Maggie's Farm

In a marathon session yesterday, politicians allowed people from Newtown and various other lobbying organizations to state their views about guns.  Several of the more emotionally compelling statements made the press and have been forced on an unsuspecting public, as a means to push harsher gun control laws.  One statement in particular struck me as I watched the news this morning.  Susie Ehrens, whose daughter survived the attack, made the following plea:

“We stop being the world’s greatest country when we allow our most vulnerable citizens to be slaughtered because we might offend people by taking away their guns. We stop being something to be proud of when we love our guns more than we love our children.”

It is heartfelt sentiment with a strong statement.  I have no doubt many people, many parents in particular, were moved closer to supporting gun control as a result.  Certainly, it is a statement which hit me hard - do I really love guns more than I love children?  So much so that I'm willing to let children die just because I support the freedom to bear arms?

Of course not.  After thinking about this statement, I believed a response was needed.  Mainly because it is factually inaccurate, at least in terms of how it describes me, and it is logically flawed, in general.

Al Gore may not have invented the internet or Global Warming, but his name will be forever associated with both.  He certainly found ways to profit from these themes.

Now he's found a way to profit from TV, which he never claimed to invent, but hoped to 're-invent' with his Current TV network.  An unwatched network airing questionable programming, pursuing a bizarre agenda that was mildly anti-American to most of us.  Well, now he's out of the TV business and turning the reins over to another crowd of potentially anti-American broadcasters.

I can see the conspiracy theorists lining up behind this one.

If Al-Jazeera somehow turns the U.S. into a Muslim nation, will Al Gore take credit for being the founding father of Islamic U.S.A.?

I spent the entire day of Friday 12/14 in a meeting.  I kept getting text messages asking what I thought of 'the news', though I had no idea what they were referring to.  When I finally came out from the meeting and saw what happened I was deeply saddened and my thoughts and prayers went out to the families and friends of those lost.  It's a tragic episode, one which has played out far too often in the past few months here in the US.

I'm pleased with the limited time Maggie's has spent on the topic.  By the end of Friday evening, I was done with the news.  It isn't news.  It's an emotional outpouring which began to grate on me, and even this morning as I left for work, I was annoyed that major outlets continue to spend far too much time on this tragedy.  Without any useful information, it's been over-analyzed in the course of the week.

I can't and won't let emotion sway my beliefs. My views on life are backed up with analysis and thought, not an emotional reaction to one or two events.

This is important to me because the meetings I have been in are about leadership. One primary approach to leadership is that style less important than behavior. If your behavior in emotional and stressful situations is different from how you behave normally, it undermines your credibility and ability to process information rationally. This is why the voices we hear on the black boxes of aircraft facing emergencies are usually calm and matter-of-fact. These people were chosen to be in their position for a particular reason...

This past week was finals week for my son.  Thankfully, his slow start at college led to a fine rally and his efforts were rewarded with good grades.  I give him a tremendous amount of credit for pulling himself together in his new environment.  He started out carelessly, as many young people do when suddenly placed in an environment which is seemingly responsibility-free.  The reality hits home quickly, of course, and his hit in the first two weeks, details of which are not important. 

What was important was how he responded.  He buckled down, and realized that while he could have some fun, he was there to do work.  I pointed out to him his payment for the work he does is the sense of accomplishment good grades provide.

However, for all the fine work he did, there was one event which bothered me.  He handled it well, I can't say that I would've.

His professor, for their final paper, asked them all to write a letter to President Obama asking for increased legislation and leadership to move our nation to a 'green' or sustainable energy policy.  All the papers would be graded, but the highest grade would be sent directly to President Obama through a personal friend.

My first reaction was "what right does this professor have to force a particular view on his students?"  My son replied, "Look, I don't agree with this and I don't support it.  But I can get an A and I've got a good idea of how to write this.  If I fight him, he'll probably give me an F on the paper."

As much as this approach bothered me, I was impressed with his maturity and focus on the goal.  His paper was, for what it was, pretty darn good.  I don't know if it will get forwarded, but it was worthy of a very high grade.  He and I laughed and I said "at least if it does get chosen, we can use it as a platform to show the inadequacies of some portions of higher education."

I'm aware that many colleges have become bastions of liberal indoctrination.  I'm not sure when the decision was made to eliminate critical thought in the classroom - but I hope it is not fait accompli.  Luckily for my son, he and I have active discussions about topics like his paper regularly, so he's aware there is more than one view on the topic.  I'm not sure how many of his classmates are.

The recent Wal-Mart strike on Black Friday seems to have galvanized the labor movement.  To what outcome, we shall see, but I suspect they are operating with some huge misconceptions.

As I drove to the train station, I heard an interview with one of the leaders in today's strike of fast-food workers here in NYC.  He has a pleasing workers' story which he is spouting about 'living wages' and the need for workers at these companies to make trade-offs between a Metrocard and dinner.  I'm all for 'living wages', but I think people have to remember when they take a job they need to determine if it's going to require them making tough choices.  If I live so far from work that the cost of getting there deprives me of a meal, then maybe I need to find something closer to where I live.

Many years ago, I'd read a piece about how we did as much housework today as we did 100 years ago, despite a plethora of labor-saving devices.  This may not be as true as it once was, but the recent storms gave me some insight about why it may have been.

I noticed that without power, we were busy doing many things to keep the house going.  Finding firewood, getting gas, sweeping, going to the laundromat, getting and cooking food.  Clearly having power means the gas lines are shorter and I don't have to seek out firewood on a daily basis.  But what is it about labor-saving devices may have caused us to do continue to spend as much time doing housework as we may have prior to having them?

One day, as I was sorting the laundry, it hit me.  By being able to do more in less time, our standards and expectations rose, so we tended to do more.  We do things we couldn't do before, because we can.

I didn't like that my home's cleanliness took a slight dip during the storm, but given the time I was forced to spend doing other things, it just seemed like there was a logical trade-off in letting some things go for a bit until I had the chance to get around to them.

Like some (or many) of Maggie's readers and contributors, my family and I were bedeviled the past two weeks by Sandy and a freak winter storm.  We encountered Sandy after returning from a visit with my son, who is in Ohio at college.  While we were in Ohio, we picked up flashlights, batteries and other odds and ends, having been forewarned that these items were sold out already in New Jersey. 

On the drive from Ohio back to NJ we were surprised to see so many trucks from utility companies.  All were headed toward the storm, making my "it's all hype" attitude shift toward one of "what do they know that I don't?  I sure am glad they are taking this seriously."

In July, I wrote about how we take some things for granted, and the mindset of progress.  I wrote it after a storm which made me think about why we put so much effort into clean-ups.  After Sandy, I'll double down on what I wrote, because there are attitudes which are geared toward productivity and those which are not.  Productive people prepare for the worst, and then begin to build as soon as the worst has past.  What I saw, within 24 hours of the storm, was virtually every house on my block clearing debris off their yards to prepare for pickup by the Department of Public Works.  Several of us took it a step further and started making runs down to the Conservation Center instead of waiting for DPW.  I was amazed at how quickly all of us put our minds toward moving past the storm.  As concerned as we were with the lack of power, there were bigger issues to deal with, both at that moment and in the days ahead.

It is no surprise that investigations into voting fraud yield no meaningful results.  Why should they?  Whoever is looking into it is ignoring the fraud their own party perpetrates, while seeking only the least likely forms employed by their opponent.  The idea is to give the perception of doing 'something' about a problem so you look responsive.  The hint of a problem is all you need to focus voter attention.

Eric Holder (of all people) once said "You constantly hear about voter fraud...but you don't see huge amounts of voter fraud out there."  Maybe.  It's unusual a comment of this sort would emanate from Holder.  After all, Democrats often claim the Republicans are seeking to disenfranchise voters, and that's just fraud in another format.

Perhaps that suspicion of fraud enhances the flavor.  ~C.S. Forester

Maybe politicians are just looking in the wrong place?  Fraud is best performed out in the open, where it won't be questioned.  Like a magic show.  Misdirection and illusion.  Paying people to vote, providing transportation to the polls in exchange for votes, blocking access, even having the dead vote are all versions of fraud which are time-honored.

It seems unlikely fraud is happening on a wide scale.  But at a local level it could happen fairly frequently, and in ways which are pretty visible.  We tend not to question what we see everyday, or that with which we've become comfortable.

Iceland was a mess after the 2008 meltdown.  By 2012, while GDP per capita is still at depressed levels, unemployment is also down dramatically and growth has returned, making Iceland a 'star' among the embattled European nations.

It helps, somewhat, to be a homogeneous and isolated isle.  It also helps to let financial institutions fail so debt can be washed out properly.

I'm not a fan of rap music, but Russ Roberts and Don Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek have done a good job making economics entertaining for the younger crowd.  I sent their Hayek vs. Keynes series of videos to my son at college.  There is an appropriate correlation to the events in Iceland and Hayek's views.  There is no Keynesian stimulus taking place there.

"[W]hen the boom has collapsed, there exist dislocations and disproportionalities in the world of industry, the wreckage of false expectations, which monetary manipulation is not likely to remove."~Lionel Robbins in 1934, writing on the Great Depression

This is a good idea, right?

Because everybody should own a home.

Everybody should own a car.

Everybody should have whatever they want.  So we should just outlaw prices.

Education is not a necessity.  Ask Larry Ellison.  It's a very good thing to have, and it's certainly something to strive for.  But not everybody should get a college education.  It's this mind-set which is part of the cause of increased costs.

Another Labor Day has passed, and I hope all Maggie's readers had a fine, relaxing long weekend.  Barbecues, beer, wine, lawn or lounge chairs, picnics, whatever you typically do on a fine summer holiday, I'm sure you had a good time.

My wife and I, after having drinks with friends at the local swim club on Saturday, relaxed on a rainy Sunday then decided to head into the city on Monday to take a look at the Freedom Tower.  We usually drive to Jersey City, park at a mall, and take the PATH train in.  Parking and PATH for 3 people (our remaining homebound son joined us) was $22, much cheaper than driving into, and parking in, Manhattan.

They've done plenty of work on the tower and the area is finally starting to look as developed as it was prior to 9/11/2001.  We checked for tickets to the 9/11 Memorial, but had 4 hours to wait.  We decided to pass on that, and take a walk.  Note to self, next time order tickets online before going in.  They are free, but donations are welcome.

We headed up through City Hall Park, then turned and walked over the Brooklyn Bridge and into the DUMBO section of Brooklyn, where we decided to have pizza for lunch.  Grimaldi's is the big name pizza place under the bridge.  But the line was too long and we couldn't wait.  Ignazio's is around the corner, and turned out to be a great alternative.  Good pizza, great location near the water and also under the bridge.  I give it high marks for food, service and views.

If you've never walked over the Brooklyn Bridge, I highly recommend doing it sometime.  It's worth the effort.  Not only do you get to soak up some of its great history, but the views are amazing.  Some pictures below the fold.  Unfortunately, it was not a bright, sunny day.  We had some rain, it was overcast.  It was still an enjoyable trek.

I'm a fan of Cory Booker.  I do not share his politics, but there is much to compliment him on at a local level.  I can appreciate how he has improved Newark, a city very close to where I live, and how he has created a strong working relationship with Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey.

When he goes national, though, he tends to put his foot in his mouth.  Most recently, there was his commentary on Bain Capital, calling out Obama's campaign.

Now he's given a speech at the DNC which makes a claim that is outlandish. 

"being asked to pay your fair share isn't class warfare—it's patriotism. But we all know—it's common sense—that for an economy built to last we must invest in what will fuel us for generations to come."

It seems Canada may do many things right, but can't keep the maple syrup flowing.

If the thieves had somehow made off with the entire contents of the warehouse, Canada would have lost more than a tenth of its 2012 syrup harvest (3.4 million liters).

There is a slow, deliberate change taking place on the internet.  Not all that long ago, most digital publishers offered 'free' content, focusing on the sale of ads.  This model is not a good revenue generator for the majority of websites.  Several years ago, the Wall Street Journal switched to a paid model, and the New York Times also has a pay wall, one which is somewhat porous.  Many of the digerati feel all content on the internet can, or should be, 'free'.  

The Economist is a publishing outfit which has spent much time analyzing this market and how to approach it.  I have read The Economist for years and I respect their views and analysis.  They recently moved to the subscriber model, as well.

Technically, most publishers are not 'free', since they use advertising to cover their costs of business.  But there's a cost to you, the reader, with advertising.  It's a subtle cost, one which impacts the amount of readable material and sometimes even the editorial content.  The alternative, a subscriber model, is something internet users rarely encounter.  For some reason, people are comfortable subscribing to magazines, newspapers, and even cable TV.  Radio remains one of the few 'free' media, and even that is changing as XM/Sirius slowly becomes popular (it was included as a 'free' trial for a year with our new car).  However, on the internet, it's not uncommon to hear people ask for 'free' access.

Should news and information remain 'free', and, if not, why would anyone be upset if it isn't?  Many of my friends who work in the media industry have lamented the move to subscriber models.  I point out a simple fact.  If they were willing to pay for the paper or magazine, why wouldn't they be willing to pay for the online version?  Is there some difference in the delivery system that eliminated costs?

With the new football season only a week away, I started gearing up for my fantasy leagues.  I'm usually in at least one, sometimes two, because I love the science of football.  I love any sport that is highly quantifiable, and football has recently begun to have more than its share of statisticians break it down.  

To learn as much as I can and prepare, I've studied the game closely.  The best sites I've found are Football Outsiders and Advanced NFL Stats (I'm open to more if anyone cares to share).  Call them sabremetricians for football, and as Bill James' work revived my love for baseball, these people keep my enjoyment of football very high.

The real value of fantasy leagues are the communication which takes place between the participants.  It tightens the bonds of friendship and improves the vibe in an office.  People who once had only work in common suddenly have much to talk about.

The old saw that you don't discuss religion or politics in polite company should probably be revised to include sports.  Specifically fantasy sports, but sports in general can be very messy.  Many of us have had disagreements and arguments over sports.  Regardless of quantifiability, the question of who the greatest players are will always be fraught with emotion rather than pure reason.  Barstool logic tends to predominate these discussions. 

One could say barstool logic predominates most emotionally driven discussions.

"Some of us will do our jobs well and some will not, but we will be judged by only one thing-the result."

My favorite coach of all time (many peoples' favorite), Vince Lombardi, was often called upon to share his opinions on business, politics, and religion.  Vince was a devout Catholic, a very tough taskmaster, but he was known to have a heart of gold.  His views on the relationship between success and work for the achievement of victory continue to resonate through the years.  He was a man who took control and didn't place blame, he inspired people to perform a job.

'Apocaloptimist' is a humorous term I recently heard that best describes how I've felt about the economy these last 4 years.  The concept that it's all crashing down, but not to worry because we'll all be fine, in the end.  I'm not sure that it's all going to come crashing down, but we're still not out of the recession/depression and there is a long road ahead before things improve to the point where we can feel confident about the future.  Regardless of where we are, a quick review of history does point to one clear fact, and this is simply that mankind has a remarkable capability to adapt, make due, and eventually engage progress of a tangible nature.  

We're still progressing today, just much more slowly.

But in the depths of a recession, true pessimists step forward.  These are people who cannot see anything good, and refuse to take a simple step of reviewing history and seeing that bad times never last 'forever'.  Absolutes can come back to haunt you, if used improperly.  "We can never..." is the kind of phrase that inspires someone, somewhere to think, "Well, maybe we can...", and then they actually go out and do whatever it is we could never do.

Most human activity leads to peaks and those peaks are usually followed by valleys.  Getting into the right frame of mind is how you get out of the valley and move to the next peak.  Statements such as this, however, do nothing to help:

“No more fundamental innovations are likely to be introduced to change the structure of [today’s] society .... Like every previous civilization, we have reached a technological plateau.” — Jean Gimpel, technology historian, professor, and author.

Malthus was wrong, and 215 years later his views have still not provided any meaningful insights on how the world operates.

The question of the Bush Tax cuts 'causing' the deficits, and hence the 'need' to increase taxes on the 'wealthy' is one which Democrats spend many evenings discussing.  Clearly, Bush was an insane tax-cutter without any good ideas and caused every problem mankind faces today, and frankly every problem we've faced for the last 40 years.  He was just that bad.

However, a non-partisan look at the cuts indicates something quite different.  On a standalone basis, taking out all other additional spending programs from the last 11 years, what we find is the tax cuts paid for themselves, and then some.  In other words, the issue isn't the cuts.  The issue is all the additional spending which took place after the cuts.  To be completely honest, and completely fair, not all the spending was by Bush, either.  In fact, most of it was voted on with bipartisan support.  Very little could be said to be purely Bush-related, let alone Republican-related.  

Honesty is a difficult thing in politics.  Typically I don't look for anything more than a minimal degree of it, what I prefer is a level of consistency of thought.  The Republicans have their own challenges regarding honesty and consistency, but the Democrats have really done a good job of cornering the market on dishonesty and hypocrisy.

I've been busy the last few days with management meetings, mostly running from office to office and keeping people happy.  However, there was a full day off-site meeting recently on the 44th floor of a relatively new high-rise on 57th Street.  We had the entire floor to ourselves, and before the meetings got underway, I walked around and snapped a few pictures.  Here's one:

A good view of the Hudson, Jersey City in the distance, down 8th Avenue from 57th.  As I snapped this, I noticed several other people in the room doing the same thing.  I laughed, and commented, "Isn't it strange, we've all lived in the New York area for years, we've been in so many skyscrapers, and here we are taking pictures?"  One woman, who lives in Manhattan, replied "Yes, but you need to do this to remind yourself just how special it is sometimes.  We tend to take it for granted."  I agree.  We don't usually stop to enjoy what we've got available to us.

My older son turns 18 this year and heads off to Miami of Ohio.  Sadly, he will not be home on his birthday, as classes begin that week.  While discussing what he'd like for his birthday, we heard "I want to eat in a real Manhattan steak house".  No argument from me.

There are plenty to choose from.  Keen's, Smith & Wollensky, The Palm, Peter Luger (technically Brooklyn, but one of the originals), The Strip House, Sparks (I worked across the street from Sparks in 1985 and heard the shots that killed Paul Castellano - we all thought it was a car backfiring), Del Frisco's and The Old Homestead are all top notch.  After some discussion, the choice was The Old Homestead as this is a classic, original New York steak house.

It's been a bit over a week since the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics, and I haven't seen much on Maggie's about them.  I really enjoy the Olympics.  The Opening Ceremony is always great entertainment, and the events capture my attention.  I've found myself watching handball, water polo, and even men's field hockey.  I enjoy sports, and there's something about the Olympic Spirit that captures me.  But there's always a portion which bothers me. 

It used to be the overcommercialization which bugged me.  I've grown used to this.  I knew the 'amateur' status we used to try and pretend existed wouldn't last.  It was clear that money would eventually be the driving force.  In some ways, this has made the competition better.  The athletes still play for pride, but now they can also get a payday.  Nothing wrong with that. 

On the other hand, the politicization, which was bad in Cold War years, has taken a subtle turn.  There is still a semblance of competing ideologies.  But there is also the use of spectacle to make some kind of statement, using the commercial aspect to push a separate agenda. 

Yesterday I received a notice in the mail.  Apparently, Obamacare be beri beri good to me.  My kindly insurance carrier is sending me government has forced my insurer to send me a rebate on 0.5% of my premiums from last year.  That should be about, let's see, $32.50. 

I really like getting money back from anyone.  I suppose I should be pleased.  But I'm not, I'm offended.

It seems that the ACA has set what is considered to be a 'reasonable' amount for spending on administrative costs and the coverage of medical fees.  That split is 15% for administration, 85% for fees and services.  My carrier hit only 84.5% on the fees and services portion, which means I get .5% back. 

The main method Obama and many politicians seek to stimulate the economy is through deficit spending. 

What is lost on those who engage this method is that for deficit spending to actually work, it has to be funneled into truly useful production, projects which will yield massive value.  Without getting into the problems inherent in all deficit spending, some might make a case that government related spending may yield benefits.  It's a stretch to say that the TVA or the Hoover Dam was best provisioned by the government.  Fact is, private industry would have managed these projects much more efficiently.

But these are examples of the sort of project which could make the government look better than it does right now by spending massive amounts of money with little to show for it.  I'm not saying I support these projects, just that better options exist than Obama's current path.  He made a moderately good show by using some funds to try and build a train tunnel under the Hudson which would have saved me 15 minutes on my commute each day.  That tunnel, however, was going to be built with limited oversight, meaning costs would've spiraled and New Jersey would have overspent on it, thus losing all the value it would provide.

More importantly, these types of projects are difficult to begin today.  Why?  Regulation.  It would be virtually impossible to build the Tappan Zee Bridge today, and even the current upgrade of the facility has faced massive problems which have increased the cost dramatically.  A study of the region around the Hoover Dam, with today's regulatory environment, would end up killing this sort of project altogether due to environmental concerns.  My perspective is simply that the Left has hung themselves on their own petard.  They want the government to spark job growth, but they want to regulate all sorts of things, not realizing they hamper job growth.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has issued its annual report on the regulatory environment, outlining the economic costs of current Federal regulations.  Today, these economic costs are greater than all corporate profits.  In other words, one of the fastest and best ways for Obama to earn tax income to drive down the deficit would not to be raising taxes - but by reducing regulation.  Of course, this would mean admitting his previous approach was incorrect and flawed. 

Rep. Jesse Jackson's absence lately has been the source of much speculation and rumor.  Yesterday, his mother spoke about his disappearance.

I don't know what's wrong with him, and if he is sick, I hope he gets the treatment he needs and is better soon.  But his mother's words ring hollow.  Is she saying that her son can't get up in the morning because he didn't get what he wanted?

There are plenty of things I wanted.  I thought I'd be a senator, too.  I thought I'd be a fireman, an astronaut and a pro soccer player.  But I still get up in the morning and do my job, despite many disappointments in life.

People need privacy, particularly when ill.  But this is an elected official who is suffering through several scandals.  Something seems amiss.  One has to wonder how Democrats would handle this if it was a Republican representative who was "disappointed"?

I'm not trying to diminish a physical ailment or a (rumored) addiction.  These are difficult and can require much assistance.  But the idea that he's not "bouncing back" from disappointment sounds a bit like a mother excusing and rationalizing her entitled son's behaviors.

The mayor of Scranton, PA recently lowered all city workers' salaries to the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour.  This in an attempt to cover a budget gap but still keep people working.  It's a fine attempt to try and balance financial hopes with reality.  Scranton doesn't want to follow in Stockton's footsteps. 

But what is the reward for doing something intelligent?  You get sued, of course.  The logic of this is obvious, because another lawsuit burdening the system helps you get what you can't create.  It's the most productive solution in the modern economy.

I grew up not too far from Scranton.  The region has been depressed for as long as I can remember.  But when people get used to a certain quality of life, they begin to believe they deserve it.  What's the solution?  Taking out a loan is only a good idea if the money is put to work building productive capacity somehow.  But that's not what the city would borrow money to accomplish.

The 'solution', such as it is, is exactly what the mayor is doing.  Trying to live within his means and find a way to make it work.  Eventually, if Scranton isn't a viable productive center which attracts or starts new businesses, it's going to fail.  Just like many cities or small towns before it.  This is nothing new.  It's sad, but reality isn't always happy and fun.

Unfortunately for the mayor, the people want what they perceive to be theirs so they can preserve the life they've become used to. 

With the federal government handing money out to all and sundry, is it any surprise people want what they can't have?