Bookworm on Sep 05 2009 at 7:07 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
I’ll be incommunicado for the next couple of days. Hope you all enjoy a wonderful long weekend.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BrianE on What does Dancing With The Stars have to do with the presidential elections? Glad you asked.
SADIE on Friday is Everybody Blog About #BrettKimberlin Day *UPDATED*SADIE on Can someone explain electric cars to me?
PaulScott on Can someone explain electric cars to me?
Ymarsakar on Obama’s supporters do too believe in free enterprise *UPDATED*
Tonestaple on Obama’s supporters do too believe in free enterprise *UPDATED*SADIE on What does Dancing With The Stars have to do with the presidential elections? Glad you asked.Ymarsakar on Can someone explain electric cars to me?
Numbers…lots of numbers. Worth checking out…
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/democrat-health-care-by-numbers.html
Be careful, BW. Not all the nuts are in Washington, or in jars, y’know. Some of ‘em are on the roads!
Rumor has it that Book has been nabbed by operatives working for Sen. Boxer.
Will two days of 24/7 exposure to E.J. Dionne columns, Biden speeches, SEIU slogans and Jane Fonda movies turn our beloved Book into a quivering Stockholmic Syndromette?
Tune in Monday to find out!
Charles, she’ll never surrender! Never!
Labor Day Weekend Thoughts
It’s Labor Day weekend and while you rev up the grill, get the kids ready for another school year and for the fashionably conscious, squirrel away white shoes, hand bags and hats til next year; I was thinking hmm…Labor Day, unions, unemployment nearing 10%, American Industry has sent most of it’s manufacturing off shore.
More than 100 years of history and there are few of us who did not know someone who worked for a union at some time, including my grandmother, who inspected for ‘seconds’ in a factory during the depression.
100 years later and I would be hard put to find something Made in America, other than myself.
Comments? Musing? Rants? Observations?
…or Jokes.
Strikebound L.A. teachers rejected the school districts latest offer saying it was copied from a previous offer, contained too many erasures and misspellings, and was turned in late.
>>…squirrel away white shoes, hand bags and hats til next year>>
Heh. Different times…almost a different place.
You do realize that about 75% of the population would have no idea what that means???
Make that 90%…
Does that mean we’re in the top 10%
Well!
Chuck Martel will never wear white shoes after Labor Day. Or before.
Thanks for that pledge, Chuck Martel. Does it hold true for the white socks as well?
For the “if the NYT doesn’t report it, it didn’t occur” crowd ( we know who we are talking about) here is some news.
Van Jones, a prominent Green Jobs official in the Obama administration, resigned under pressure after Glenn Beck and the blogosphere – kudos to Gateway Pundit – unearthed less than wholesome parts of his political past. Such as his being recorded in February, before he was appointed to the Obama administration, calling Republicans As$#$%%$es. That is just the tip of the iceberg.
The controversy had been covered for some time in the blogosphere, but the first notice the NYT had of it was when Jones resigned.
Courtesy of Instapudit, here is an on the mark comment from Mickey Kaus.
Byron York http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/The-Van-Jones-non-feeding-non-frenzy-57271402.html
Instapundit also links to a good summary of the controversy in Powerline .
Jones is now claiming that it’s all due to a smear campaign…
I think he has a different meaning of the term than I do…
Interesting article about the “smear”. I found the info about Meg Whitman particularly interesting. I understand she’s running or is going to run for governor of California. As president of ebay, I assumed that she was a conservative republican, but when I see that list of her fellow cruise members, it makes me wonder. That’s one of the problems with having an opponent who infiltrates – you start beginning to suspect everybody on your side… It’s what – or who – you _don’t_ know that’s dangerous.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/van-jones-scandal-threatens-obama-presidency/
And now for something completely different!
Since it’s an open thread, here’s just a thought an old friend (old indeed, he’s 92 these days) and I were kicking around, apropos of nothing, but it interested us. Maybe it will you too.
A touch of background. He was born in 1917; participated in WWII quite successfully; elite schools; upper-crust life the whole way, went to school with and knew a whole lot of the movers and shakers of this country from the 30s on. My background is somewhat the same, only I’m (relatively) young, so in my case it was my father who knew everyone from FDR and Winston Churchill to Ernest Hemingway and W.R. Grace. (Through the 30′s, 40′s and 50′s it was a much smaller world.) I’m generationally screwed up, my father having been 48 when I was born, so I’m 20 years younger than most of my cohort, and tend to know the grandchildren of his old friends. (On that side of the family my own first cousins are all 15 – 30 years older than I am.) So between us, friend and I encompass a fair amount of ground. (Call him “Friend.”)
I can remember – and Friend remembers better than me – going out to lunch with family, friends, acquaintances, etc. in New York through the late 50s (in my case; late 30s and 40s in his) and on into the 60s, 70s, and 80s. To me, just old family friends and so forth. But these were often interesting folks. Some you’d know, equally many you wouldn’t. (i.e., everybody knows Reynolds Metals, just to take an example, but not that many people ever heard of Maurice and Billy Reynolds – both now long gone. The “Reynolds” name, like the Grace, Ford, Hasler, Oldsmobile etc., etc. names wasn’t pulled out of the air: they were somebody.)
But here is what Friend and I were talking about. I used to go to lunch fairly regularly with a guy (whose name I will not mention, because he remains very much alive and is quite well known) who all his life was a top-shelf blue-stocking lawyer who arranged trusts and estates. Top-shelf. Hard-working. Brilliant guy. We’d arrive at his table in whichever NYC club it was that day, and before we’d got our chairs pushed all the way in there’d be a double martini in front of his place. We’d sit, he’d pick it up, BANGO! – gone. One swallow. 12:15 PM. It would be instantly replaced by a fresh one. That one got sipped through the meal, and lasted until 12:45. The third arrived with dessert, and was down and gone by 1:10. All doubles, so really he’d had six. Then it was back to the office, or court, for the afternoon.
Friend confirms this, and points out that I’m young and only started seeing this much later, but the lawyer himself – whom Friend has also known forever – has been having lunch this way since the late 1930s.
I can’t tell you how for how many people this was the case. I mean – everybody. And I don’t mean people who worked for name companies, law firms, etc. I mean the people who had the idea, made the innovation, and owned the damn company, or were the senior name in the firm.
My father – and I think I may have said it here once when I happened to mention that on December 7th, 1941 he was having dinner with some folks in England, among them Churchill – knew Churchill fairly well. He saw him occasionally pre, during, and post-war, both at work and at play – and once remarked that he didn’t think he’d ever seen him sober. FDR was often enough swimming laboriously to shore through a sea of post-prandial adult beverages on his way to bed. (As was everybody else in his class – pre-dinner cocktails, post-dinner sherry. Or hock. Or brandy. Or all three.)
My wife put in a career as, at one point, the highest-ranking female (business female, not on-air talent) at one of the three original television networks. Every day of her entire work career by 11:30 AM you couldn’t get a seat at the bar in the favorite NYC watering hole. You couldn’t get near the bar by then. She’d be on the road from one end of this country to the other for half the year, meeting with station owners – who were mostly wealthy individuals in those days. This involved lunches and dinners, and an astounding amount of booze. (If it had been a good night the night before, you had mimosas with breakfast, whet the hell, get started at 9 AM!) But here’s the thing: they weren’t dopes. These were, as a general rule, the most successful people in whatever town or city she was in. They made the dough – or successfully multiplied Grandpa’s – and they bought a TV station. Owning TV stations has not ever been cheap!
So here’s the point of the discussion. This country owned the world by 1945: we dominated in every possible, measurable way. We grew like an explosion through the fifties and sixties, and on into the seventies. Our industry ran everything, everywhere. The late 40s, 50s, 60s and into the 70s were a time of extraordinary American success.
And the guys who drove it, controlled it; made it happen: the guys at the top – they were all drunk every day from 12:30 PM on? They had to be – you can’t suck it down like that and not be, can you? So the most successful, expansive decades in the history of this – or any other country in the history of the planet – were engineered by a bunch of souses? Is that what we’re saying? Friend and I are beginning to think: yeah. We are in fact saying exactly that.
What do you (somewhat older) folks think?
And just to finish the thought: our generation comes along, espouses clean living (except for the fair quantities of cocaine vacuumed up noses during the 80s and 90s), invents health clubs and bean sprouts – and pitches everything straight into the toilet! GM and Chrysler, having survived world wars, depressions, and insurrections of all sorts – couldn’t survive fifteen years of our generation taking the controls? (Given that a generation may be said to rise to prominence and control when it hits its fifties.) Citicorp, the Pine family’s bank back in the early 20′s when it started as First National City Bank of New York, successfully negotiated the depression, WWII, etc. couldn’t survive the last eighteen months of our generation running it without massive bail-outs?
Holy s***! Maybe we gotta start drinking more!
Tiresias: What you reported about Churchill is consistent with what I had read. Interesting point. I am reminded about what was said about Charlie Parker’s addiction to heroin, and the effect it had on his music, in addition to ending his life at age 34: he performed and composed his music in spite of heroin, not because of it.
I have a certain bias against alcohol, the result of an auto accident from my childhood which left lasting damage in two families. A job in my college years which exposed me to a man in his early 50s,brain-damaged from Korsakoff’s Syndrome, did not change my view.
OTOH, we would do much better with a soused Churchill or Roosevelt at the helm than with a stone cold sober Obama. It might be said that Obama could lead me to drink.
My overall view is that alcohol can be very powerful and should be treated with the utmost respect.
Quite a retrospective, Tiresias.
The cocktails with lunch (maybe with breakfast, too) crowd also made some awful decisions or were incapable of making some executive decisions quickly enough. I am thinking of SSA circa 1936. I am sure there are others in this room that could add to a list.
The change in direction-misdirection for the off-spring generation may be due to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Gringo..
The Old Gray Lady, has dementia.
Left re-education camps don’t need to focus on alcohol.
For example, the British, French, and German cultures are exceptionally weak in terms of self-sufficiency and they are far more tolerant of drinking and moderate drinking than is the case for American generations.
suek
Valerie Jarrett, best friend and adviser to BO, still has her job. WHY?
Just when you think you’ve heard everything!
President Obama is concerned. Concerned that American’s are providing for their futures during this terrible economic crisis. And to help us out, he’s suggested that tax refunds be sent in the form of savings bonds.
And it has been reported this wouldn’t need the approval of Congress.Think of the beauty of this proposal. Since we’re having trouble getting the Chinese to purchase sufficient quantities of our debt, we’ll just transfer the debt to taxpayers.
This is a brilliant stroke. If you overpaid your taxes to the tune of $1,000, you could get 10 $100 savings bonds. Of course, if you choose to redeem them before they mature, they’ll only be worth 50%. But hang on to them for 10 years or so and they will be worth their face value.
Of course the interest you earn will be taxable.
It’s a win-win. The government unloads its debt and we as taxpayers get to contribute to the well-being of our country.
Best of the quotes from Power Line.
Reading the NY Times doesn’t tell you what’s going on in the world — it tells you what’s going on in the Times newsroom.
Clean up in aisle 3
Rev. Wright
Samantha Powers
Van Jones
BrianE
How much should I put ya down for?
Series I Savings Bonds to Earn 0.00%, Series EE to Earn 0.70% Fixed Rate, When Bought from May 2009 Through October 2009
Money would be safer under my mattress.
Sadie: Given what Tiresias has said about the movers and shakers in NYC, perhaps it could be said that the Old Gray Lady is suffering from dementia brought on by Korsakoff’s syndrome.
Boris delivers a Blond-shell. Of course, I went for the obvious.
Following in the
footstepsgoose steps of his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, the mayor thinks it would be just dandy if everyone partakes in a ‘fast’. You know, to show camaraderie with your muslim neighbors.http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/09/uk-mayor-london-calls-on-nonmuslims-to-fast-for-ramadan.html
Here’s something very very strange.
Tim Larkin, the brand name and face of TFT, although only because he started it not because he thinks is a guru, gets interviewed by BBC One because he ran a live training session in Britain.
Oh, to be a fly on the wall when that happened. The Brit media must have gone insane. Here comes this American former military remember to teach ‘American violence’ *chuckles*. The lack of guns must have really thrown them off, too.
http://www.targetfocustraining.com/blog/2009/09/bbc-interviews-tim-larkin-about-extreme_05.html
Hit the overall blog link to see the comment links. Yeah, it’s weird.
Jujitsu okay, but Yank with TFT technique bad?
I am just shocked.
>>Money would be safer under my mattress.>>
I’ve started putting some under my mattress. Well, not exactly, but building a cash reserve. In a safe place.
I’ve been reading the economics blogs too much, I guess, They’re full of doom and gloom. The problem, of course, is what to do to minimize impact…with the dollar inflate? will it deflate? will the Chinese succeed in getting some new currency designated as the international exchange currency? If they do, will it matter to us…or only if you’re traveling? buy gold and/or silver? if you do, who’s going to buy it? What happens if the US gets in really deep and decides to change currency – like they did with the euro…and you can only buy so much…or whatever you have stashed will be nothing but kindling to light a fire with? Scary times.
About the alcohol…
You’re right – they drank a lot in those days. It was expected that a gentleman should be able to “hold his liquor”. Women were not expected to drink at the same rate, nor were they “supposed” to drink the same high alcohol content beverages. Martini’s were the man’s drink, women drank Manhattans. My Dad was in the military, so no noon drinking, but when the sun was over the yardarm, it was all on the up and up.
We inherited both my father’s and my f-i-l’s liquor “cabinets”. It was the expectation in middle – upper class homes that you could satisfy any guest’s request for any drink…so you had to have a fairly large stock. So even now, I still have brandy, rum, (white and gold), vodka, gin, scotch, bourbon, (one bottle in a box that my father says _his_ father got from _his_ father when he died. His father died in the late 50s to early 60s…so that bottle is at least 50 years old. He says his father thought the bottle came from before Prohibition, but I checked the name on the label (on the net), and the company formed in 1941…so it’s not older than that. We have Kreme de Cacao, Creme de Menthe, Absinthe( I think – it’s that Italian yellow colored, anise flavored stuff)…. I don’t even know what’s out there any more. We don’t drink that much, and when we do, it’s beer and/or wine. At Christmas, we have Hot Tom and Jerrys and I have recipes for all sorts of alcoholic punches to be served to groups – and a punch bowl in the attic that I’ve never used.
I can’t really pour the stuff down the sink – it’d kill the buggies in my septic tank! Can’t sell the stuff – I’m not sure I should even give it away, and not sure who I’d give it to! I guess we’ll just keep passing it down till it gets to be some wonderful old valuable stuff that they get a fantastic price on in that antique road show – or whatever it’s called!
>>This is a brilliant stroke. If you overpaid your taxes to the tune of $1,000, you could get 10 $100 savings bonds.>>
Brian – thank you for pointing that out…I hadn’t thought of it quite like that. In fact – I hadn’t really considered it at all…I was still working on the “how do we make sure we don’t pay any more than absolutely necessary without hitting the penalty/interest trigger…! However, in case of error – I’ll definitely keep your point in mind.
I haven’t done taxes for a long time, but if I recall correctly, you need to be sure your payments are all on schedule up until the last quarter. In the last quarter, you need to pay enough so that you’ve paid something like at least 90% of what you owed in the previous year in order to avoid penalty and interest. Then of course, you have to pay the balance owed by April 15. The reason is that if you hit the underpaid trigger, they go back and figure it by quarters. If you haven’t paid enough by 30 March, for example, they take the amount you should have paid and you pay your penalty plus interest from that date. Etc.
But no bonds for refunds.
Thanks, Brian…!
suek..
It occurred to me that your extensive liquor cabinet and almost 70 year old bottle of scotch is the alcoholic equivalent to a FRUITCAKE.
Liquor stores would go out of business if they depended on my business, but I really do like a real fruitcake (w/liquor). If you ever get the urge to bake, I’ll send you my address
I also read economic blogs. Can’t say I understand anymore/less before the economic mess. The one observation I have made, neither do the professionals.
I wonder if buying diamonds are a good way to go (certainly easy to travel with) and like macadamia nuts, they’re the same price world wide.
Like you, I also have thought about the ‘what if’ scenario. There’s no shortage of blog sites for survivalists. Friends of mine, bought a house in the ‘sticks’. Wood burning stove, they had to wait 4 months for it, since it is actually made in the U.S. They just bought some chickens, a few goats with plans for more independence down the road. Kids are home schooled. The kicker on this story is that the Mr. works for DOD.
suek, this may be of ‘investment’ interest to you.
Note, the three areas 1) Agriculture and who is the largest? ADM from Illinois, of course. 2) Fiber optics 3) Medical supplies.
I would start tracking sales/stock news and see, who gets what. Some of them are going to get a lot. Whether or not it shows up on paper anytime soon..who knows. I just try to ‘follow the money’.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Americans with relatives in Cuba can send them unlimited cash and visit the island as long and often as they would like under new rules that fissured a nearly five-decade trade embargo on Thursday.
The rules, made effective immediately by the U.S. Treasury Department, fleshed out an announcement by President Barack Obama in April to ease U.S. trade restrictions imposed on Cuba after Fidel Castro’s leftist revolution half a century ago.
Until now, Cuban-Americans had been allowed to travel to the island only once a year and were limited to sending only $1,200 per person in cash to needy family members in Cuba.
But now they can send as much money as they want to a larger group of relatives that includes aunts, uncles, cousins and second cousins, a reversal of a restriction introduced by the Bush administration in a bid to squeeze Cuba’s communist government financially.
“That is something that will help a lot,” said Enrique Gonzalez, a 64-year-old military retiree in Havana. “Despite the global financial crisis, the relatives will send a lot of remittances, which will help everybody here,” he said.
But the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, which has policed the trade embargo and fined Americans caught spending money in Cuba, said U.S. visitors could only spend $179 a day on trips to the island.
That is the same amount as the U.S. State Department’s per diem rate for official visits. Previously, family travelers were allowed to spend just $50 a day.
Separate regulations issued by the U.S. Commerce Department doubled the value limit for gift parcels sent to Cubans to $800 per month and widened the allowed recipients. Non-monetary gifts could only be sent previously to immediate family members and they may now be sent to any individual or to independent religious, educational and charitable organizations in Cuba.
The Commerce Department also eliminated a 44-pound limit on personal baggage to Cuba and allows visitors to bring donated personal communications devices such as mobile phone systems, computers, software, satellite receivers and digital cameras.
But the loosening of the rules for Cuban-Americans did not affect a general ban on travel by American citizens to Cuba and tight restrictions on academic and cultural exchanges.
BANKING, TELECOMS LINKS
The rules provide for some changes that could lay the groundwork for future trade links between the United States and Cuba in banking and telecommunications.
Relaxation of the remittance rules allow U.S. banks to set up exchange arrangements with Cuban institutions to handle the transfers. The lack of such financial exchanges was considered a hindrance to the growth of agricultural trade with Cuba that was first allowed nearly a decade ago.
The Treasury rules allow U.S. telecommunications companies to set up fiber-optic cable and satellite links and enter into cell-phone roaming service agreements with Cuba. They allow U.S. residents to pay for satellite radio and television services provided to Cuban individuals by third-country firms.
The rules allow transactions and travel related to establishing telecoms services between the two countries.
Washington attorney Robert Muse, who specializes in Cuba issues and closely follows the Cuba embargo regulations, said he was encouraged by this provision, which could mean a genuine loosening of the U.S. trade sanctions in the telecoms area.
“If they have allowed the U.S. telecommunications industry to actually provide real technology in pursuit of telecommunications projects in Cuba, then … it opens a market for U.S. suppliers that had been shut out of Cuba,” he added.
The Treasury also established a general travel license to Cuba for U.S. employees of firms seeking to sell agricultural and medical products there.
Companies providing charter flights between the United States and Cuba said they expected a spike in passenger business as a result of the new regulations.
“There will definitely be a rush,” said Vivian Mannerud, President of Airline Brokers Company, which has been operating since 1982.
“It was absolutely needed whether it be for business or from the humanitarian aspect, or just plain old freedom to travel and being able to visit your family whenever you want to,” Mannerud told Reuters.
Ah yes…Obama…friend to tyrants.
As for fruitcake….
Used to make it every year. Preferably around the first part of November. That way, it has plenty of time to “ripen”. My Mom taught me how to make it – including soaking it with burbon or sherry on a regular basis. Actually, it’s ideal to serve the last of last year’s fruitcake for this year’s Christmas dessert (after the pumpkin pie). The thing I didn’t realize initially is that Mom’s recipe is just pound cake…which holds together about 5 pounds of fruit and nuts. The recipe is pretty much 1 lb (4.5C) of flour, one pound of butter, one pound of sugar (2 cups) and a dozen eggs. Mom’s recipe is an old one…it calls for the eggs to be broken one at a time into a cup, then added to the bowl where you beat them. I’d been cooking for a while when it dawned on my _why_…in the old days, you didn’t just run down to the store to buy a dozen eggs… you collected them and stored them till you needed them. If you by chance got one bad one….well, you didn’t want to throw away the good ones you’d already broken. So…one at a time, and if you hit a bad one (unlikely as it is today), it could be pitched with the rest in fine shape. Anyway…you put all the dried fruit in a _big_ bowl and add the flour. All the flour. Mix it all up – it flours the fruit so it won’t stick together in clumps, and so it will stay suspended in the dough. In another bowl, you cream the eggs and sugar, add the eggs and make a batter, then add it to the fruit/flour mix. You pretty much just coat all the fruit with the batter, and then put it into loaf pans that have been lined with greased brown paper. We always just cut up grocery bags. They bake for an hour or so in a slow oven, and when they’re cool, poke them with tooth picks, or those metal pins, and add the liquor till you can see it. Then you put them in something airtight and repeat the dousing every couple of weeks. No pineapple included in the fruit – it tends to allow mold to develop. Joy of Cooking recommends storing them in an air tight can, starting with confectioners sugar, adding loaves, more confectioners sugar etc till you reach the top. I’ve never done it that way, but it would probably keep down any possibility of spoilage – you could probably keep them for _years_! We just figure the alcohol will do the trick.
Haven’t made any in the last couple of years – my husband is worried about diabetes. Not much joy in baking when there are no eaters…
>>The kicker on this story is that the Mr. works for DOD.>>
Hmmm. Wonder what he knows that we don’t?
>>The kicker on this story is that the Mr. works for DOD.>>
Hmmm. Wonder what he knows that we don’t?
ME, TOO.
I don’t ask.
He doesn’t offer.
or
He hasn’t offered.
So, I didn’t ask.
Mrs. makes it sound like something ‘nice’ to do, but putting up chicken wire and chasing goats just doesn’t thrill me at this stage of life.
I still cook, bake and it’s just me. There’s plenty of neighbors, who don’t like to, so I just either freeze or share.
I’ll cut and paste your recipe (should I get the urge) but I need temp and time.
I am preparing a letter to send to IRS next April 15. In it I will explain that I have spent the money I was intending to pay the government to bail out my local bank and buy an Oldsmobile instead.
Since my buying strategy is in exact accord with the federal government’s, I doubt that the IRS will give me much grief.
Furthermore, I will tell the IRS that my 24-year-old son is now officially responsible for my debts since it’s his money that both I and the government have decided to spend years in advance of his generating it.
Thank God I’m sophisticated enough, like that Obama feller, to know how high finance works.
On Tiersias #15,
A very thought-provoking series of anecdotes!
And I noticed that those who commented did so in a very knee-jerk sort of fashion, instantly saying “alcohol is bad bad bad bad!”
And didn’t really re-investigate the premise.
I think it’s worthy of reinvestigation.
My first thought: The people at the bars were probably not downing alcohol at a furious rate. They weren’t staggeringly drunk heading back to the office. Pleasantly inebriated, perhaps, at a relatively low rate? I have the impression that public drunkenness was not tolerated.
The gentleman with his six-equivalent martinis was probably more capable than most of holding his liquor, else I think he’d not have survived doing that to stay successful? For the rest of us who are not as fortunate as he, three martinis over a two-hour lunch would leave us, at the end of the lunch, still in quite good shapeto conduct the rest of the day. First of all, two of them are burned off during the two hours, AND there’s the effects of the food to factor in, reducing the risks even further.
Also, I bet most of those people, while slightly over our “legal limits for driving” these days, most of those people walked down and over to the bar, and walked back to the office. (And remember my premise: they weren’t very drunk either, just slightly.)
Hey, all…I was able through my sources in the Chicago Party Combine to obtain an advance copy of Obama’s speech to the students next week. These are the stirring words to the opening paragraphs:
Arise all students from your iPod slumbers
Arise all ye other victims of want
Our season of revolt now thunders
So that at last can end the age of Kant.
Away with all religious superstitions
Ye servile parasites arise, arise
We’ll destroy henceforth all the old traditions
And spurn wealth and health to win the prize.
So students of Amerika, come rally
And in this last fight let us face
My Obamanationale shall unite the human race.
So students of Amerika come rally
And in this last fight let us face
My Obamanationale shall unite the human race.
No more reactionary delusions
On seniors and conservatives shall we make war
Our youth brigades shall crush their illusions
So they’ll break ranks and fight no more
And if those tea party protesters keep trying
To sacrifice us to their pride
They soon see the Molotovs flying
We’ll smear their generals in passing asides
No savior from Alaska shall deliver
No faith have we in their leaders and peers
Our own Left hands their chains must shiver
Chains of our hatred, greed and smears
E’er the productive ones will out with their booty
And make us all a happier lot.
Each at your desks must do your duty
So that we can let your brains turn to rot.
[h/t The Internationale]
Mike Devx,
Alcohol is bad, bad, bad, bad.
I’m trying to think of one good thing I did drunk during college, but can’t. Since I can’t remember much of anything that occurred while drunk. Except the time one guy stole an airplane and killed himself. Come to think of it, that was due to drugs, so I guess it doesn’t really count.
It does raise some interesting points, though. The types of judgements alcohol impairs, apparently didn’t affect captains of industry. They obviously had enough sober people working for them to make those kinds of judgements.
I have an alcoholic friend, a commodities broker, who appears to function quite well. He and his wife don’t start drinking until five or so, and mostly drink wine, but I’ve always wondered how he could continue to be so successful.
Another alcoholic friend, a beer drinker, has struggled to keep it together most of his life– never working at one job more than a couple of years or so.
Maybe the lesson here is the form the alcohol takes. Maybe if Don had consumed hard liquor or wine instead of beer his life would have been better.
I guess what the real lesson is we use so little of our brains, that most people can perform their jobs drunk. If the average person uses 10% of their brain, and a genius uses 20%, that leaves a whole lot of excess capacity.
Odd/Not So Odd News:
I heard on the news that a span of the S.F. Bay- Oakland Bridge has been closed due to structural problems. Engineers have been inspecting/correcting problems since 1969.
The bridge was built in 3 years and yet it’s taken 40 years to inspect/repair.
It reminded me of the old joke: Why do doctors specialize in dermatology –
Their patients never get better and they never die.
Can you be off-topic on an open thread???
In any case, in spite of denial, _someone_ had an agenda. Now it’s entirely possible that _one_ individual had an agenda and initiated the crack in the door, and others perfectly innocently either said “whatever(ok it’s weird, but whatever it takes to get you on our side)” or said “oh yeah…that’s a good idea” without having any inkling of the agenda and simply not seeing the intent, but the fact is _someone_ _did_ have the intent, and knew just how to wedge a crack in the door.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/09/06/obamacare-assisted-suicide-promoting-congressman-behind-end-of-life-counseling-provision/
And we know how wonderful that end of life care thing is going with the fully paid health care in Oregon…
Mike, #36 – yeah, everybody sort of blew right past the point there, didn’t they?
suek… it’s not off topic, we were discussing fruitcakes.
Heh. Fruitcakes indeed. And well soused at that!
Now this one is interesting – this is not an economic blog, but they are well aware of the problems that the economy can cause, and are fearful that the economy will be a critical factor in bringing down the Obama house of cards – so they’re keeping an eye on it. You may not see this in the usual places…
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/09/irony-chinese-communist-official-quotes.html
Nor this, suek, a link from the comment section. In your own words/question below:
The problem, of course, is what to do to minimize impact…with the dollar inflate? will it deflate? will the Chinese succeed in getting some new currency designated as the international exchange currency?
http://dailyreckoning.com/china-ditches-the-dollar/
“If we don’t get our fiscal house in order, but create new obligations we’ll have a Thelma and Louise moment where we go over the cliff.”
-David Walker, former head of the GAO
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574392620693542630.html
BrianE,
I think most natural things, taken in moderation and under control, are fine – even the ones that are illegal. I don’t do the illegal ones, some simply because they’re illegal and some because I don’t like them or find them frightening.
Just as with guns – the problem is not the gun, it’s the person behind it – it’s not the substance, it’s the person drinking it, in my opinion. It is sad and horrifying when someone’s life goes to ruin because of a drinking problem, or when they murder or injure someone on the road while driving drunk.
Aside from the fact that there are probably a lot of drunks on the roads in the evenings – especially Friday and Saturday evening 12am-3am, a time period I am NEVER on the road if I can help it – I see no difference between manslaughter while driving drunk and manslaughter while driving under any other circumstance when you can’t control your vehicle. (IE texting on the cellphone while switching radio stations and self-grooming while yelling at someone in the back seat…)
The types of judgments alcohol impairs, apparently didn’t affect captains of industry. They obviously had enough sober people working for them to make those kinds of judgments.
If so, the movers and shakers, were not calling the shots or drawing up the contracts, but were rewarded by sober proxy.
Not all who drive drunk cause an accident, but it doesn’t absolve them of the practice, because the passenger in their car ‘steered’ them away from a collision.
The premise is wrong. The point is wrong.
Ymar,
Which premise and which point are wrong? Mine, Sadie’s, BrianE’s or Tiresias’?
If mine… well, I’m always willing to be convinced. And sometimes it doesn’t take much. Someone telling me simply “You are wrong” never has done the job, however.
Which premise and which point are wrong? Mine, Sadie’s, BrianE’s or Tiresias’?
Sadie and BrianE did not speak on concerning a premise, any premise, and BrianE mentioned points, plural not singular. So it isn’t them or theirs.
“You are wrong” never has done the job, however.
If you wish to inquire on this topic, my answer is a very plain one.
And I noticed that those who commented did so in a very knee-jerk sort of fashion, instantly saying “alcohol is bad bad bad bad!”
And didn’t really re-investigate the premise.
Mike, #36 – yeah, everybody sort of blew right past the point there, didn’t they?
The above examples weren’t backed by any illustration or reasoning beyond the claim. Thus my natural and logical response is a counter-claim. I did not provide anything more because more wasn’t needed at the time. The objection you and T raised was that the point wasn’t addressed. You didn’t specify to what extent you wished the point addressed, only that the premise wasn’t. So I made an explicit address on that basis. You say the premise wasn’t re-investigated. I responded that the premise is wrong. T responded that ‘everybody’ sailed past the point. I responded that the point was wrong, and I would add that I had already plainly described my stance before, which would invalidate the ‘everyone’ description as well. I didn’t blow past it. I considered it and relegated it to the incorrect column. The consideration was swift and wasn’t explicitly stated, so it is certainly understandable that an impression may have been made that was not strictly accurate.
The premise was very flawed to begin with and it was backed by annecdotes which I wasn’t particularly interested in, except as an entertaining description of how people observe the lives of others. I didn’t explicitly raise a point of negation about it, since I was more concerned with the corollary that followed it.
couldn’t survive fifteen years of our generation taking the controls? (Given that a generation may be said to rise to prominence and control when it hits its fifties.) Citicorp, the Pine family’s bank back in the early 20’s when it started as First National City Bank of New York, successfully negotiated the depression, WWII, etc. couldn’t survive the last eighteen months of our generation running it without massive bail-outs?
That’s the corollary of course. That because society promoted some standard about drinking and clean living that Americans are no longer functioning in the same fashion as before, based upon the premise that performance was based upon some aspects of drinking. I could have argued that since the premise was wrong, the corollary would also be wrong, but I chose to address the corollary first and work backwards. Since people raised some objection about the premise being passed over, here you have a different take.
So here’s the point of the discussion.
And the guys who drove it, controlled it; made it happen: the guys at the top – they were all drunk every day from 12:30 PM on
Friend and I are beginning to think: yeah. We are in fact saying exactly that.
So here it is, indeed. The premise is supported and introduced by anecdotal evidence concerning ambitious men and women and their relationship to both work and alcohol. The anecdotes aren’t the premise, they simply provide the background and the argumental justifications for the premise. The construct is very easily divided between anecdotal evidence, the explicit illustration of the premise (Here is the point of the discussion), and the corollary that would follow if that premise was true.
The premise itself is divided into two general parts. One part says that the captains of industry were drunk every day. The second part says that this drinking allowed them to do something positive that the absence of drinking wouldn’t have.
Both parts of the original premise are wrong. To disprove the first part using logic, one would necessarily have to judge and dissect the evidence provided for it, which is anecdotal in construct and description. That would be pointless and almost certainly futile even if it wasn’t pointless. The second part, however, is more deductive and less inductive in nature and is thus more easily disproved using the methods and tools available on the internet.
The key nature here is the difference between a drunk and a captain of industry. Drunks have a sort of self-hypnosis effect going on. They drink to have fun because alcohol lowers their inhibitions and they like having their inhibitions lowered. Thus, they participate in their own inebriation because they like the loss of control. Captains of industry hate the loss of control. They are almost inevitably OCD, perfectionists, and driven individuals. They don’t quit, they don’t make excuses for themselves, and they certainly don’t like somebody or something else having control over their actions.
Most drunks, on this basis, do stupid things because they didn’t drink to do anything productive. They used alcohol for social reasons, partying for fun, or to relieve stress or forget painful episodes. They use alcohol as a crutch, something they depend upon to create an effect that one wouldn’t normally get without alcohol (or drugs).
Captains of industry, however, have a slightly different brain chemistry make up to go along with their internal issues. Some are creatures of habit, perhaps even most. Their habit is control and self-discipline, because they are driven by something far more powerful than alcohol. It is this drive that separates them from regular drunks or alcohol users. The drunk that does stupid things is never as driven, never as propelled by OCD, as a captain of industry. They never started off as equals. So of course the drunk will do nothing productive while a captain of industry that drinks like a drunk would do something productive. It isn’t a result of drinking, it’s a result of the difference between drunks and captains of industry. If the argument is that drinking makes one a captain of industry, that would be ridiculously easy to disprove, as anecdotes here have demonstrated. But if one requires a person to already be a captain of industry, for the drinking drunkeness to produce ‘positive’ results, then obviously whatever the results were derived from, it wasn’t primarily from drinking. It was primarily from the individual in question and his or her own personal capabilities that existed before they ever started drinking.
When I speak of captains of industry, I speak of an archetype, not a specific individual. For every individual, there will be differences and I fully account and accept that there will be variation. It won’t change the validity of my argument, however.
On a scientific basis, I would like to note that alcohol essentially lowers people’s inhibitions. So a shy person may become outspoken with alcohol. But what would it do to a captain of industry, somebody that is already outspoken, aggressive, experienced with leadership and command, and with a force of personality on the scale of either a glacier or a tsunami? Who knows, but it doesn’t appear to be negative. It doesn’t have to be positive, either. A captain of industry can control alcohol just as he or she controls every other aspect or goal of their life. It might, perhaps, make them feel more at ease taking large risks and dealing with personal stress, but they would have gone through it anyways. They aren’t captains of industry because they needed alcohol to give them courage. They already had it. If people could gain such courage and make a consistent life of it via alcohol, drinking would be very productive in making millionaires. But drinking won’t provide drive, so it doesn’t. Perhaps it eases their (captains’) conscience or emotions to have it rather than not have it, but again, the effects are based upon their inherent qualities rather than changing them into a person that wouldn’t exist except with the alcohol.
On a different note, Ted Kennedy was said to have been an obscene drunk that nevertheless never allowed drinking to interfere with his work. And Kennedy, by most accounts, did a lot of work with committees in Congress. You know, the actual nit and gritty politics that Obama just passed on with “Present”? That’s where a lot of kennedy’s power came from, after all. It wasn’t just his family wealth and fame that gave him his influence. He had to work for it in Congress. And while he did so on the backs of millions, including the Vietnamese and those that had suffered under the Soviets, it didn’t really impact his conscience any. He was successful regardless.
So you have the example of Edward Kennedy to contrast with Tiresias’ captains of industry. It is very apparent that Edward Kennedy was driven by strong things. Evil things, perhaps, but strong nonetheless. I will also give you the example of Bush the W. He started drinking and then stopped. And eventually became President. He is driven, but he didn’t needed alcohol to give him courage or make him work. And he expressly refuses to drink precisely because he knows that he does not want alcoholicism to gain control of him once again. Ambitious people hate that and it becomes a strong motivation for them to take control back from substance abuse.
There are 3 sub-types you can review. The non-drinking over-achiever, Bush. The drinking creature named Ted Kennedy that nonetheless harnessed power and influence far above a captain of industry. And finally, the drinking folks and executives and creative owners, the captains of industry who created things in civilian life for the betterment of many. They have many differences but one general type of common ground: internal drive. Good or bad, responsible or irresponsible, revolutionary or simply creative, all had that intrinsic quality that nothing external, including alcohol, could substitute for.
Half the original premise no longer stands. The other half can be redefined, since ambitious people mostly are drunk on power, not alcohol. The intoxication of power and success and wealth is a bit more powerful for such people than a simple substance such as alcohol, even in great quantities. So regardless of whether Tiresias’ individuals were drunk or not, alcohol would become far less important a state, which weakens the corollary. But it is not necessary for me to redefine being drunk. The premise would fail simply based upon the weakness of one of its’ halves.
So the most successful, expansive decades in the history of this – or any other country in the history of the planet – were engineered by a bunch of souses? Is that what we’re saying? Friend and I are beginning to think: yeah. We are in fact saying exactly that.
And that’s why the premise is wrong. That, in fact, the most successful and expansive decade or decades in such a history were not engineered by a bunch of souses.
Let’s address the corollary concerning the decay and decadence of current and modern times. So where have all the driven people gone, given that industries are falling apart and what not? The answer looks very simple to me. They haven’t disappeared because of a change in drinking habits, I can assure you. They simply went into different spheres. The bad folks went into politics. The good folks went into the US military and then retired and are now doing whatever they are doing, politics or private sector.
The military operates under some of the harshest conditions during war time, which this does constitute such a time. And they don’t need their people to be drunk or drinking, for obvious reasons. Most assuredly, the Navy and other branches almost don’t care whether you drink or not, so long as you don’t show up for work impaired. That policy may or may not have changed, but regardless that is a standard. If ordinary people can function this way, assuming they get drunk and then show up for work sober, why not captains of industry who operate at a slightly higher level of performance.
The combat branches of the US military operates far higher than the highest civilian CEO positions, of course. Which is why you hear of particular suicides. It is the stress, including PTSD. Smoking is popular in the military, perhaps even especially the combat branches. Perhaps you have heard of Obama ordering that no smoking will be allowed, even as Obama takes a toke or two every once in awhile? The infantry can’t drink, so they smoke. One substance to deal with the stress replacing another substance to deal with the stress. But did smoking make a Marine into a Marine? I don’t think so. It’s a tool, but the user of the tool matters for far more.
Regardless of those aspects, the current US military functions at a very high level indeed concerning both creativity (Petraeus) and performance (allied casualties, civilian casualties, and enemy casualties). The military ‘product’, so to speak, is of a very consistent and high quality to equal or exceed the best civilian lines. None of it was achieved by a focus or a need to drink.
If Tiresias will correct his original premise from ‘souses’ and drunks to a statement about the inherent and instrinsic drive of leaders to excel above all else being the cause of such unparalleled expansion, then I believe I could support such a premise. But as it stands, I believed his premise was wrong when I first read it and I believe his premise is still wrong after crafting an argument against it. Not much has changed.
Sadie…
Re: Valerie Jarrett…check out this page. It’s mostly about Obama, his connections with just a few mentions of her. Interesting reading. November 15 has more on her specifically.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/search?q=valerie+jarrett
To be honest, I think Obama has a thing about dominant women – probably traces to his mother and grandmother, but I suspect that Valerie “manages” him. Just my guess after reading stuff – no real concrete evidence. Other than his wife, that is.
Thanks for link, suek..
There is something insidious about Chicago. I’d have to double check the exact numbers, but I think they have more ‘former’ elected officials serving time or who have served time or who will serve time (?) than other large cities.
It’s not that public officials are immune from this taint, it just seems that Chicago has perfected it.
I remember hearing this on either Sky News or BBC, while living in Tel Aviv and thinking unbelievable. How could this happen. Here I am living in incredibly heat, as in the 90/90 factor – 90 degrees and 90% humidity daily and no chance of rain (May-Oct) and they’re dropping like flies in the U.S.
1995
July 12–17, Chicago: 739 people died in record heat wave.
Anyway.. Jarrett has been referred to as Obama’s handler. I can’t recall now, but Mrs. O and Jarrett also had their own connection.
We have a long hard haul in front of us and that we should pick and choose when and how we raise the hammer, lest we weaken our resolve and look like nit pickers. Although, so far the issues have been worthy of any ruckus.
Just in case…keep a jackhammer ready.
I’ve often said you could strip the money from the truly successful people, and within a generation they would have it all back.
Having tried my hand at entrepreneurship, and being found wanting, I concluded I didn’t have the innate ability to recognize opportunity. It’s not that I wasn’t a good manager for someone else, and made money for them, and it wasn’t necessarily risk aversion (though that may have been part of it), but I often missed opportunity that the successful capitalist sees. Just like the savant sees the results of multiplying 6 digit numbers together, the capitalist just sees it. Everything to them is an opportunity.
I believe it’s the way their brains are wired.
I’ve started putting some under my mattress. Well, not exactly, but building a cash reserve. In a safe place.
I’ve been reading the economics blogs too much, I guess, They’re full of doom and gloom. The problem, of course, is what to do to minimize impact…with the dollar inflate? will it deflate? will the Chinese succeed in getting some new currency designated as the international exchange currency? If they do, will it matter to us…or only if you’re traveling? buy gold and/or silver? if you do, who’s going to buy it? What happens if the US gets in really deep and decides to change currency – like they did with the euro…and you can only buy so much…or whatever you have stashed will be nothing but kindling to light a fire with? Scary times.- suek
I’ve assumed we would inflate our way out of this mess, but here’s an interesting column that makes a convincing argument that even that technique won’t work, since any devaluation would just lead to higher commodity prices (specifically oil).
http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1414-2009-Labor-Day-Ponderings…..html
Definately worth the read. We have gotten lulled into thinking we can continue the cheap dollar route since China joined us in playing the game, but what happened last year with $140 oil must remain a visible reminder of the precipice we are on. We are just beginning to see the difficulty of sustaining an economy based on consumption– consumption financed by debt.
Here’s another, Brian. I’ve run across a couple of fairly plain speaking discussions – none of them make me feel very optimistic.
http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2009/09/end-of-currency.html
Sadie…
Re: fruitcake. You might find this link to be of interest…
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/09/benevolent-bakery-eat-cake-for-good.html
Book…
Do you realize you don’t have a tag for “Open” threads? This time I was lucky – it hadn’t passed into the great beyond of the first page – but it would be easier to find if you tagged Open threads with “open”! I really would hate to have to find something from searching through the archives based on which month or week something went through!
(Yes…that’s a suggestion!)
That’s a wonderful suggestion, suek. I’ll create one to use from now on.
Thanks, suek, I’ll take a good look.
The open thread idea was light bulb moment! Call it open or BTW..just one that we can use to follow up on fruitcakes (which includes most of whom what or who is discussed, anyway).