How the heck are you?!

hello, friends,

i really should not be blogging because i simply have too much work to do. but i had a really compelling conversation on saturday night with some friends that has been nagging at me and so i felt like i needed to share.

the discussion (full disclosure: there was wine involved) began as an investigation of the pros and cons of bailing out the big three -- GM, Ford and Chrysler. should we or shouldn't we? we drifted around that for a while, recalling the problems (and, at my insistence, the lack of congressional oversight) of the financial bailout. why bail out companies like AIG and not the automotive industry. there was general disdain about the UAW, and the suggestion that some industries needed to fail so as to correct the market.

let me say that i don't pretend to understand the market. i simply was asking about what was going to happen if the US lost 2.1 million job , according to this website.

here's what it says:

The EPI paper, titled When Giants Fall, estimates that a total collapse of all three U.S. auto makers would result in the loss of up to 2.1 million American jobs within the next year. Tax revenue losses and additional governmental costs would top $150 billion within three years if the three companies enter bankruptcy.

Without cars to export, the U.S. trade deficit would rise by $109.3 billion, the study also found.

The job numbers encompass direct job losses from the automakers' potential shutdown, as well as indirect job losses in technical and service industries and vehicle production-supported industries, such as auto parts, electronics, steel, tires, aluminum and plastics. The study also estimates the loss of "re-spending" jobs as a result of the wages lost by workers in motor vehicle industries and other sectors supported by car production.

The study's author, EPI economist Robert E. Scott, said that Congress should act quickly to provide a bridge loan to the auto industry, noting that it is an investment that the U.S. government will likely recover with interest.

"It is in the national interest to invest in a bridge loan now, rather than pay the consequences of bankruptcy for one or more domestic auto-makers," Scott said.

"The domestic auto-makers don't have the same bankruptcy and restructuring options as the airline industry does," Scott explained. "Customers are unwilling to purchase a vehicle from a company that might not be able to offer a warranty or repairs."

The study estimates the loss of jobs by industry, with manufacturing leading the pack. Motor vehicles and parts and transportation equipment also stand to lose tens of thousands of jobs.

The EPI study can be viewed at http://www.epi.org/briefingpapers/227/bp227.pdf.

For more information about the Economic Policy Institute, go to http://www.epi.org, and for more about the Keystone Research Center, go to http://www.keystoneresearch.org.

SOURCE: Keystone Research Center

consider the fact that 12.5% of all americans live in poverty, according to the US census

consider the fact that while it is admirable that 72.5% of americans have internet access, there are still 27.5% who do not.

are we living exclusively in a world of darwinistic survival of the fittest? my friend suggested that there were some people who would not or could not take advantage of the opportunities offered to them and that some in our country would always "just fail." is this okay? am i just a pollyanna, or do i have my sense of social justice out of whack?

can you sleep at night?

think about what jimmy carter said (thanks sister sue): "a peaceful world cannot exist when one third is rich and two thirds are hungry."

my friend is a just and admirable person, concerned about family and survival. there is compassion and responsibility. so if THIS friend thinks this way...

think about it.

gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky

where do we go now?

Well, the Phillies won the World Series. And our guy got into the Oval Office. There was definitely an excitement/anticipation vacuum happening there for a few days. Is Chinese Democracy the most important thing to look forward to? I might argue yes, but it's a kind of apathetic yes. And most of you pirates have probably already downloaded the thing. I am a dinosaur in that I like to "buy" albums in the "store." Strange, I know. I actually like reading the liner notes and looking at the cover art. Is that so wrong?

At any rate, I can't think of anything in the immediate future worth getting ramped up about. Christmas? Inauguration Day is too far afield to think about, there is much to be done before then. If anyone has any thoughts on something to get excited about in the upcoming weeks, I would love to hear it.

yes, we did

Yes, we did.

Here is the transcript. It is worth a read.

politics as usual

Let's not talk about the debate, or the economy, or Iraq, or anything else from this election.

Thought: while living overseas, I paid zero attention to American politics in general and just barely enough attention to the presidential elections as to confirm the nature of my vote.

Now that I am home, and now that it is an election season, it seems I'm as obsessed with the electoral map and outlining key issues as I am with the Phillies. But I wonder how I'm going to feel exactly one year from today. Am I going to care as deeply or as passionately or as consistently about, say, the selection of Supreme Court justices?

Honestly? No. Sad. How about you? Will you care a year from now?

I have spoken to a few people recently about the 24-hour news cycle. I know I am not crazy about it, but I've had a hard time figuring out why. But I think I'm onto something.

I think that the constant flow of news makes it difficult for us to separate the signal from the noise. Is the ACORN thing important? How about ties to the Keating Five? Maybe yes, maybe no. But when those things get as much air time as the war, there is a problem. Is there any way to fix this problem?

Well, I have a thought. The pre-election voter registration drives and calls to activism are great. Truly American. But where does all that energy go once the election is over? Why does it seem like we only care about these issues in the months leading up to a big November?

Lobbyists and political activists often get a bad rap in this country, sometimes for good reason. But one thing they do is keep a constant focus on issues at hand, regardless of whether it's October 2008 or February 2006.

I think all of us need to be doing that, in a very real way. Perhaps I am underestimating America (or at least the readership of this blog) when I say that I doubt any of you out there are as politically active or vocal as you are during election season. But if that were the case, then none of those campaign tricks would make a bit of difference in the polls or in the outcome of the election. However, close observation of the polls reveals that those campaign tricks do, in fact, work. What does that tell us?

The 24-hour news cycle is not going away. So it is up to us to demand real news, all the time, so that when election time comes around, none of the nonsense will get in the way of figuring out who the candidates are and what they stand for. The candidates themselves will be forced to outline these things clearly, and the media will be forced to convey this information to the consumers. Think of it as trickle down pandering.

One final point, in the form of a question: who is the politician pictured?

rednecks for obama

There is a lot of crap hurling out there today (Ayers, Keating, etc.) but little I deemed to be of newsworthy note. This, though, speaks to me.

My dad has been steadily warning that what he calls the "Bubba vote" could come into play at the last minute in the election. That is to say, a lot of folks will get behind the curtain and find themselves unable to pull the lever for a black man. It certainly is something worth thinking about.

So when I saw this tidbit, http://www.truveo.com/Rednecks-For-Obama-At-DNC/id/3175192384 I felt that perhaps getting the word out about these guys could be helpful to the cause.

"We hunt, fish, drink beer and support Barack Obama," said Tony Viessman, one of the group's two, count 'em, two, members. "He ain't gonna take your guns away, don't you worry about that."

Spread the word.

PS: Jeff Foxworthy was quoted in the article with a definition of redneck. He said it is "a glorious lack of sophistication." I like that.

da doo run run run . . .

Or maybe that should be "bomb, bomb, bomb/bomb bomb Iran." One of those classics.

The da doo run run run thing is sort of a lame joke about the debate last night being essentially a re-hash of the first. Somebody on a blog last night said that they tuned in 15 minutes late and only realized it wasn't a televised repeat of the first debate when they saw Tom Brokaw. I don't know if they were being serious or not, but I understand the sentiment.

A buddy just said he was bored during the thing. I wouldn't say I was bored, but it definitely was not as emotion-inducing as the Biden-Palin battle. At the very least, I was screaming at the television about 60% less last night than I was during the vice presidential debate.

Having said all that, while my allegiances are pretty clear, I don't feel like I'm being partial when I say that Obama was the clear victor. Whether you agree with his policies or not, he was more clear and concise in his explanations. I feel as though I understand better what he wants to do than I do McCain.

I read a bit of the Fox News website this morning, which I usually do not do. I stick to the BBC, and generally try to avoid sites that are going to be overwhelmingly partial. But because I felt that Obama was so clearly the winner, I was interested to hear how the conservative arm of the media was going to spin it. Interestingly enough, most of the pundits on there conceded victory to Obama. Sure, they had their gripes, but I think that even they know that many of those gripes are unfounded. They complained about the town-hall format, which, as we all know, was McCain's choice. They complained about Brokaw. I couldn't imagine a more impartial or intelligent moderator. And, most curiously, at least for me, they complained about Obama's eloquence. They said he was too cool and smooth and smart. Hmm.

That's all for today, my friends.

veep

And, you know, if speeches aren't your thing, there's always this:

springsteen

I know there are some rabid Bruce fans who read this blog. I am a moderate Bruce fan. But I became a bit more of one this past weekend after seeing him at a rally for Obama in Philly. It was a decent show that included a good speech. Here's a transcription:

“Hello Philly,

“I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.

“I’ve spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real. Opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence, around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.

“I’ve spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities. The distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.

“I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project. In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I’ve continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people’s hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.

“They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps. Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama’s understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again. But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don’t know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.

“So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising.”

email thoughts

I have been writing to some of my friends overseas for an international perspective on the election. Aussie ex-pat living in Thailand Ian Slater and I have bounced back and forth a bit over the last couple days. I wrote him this email today. I liked it, and I think it says a lot of what I am thinking about the whole thing, in very general terms. As I am too lazy to really write anything for the blog itself, I'll just copy and paste this email.

Slates--

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I didn't think it was possible that I could become as obsessed with any mainstream media event as I was with the Olympics, but, perhaps because the consequences are so great, I've been pretty much glued to this election coverage. Because of that, I could probably write several hundred screens here. I'll try to keep my thoughts in check, and then maybe go type something up for the blog.

Anyway, getting into it . . .

I generally believe that a lot of people vote from a fairly narrow perspective. The obvious one there is the pro-lifers, who would rather set fire to an ob/gyn's office than vote for a pro-choicer. Haha. You have your death penalty people, your NRA enthusiasts, etc., who vote for candidates based on those single issues.

Having lived overseas for so long, I've figured out that the motivation behind my vote is, largely, how the candidates a) view the rest of the world and b) are perceived by the rest of the world. Which, incidentally, is why I wrote to you and a handful of my other non-American friends for thoughts. I just wanted to confirm my suspicions that, yes, the majority of the rest of the world wholeheartedly supports Obama. (By the way, I trust there was no question in your mind that I am an Obama supporter.)

Saying something like "I cast my vote largely on how the candidate is perceived by the rest of the world" would no doubt get me in hot water with your standard middle American. In fact, it has before. But what I try to explain to people is that it's not so much that I am swayed by the opinion of the rest of the world, it's just that I realize that our world is so small, the value placed on our choice president so great, that I think the wrong choice by the American people can potentially reflect so badly on us and our government that I think it can actually harm us more than we even realize. Putting a guy like McCain in office tells the rest of the world that we are more or less ok with how the country has been run, both inside and out, for the last 8 years. It tells the world that we are looking for a fight. It tells the world that we are going to put our interests first, militarily and financially, and that you better get the hell out of our way. Putting the wrong guy in office can hurt us economically, can charge up terrorists, can make small countries with cowboy leaders like North Korea and Iran want to step up and get in our face. Is that making America safe? Is that protecting American interests? Is that helping our economy? I think not.

I am all for a strong America. But I think you don't have to be a bully to be strong. To take it one step further, bullies are usually bullies because they are hiding some deep-seated insecurity or weakness. And, anyway, what usually happens to bullies? They get knocked on their ass, usually by somebody much smaller.

At this point, I think that the only people who still believe that America is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the military and economic world are a small few Americans. The rest of us realize that our economy is weak, our dollar is sagging, and all of the guns in the world just aren't strong enough to win wars anymore. Perhaps we need a different approach.

There is strength in understanding, diplomacy, compassion. Obama represents those things.

Now, like you said, whether Obama has the ability or capacity to deliver on these things remains to be seen. That is definitely part of the intrigue of this election for me. And I'm sure if you ask even the staunchest Obama supporters who have fallen for him hook, line, and sinker, even they will admit, deep down, that they really have no clue if he's going to be able to accomplish what he says he's going to accomplish.

You know what, though? I'm willing to take that risk.

Or, to put it as a friend of the family put it the other day, "It's all bullshit. But I'm willing to buy Obama's line of bullshit over McCain's line of bullshit." You could probably apply that line to any election, anywhere, when you get right down to it.

One final thing. You mentioned that bit about Kennedy being unqualified, a fraud. First off, Jesus Mary & Joseph, don't let my mother hear you say that. She'd swoon.

I think a lot of other people, Americans and non-Americans, would also take umbrage to that statement. Why? Well, not necessarily because Kennedy was . . . . Kennedy. (One of the talking heads the other day said, in reference to comparisons between Barack and JFK, "Even Kennedy wasn't Kennedy." I liked that.) Anyway, getting back on track, in the world of politics today, perception is reality. It IS all bullshit. Beauracracy is so slow, the global economy is so big, world events are so out of control, that, unless a guy is extraordinarily bad, as Bush is, it would be hard for a single person anywhere on the planet, even the president of the United States of America, to fuck the world up completely. By the same token, unless he is some sort of diety, it would be hard for a president to heal all the wounds of the world. While people get pretty passionate about Barack, I don't think anybody believes that he's going to step in there and every problem is going to magically disappear.

But having said all that, I think people WANT to believe in this guy. He inspires people. He makes people want to do good. He makes people want to work to heal the problems. He makes people want to repair America's reputation in the world, he makes people want to search for solutions to environmental problems, he makes people want to search for solutions to economic problems. And that, for me, is enough. I am an optimist, and as trite as it might sound, I believe in the goodness of people, and I believe in the goodness and strength of the American people. Do I think Barack Obama can singlehandedly accomplish all that he says he is going to accomplish? Of course not. But do I believe that he can move people's hearts and minds? Yes, I do. We've had plenty of the moving of physical things these last 8 years, and not enough of moving of intangibles. I think people sense that, and I think that's why he's become so popular.

McCain is promising change, to shake Washington up. But what I think he's missing is that it's way, way beyond Washington. It's bigger than Washington, bigger than politics. Perhaps he can bring about some change in the way the governing of this country is conducted, but I don't think that's enough. He needs to bring about change in the attitudes of this country, and change in the way we view the rest of the world. Obama understands this on levels that he just doesn't get.

So there ya go, Slates. I think it got a little out of hand on me. I hope you're still reading.

I miss Thailand. Have a frosty Leo (or whatever your beer of choice is these days) for me.

peace--
RV

getting back into it

Middle of the 9th. Phils have just scored 6 to go up by 3. Miraculous, kind of. I am at (what I shall always call) Pat's Pub in Haddon Twp, NJ. I turn to my buddy and say, "I hope they don't fuck it up." Thus is the plight/mindset of the consummate Philly sports fan.

Got a text this morning from Chris D. He said he loved watching Johan Santana dominate only to be foiled in the end once again.

So, moving toward "the point."

Santana is a great pitcher who often seems to find himself in the unfortunate circumstances of pitching superbly, only to have his Mets blow it and leave him with a loss or a no-decision.

Gut question: do you feel sorry for him? (Try not to let your allegiances, wherever they may be, influence your answer.)

Another scenario:

I play hoops with a bunch of guys every Monday night. Mostly, everybody is around the same skill level. Mostly, it is friendly competition. Competitive, but friendly.

There's one guy who is a little slower, a little less athletic than the rest of us. Nice guy. But slow, not a great basketball player. However, he has a little 8 foot jumper that is quite consistent. If you slack off of him, he hits it. If you get up in his face and play hard D, it is very easy to shut him down.

Again with the gut: what would you do? Would you ease up on him in light of his slightly lower skill level, or would you exploit it?

Me and a couple of the other guys have been discussing this conundrum recently. At times we think that as it is friendly competition among 30-something guys who are just trying to fend off the beer gut, it probably isn't necessary to get up in his grill and shut him down. It seems like this is unnecessarily assholish behavior that's just going to make him upset and ruin his Monday workout. But then, at other times, everybody on the court is trying to WIN, and you should do whatever you can to help your team do so, even if that means blocking this guy into next Tuesday every time he puts up a shot.

Probably, as with all things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Play him tough sometimes, ease up sometimes. As we are all in varying stages of fitness, that's how everybody pretty much plays defense on everybody else anyway.

But the fact remains that most of us could, without exerting too much effort, shut the guy down. If we wanted to. Hence, the question.

This discussion has meandered naturally to a discussion I've had with another friend over the years regarding dodgeball on elementary school playgrounds. She is against it, I am for it. You can probably figure out the arguments for both sides if you think about them for a second, but I'll gove over them anyway.

Her: dodgeball is barbaric, lord-of-the-flies-ish. Kids don't need to get pegged by a ball at that age.

Me: the world is a tough place. They're going to get pegged, in one form or another, sooner than later. They might as well start toughening up early.

Her: there's plenty of time for that. Let them enjoy their childhood.

Me: if left to their own devices, kids will "enjoy their childhood" by playing competitive sports or, worse, being outright mean to each other. Fighting, hurling insults. We are an inherently aggressive species, and that starts off early.

Her: well, adults should not contribute to kids hurting and abusing each other by encouraging dodgeball on the playground. They should be fostering more community-centered activities.

Me: I think adults chaperoning dodgeball games is just what the doctor ordered. We ARE aggressive creatures. Rather than letting that aggression run rampant, channel it. Let the kids be competitive with each other, but teach them how to do it with rules, and respect for the game, and respect for each other.

And on and on. Obviously, I've painted my own arguments in a more positive light because, well, I am doing the writing. She ain't here to defend herself, so I am capitalizing on that advantage. Does that make me a bad person?

So to recap, think about the questions:

Do you feel sorry for a pitcher who plays well but whose team often blows it for him?
Would you play aggressively against a weaker opponent in a competitive/friendly weeknight basketball game?
What are your thoughts on dodgeball on the playground?

try again to put a link up . . . .

yes, we can

Maybe gonna start working on this again. For now, check this out:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ