath or not.
Second, the oath of office in the Constitution is specified as:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now, you will note that there is no "So help me, God" on the end, although almost all Presidents have added it. So does this mean, right-wing nutballs, that every President who added "So help me, God" was not the rightful President? Hmmm??
Thirdly, you guys lost. Get over it. We had to live with George Bush for eight very long years. It's your turn.
First, let's get one thing straight. The 20th Amendment to the Constitution specifies that the new President's term begins at noon on that day, regardless of whether he takes an oath or not.
Second, the oath of office in the Constitution is specified as:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Now, you will note that there is no "So help me, God" on the end, although almost all Presidents have added it. So does this mean, right-wing nutballs, that every President who added "So help me, God" was not the rightful President? Hmmm??
Thirdly, you guys lost. Get over it. We had to live with George Bush for eight very long years. It's your turn.
John Thain, bank robber
I suppose we should be used to this by now. A wealthy CEO of some large corporation doles out money he doesn't have right before his corporation goes under or gets bought out.
John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, which was sold in a fire sale to Bank of America to prevent it from completely going the way of Lehman Brothers, moved up the date that bonuses were given out from January to December. This would be because BofA was due to take over Merrill on January 1. It's true that he did not take a bonus himself, but considering he spent $1.2 million last year having his office redecorated, I'm not feeling the least bit magnanimous toward the guy.
BofA is in a world of hurt, and has received billions in bailout money. News comes today that Merrill was not very forthcoming about the amount of losses that BofA was going to take over, and so John Thain has been shown the door. But he is just the latest in a long line of CEOs who are seemingly unconcerned about the massive debt that the taxpayers will be shouldering on behalf of these banks and other companies.
It's too bad we are no longer in the days of tar and feathers and riding people out of town on rails. There are a few I could think of who would deserve it.
John Thain, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, which was sold in a fire sale to Bank of America to prevent it from completely going the way of Lehman Brothers, moved up the date that bonuses were given out from January to December. This would be because BofA was due to take over Merrill on January 1. It's true that he did not take a bonus himself, but considering he spent $1.2 million last year having his office redecorated, I'm not feeling the least bit magnanimous toward the guy.
BofA is in a world of hurt, and has received billions in bailout money. News comes today that Merrill was not very forthcoming about the amount of losses that BofA was going to take over, and so John Thain has been shown the door. But he is just the latest in a long line of CEOs who are seemingly unconcerned about the massive debt that the taxpayers will be shouldering on behalf of these banks and other companies.
It's too bad we are no longer in the days of tar and feathers and riding people out of town on rails. There are a few I could think of who would deserve it.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Why we need Barack Obama now
The thought has occurred to me that there are two events this week that have the same thing in common - they have shown that the American people are in great need of something to believe in, something to hope for, in the most uncertain times since the Depression.
Earlier this week a US Airways plane was ditched by the pilot in the Hudson River, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows. All 155 people aboard survived in what the media is calling the "Miracle on the Hudson." Was it a miracle? Well, not exactly. First, pilots practice this maneuver during training, and the pilot on that plane had many years of experience. Second, that particular pilot happens to also fly gliders, and since that's what that aircraft became after the loss of both engines, he was able to perform the water landing with skill. Granted, it was a great landing. But I do think that the media and the talk shows that I have paid attention to have really blown this out of proportion. It was training that brought that plane down safely, not a miracle.
The other event that is happening this week is the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President. His positive poll numbers are higher than the number of people who voted for him on election night in November. I wondered why this was... after all, the economy is in a huge mess compared to where it was when he first started campaigning, how could anyone be feeling positive about anything? Before the election he was a one-term Senator whom no one thought had a chance of winning. Many people thought the country was not going to elect a person of color much less one with a name unlike any other President we've ever known. And he is young -- this is the first time in my life that the President of this country will be younger than I am.
Yet hopes are running high, and everyone seems to be in a party mood this week. I think it's due to two things: 1) almost everyone is soooo glad to finally be getting rid of George W. Bush; and 2) we need something to give us some hope that everything will work out all right in the end, no matter how bad things look right now. Just the way that people on that plane hoped the pilot could do his job well and bring the plane down with no fatalities, the majority of Americans are hoping that Obama can do his job well too. And they seem willing to give him the chance. I just hope that they give him time. This economic mess didn't happen in a day, and it won't be fixed in a few months. But for the next three days, we can try to forget the bad news and focus on the promise of better times to come.
Earlier this week a US Airways plane was ditched by the pilot in the Hudson River, as anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows. All 155 people aboard survived in what the media is calling the "Miracle on the Hudson." Was it a miracle? Well, not exactly. First, pilots practice this maneuver during training, and the pilot on that plane had many years of experience. Second, that particular pilot happens to also fly gliders, and since that's what that aircraft became after the loss of both engines, he was able to perform the water landing with skill. Granted, it was a great landing. But I do think that the media and the talk shows that I have paid attention to have really blown this out of proportion. It was training that brought that plane down safely, not a miracle.
The other event that is happening this week is the inauguration of Barack Obama as our 44th President. His positive poll numbers are higher than the number of people who voted for him on election night in November. I wondered why this was... after all, the economy is in a huge mess compared to where it was when he first started campaigning, how could anyone be feeling positive about anything? Before the election he was a one-term Senator whom no one thought had a chance of winning. Many people thought the country was not going to elect a person of color much less one with a name unlike any other President we've ever known. And he is young -- this is the first time in my life that the President of this country will be younger than I am.
Yet hopes are running high, and everyone seems to be in a party mood this week. I think it's due to two things: 1) almost everyone is soooo glad to finally be getting rid of George W. Bush; and 2) we need something to give us some hope that everything will work out all right in the end, no matter how bad things look right now. Just the way that people on that plane hoped the pilot could do his job well and bring the plane down with no fatalities, the majority of Americans are hoping that Obama can do his job well too. And they seem willing to give him the chance. I just hope that they give him time. This economic mess didn't happen in a day, and it won't be fixed in a few months. But for the next three days, we can try to forget the bad news and focus on the promise of better times to come.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The dissing of Howard Dean
I've been pretty impressed with Barack Obama up until now, but I have to say I'm very upset with the way DNC Chairman Howard Dean has been treated. Dr. Dean put together a 50-state strategy that almost no one believed would work, and yet Obama won, I think, 9 "red" states. We have Democratic Senators from Montana (!) and Alaska (!), for crying out loud! Who would have thought we could do that?? We have a majority in Congress. All because Howard Dean was unwilling to cede so-called "red" states to the Republicans.
I was sure that he would receive some plum job in the Obama administration. Surgeon General, head of Health and Human Services, or something that was high-profile and paid a decent salary. Instead, he will be leaving as DNC Chairman on January 21, heading for a job outside of government. And I think it's a darn shame. No one has done a better job as Chairman of this party than Dean. Apparently Rahm Emanual, Obama's new chief of staff, doesn't like the guy and didn't think the 50-state strategy would work. Rahm should just fess up that he was wrong and go apologize to Dr. Dean. Instead, Dean is being shoved out, and there are a lot of Democrats like me who are not happy about it.
So godspeed, Dr. Dean. And thank you.
I was sure that he would receive some plum job in the Obama administration. Surgeon General, head of Health and Human Services, or something that was high-profile and paid a decent salary. Instead, he will be leaving as DNC Chairman on January 21, heading for a job outside of government. And I think it's a darn shame. No one has done a better job as Chairman of this party than Dean. Apparently Rahm Emanual, Obama's new chief of staff, doesn't like the guy and didn't think the 50-state strategy would work. Rahm should just fess up that he was wrong and go apologize to Dr. Dean. Instead, Dean is being shoved out, and there are a lot of Democrats like me who are not happy about it.
So godspeed, Dr. Dean. And thank you.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Mother Nature Network (MNN)
I'm adding a new link, to the new website Mother Nature Network (MNN). This a great new environmental site that can give you not only green news and editorials, but information about everything from hybrid cars to organic gardening to environmental politics to you-name-it. You'll feel greener just for poking around in it:
http://www.mnn.com/
http://www.mnn.com/
Erin Burnett - I'm calling you out
CNBC financial anchor Erin Burnett is a media superstar. A former vice president at Citigroup, she is now anchor or co-anchor of both CNBC's Street Signs and Squawk on the Street financial news shows. I have a beef with her.
A few days ago Erin made a short appearance on Morning Joe on MSNBC. During her appearance she proudly announced that she was the happy owner of a new GMC Denali SUV. Estimated mileage: 12 city, 18 highway. I looked it up.
If you go to website hybridcars.com, there is a nifty little calculator where you can pick two cars and it will calculate for you the difference in fuel mileage as well as the impact to the environment. Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, and assuming gas at $1.75 a gallon, a Honda Civic Hybrid will use 309 gallons to the Denali's 921 gallons, at a cost of $540 to $1,611. But let's take a look at the impact to the environment... carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) is almost 3 times higher in the Denali, 5,866 pounds to 17,496 pounds. Carbon monoxide is 147 pounds with the Honda, 301 with the Denali. Hydrocarbons (smog) is double, 7 pounds to 14 pounds. And on and on.
Ms. Burnett, as far as I can tell from the biographies I have seen of her, is a single woman with no children. So she needs this Denali behemoth why?? As far as I know she is not the owner of a Mastiff. I'm sure that she doesn't need that much room for groceries.... so I'm baffled. I just do not get what she doesn't understand about the words "climate change." It's safe to say that she isn't an environmentalist, I guess.
But you'd think she'd have a little more savvy about oil prices. She sees and reports on the prices of commodities every day. Does she really think gas will stay at $1.75 a gallon? Really??!! Wait until this recession is over, you'll see $3 or maybe even $4 a gallon gas again.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that should be done with a Denali is to crush it into a little square or use it for scrap metal. But maybe that's just me.
A few days ago Erin made a short appearance on Morning Joe on MSNBC. During her appearance she proudly announced that she was the happy owner of a new GMC Denali SUV. Estimated mileage: 12 city, 18 highway. I looked it up.
If you go to website hybridcars.com, there is a nifty little calculator where you can pick two cars and it will calculate for you the difference in fuel mileage as well as the impact to the environment. Assuming you drive 13,000 miles a year, and assuming gas at $1.75 a gallon, a Honda Civic Hybrid will use 309 gallons to the Denali's 921 gallons, at a cost of $540 to $1,611. But let's take a look at the impact to the environment... carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) is almost 3 times higher in the Denali, 5,866 pounds to 17,496 pounds. Carbon monoxide is 147 pounds with the Honda, 301 with the Denali. Hydrocarbons (smog) is double, 7 pounds to 14 pounds. And on and on.
Ms. Burnett, as far as I can tell from the biographies I have seen of her, is a single woman with no children. So she needs this Denali behemoth why?? As far as I know she is not the owner of a Mastiff. I'm sure that she doesn't need that much room for groceries.... so I'm baffled. I just do not get what she doesn't understand about the words "climate change." It's safe to say that she isn't an environmentalist, I guess.
But you'd think she'd have a little more savvy about oil prices. She sees and reports on the prices of commodities every day. Does she really think gas will stay at $1.75 a gallon? Really??!! Wait until this recession is over, you'll see $3 or maybe even $4 a gallon gas again.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that should be done with a Denali is to crush it into a little square or use it for scrap metal. But maybe that's just me.
Companies dumping employees
Last month the number of people getting pink slips rose to almost 700,000. Companies are doing the one worst thing they could do in this economy -- dumping their employees from the payroll.
It may be a relatively fast way to free up cash, but in the long term it is making this recession much worse. If you've been laid off, you're not going to be buying anything. If you aren't laid off and you see these kinds of numbers, you aren't going to be buying anything. In the end nobody buys anything, and what happens? Companies hurt themselves because they can't make any money. If they can't make any money, they have to close. I've never understood why the senior management of these corporations take such a short-sighted view. It's as if the only numbers that matter are next quarter's. Forget the fact that when (and if) business picks up, they'll have to hire again, and train again, and waste all that time and money getting new employees up to speed when they could have just hung on to the ones they had in the first place. Couldn't they ditch the private dining rooms for senior management and the private jets? Here's another idea -- if they absolutely have to cut personnel costs, couldn't they ask the top 20% of wage earners to take a temporary pay cut rather than lay off people?
Maybe they do this because their bonuses are tied to how much money the company makes or what the stock price is. It's not about what's right for the economy in the long-term.
Granted, there are some companies (like the Big 3 automakers) who will have to get leaner and meaner to survive because they don't have the customer base they used to -- and I don't think for those companies the customers are coming back. But if you have the kind of unemployment numbers we are seeing now, layoffs will just cause a further downward spiral in the economy. Companies need to look at trimming costs in other areas and do everything they can to hold on to their employees until we can get through this mess.
It may be a relatively fast way to free up cash, but in the long term it is making this recession much worse. If you've been laid off, you're not going to be buying anything. If you aren't laid off and you see these kinds of numbers, you aren't going to be buying anything. In the end nobody buys anything, and what happens? Companies hurt themselves because they can't make any money. If they can't make any money, they have to close. I've never understood why the senior management of these corporations take such a short-sighted view. It's as if the only numbers that matter are next quarter's. Forget the fact that when (and if) business picks up, they'll have to hire again, and train again, and waste all that time and money getting new employees up to speed when they could have just hung on to the ones they had in the first place. Couldn't they ditch the private dining rooms for senior management and the private jets? Here's another idea -- if they absolutely have to cut personnel costs, couldn't they ask the top 20% of wage earners to take a temporary pay cut rather than lay off people?
Maybe they do this because their bonuses are tied to how much money the company makes or what the stock price is. It's not about what's right for the economy in the long-term.
Granted, there are some companies (like the Big 3 automakers) who will have to get leaner and meaner to survive because they don't have the customer base they used to -- and I don't think for those companies the customers are coming back. But if you have the kind of unemployment numbers we are seeing now, layoffs will just cause a further downward spiral in the economy. Companies need to look at trimming costs in other areas and do everything they can to hold on to their employees until we can get through this mess.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Dirk Kempthorne, government-sponsored bandit
I didn't know the name of the Secretary of the Interior, either. But I do now! It is Dirk Kempthorne. Initials DK. The initials that went on the towels he had made for his new $235,000 bathroom at work! Yes, that's correct... our lovely Secretary of the Interior is a bandit. He has appropriated $235,000, almost twice what my entire home cost, to renovate his private bathroom!
How do you even physically spend that much on a bathroom? Gold-plated fixtures, OK, but I don't think that would even get you there. Maybe he has a gold-plated magazine rack for his Sports Illustrateds, too. I hear he has a refrigerator and freezer in there. In the bathroom??? What the...???!! I'm trying to figure out how I can afford to put new tile on the floors of my two tiny bathrooms and he's spending $235,000 taxpayer dollars -- on what? Who authorized this? Isn't somebody in the government (like the GAO) supposed to be tracking expenditures on behalf of the taxpayer? I just don't get how ridiculous things like this can happen, but then I guess we are talking about the government. Common sense does not seem to apply.
I guess incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will have to ditch the DK-initialed towels. I just hope he'll have somebody go to Target for the replacements.
How do you even physically spend that much on a bathroom? Gold-plated fixtures, OK, but I don't think that would even get you there. Maybe he has a gold-plated magazine rack for his Sports Illustrateds, too. I hear he has a refrigerator and freezer in there. In the bathroom??? What the...???!! I'm trying to figure out how I can afford to put new tile on the floors of my two tiny bathrooms and he's spending $235,000 taxpayer dollars -- on what? Who authorized this? Isn't somebody in the government (like the GAO) supposed to be tracking expenditures on behalf of the taxpayer? I just don't get how ridiculous things like this can happen, but then I guess we are talking about the government. Common sense does not seem to apply.
I guess incoming Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will have to ditch the DK-initialed towels. I just hope he'll have somebody go to Target for the replacements.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)