Be yourself; no base imitator of another, but your best self. There is something which you can do better than another. Listen to the inward voice and bravely obey that. Do the things at which you are great, not what you were never made for.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
And Where is Occupy K-Street?
Consider the following excerpt from Bloomberg:
The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley [as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area], according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. Total compensation for federal workers, including health care and other benefits, last year averaged $126,369, compared with $122,697 in 2009. [Household income dropped last year in San Jose, to $83,944 from $85,168 the previous year.] The national median income for 2010 was $50,046.Santa Clara County, including San Jose, has a number of major employers, including Cisco, Intel, Adobe Systems, HP, Apple, AMD, and National Semiconductor (among others)--hardware and software vendors with worldwide sales.
The Washington DC metro area produces federal bureaucrats and tax collectors, employing otherwise unemployable Keynesian economists and lawyers to create private sector market barriers to entry and exit and otherwise hobble the REAL economy that produces REAL goods and services. Granted, President Obama is still dependent on the import of failed, obsolete European economics and social democrat policies to run up $1.3T deficits. (It's part of his recycled ideas program.)
Maybe one day the Occupy Wall Street malcontents will discover that the net recipients of TARP funding were not the banks, but the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which used sweet government guarantees to gain market share at the expense of the private sector and to purchase overpriced, questionable mortgage securities), AIG and the auto companies. Maybe one day they'll figure out even if the government stole all the assets of the top 1%, it would barely keep up with one year of Obamaian superspending with nothing tangible to show for it, with no feasible follow-up for subsequent years. Maybe one day they'll figure out that banking has been one of the most regulated industries in the history of the US, both at the state and federal level. Maybe one day they'll figure out that no matter how many regulations megalomaniac progressives throw at the banks, even if you somehow believe this time they'll get the policies right after failing for generations on end, the regulations are only as good as the same incompetent bureaucrats whom couldn't figure out the housing prices outstripping real increases in household income were unsustainable.
(Thanks to the Carpe Diem blog for referencing the Bloomberg piece.)
A New Movie Featuring a True Cinderella Story: Thumbs UP!
I have to be honest and say I didn't know the story behind this movie. I got my first degree from a former Catholic women's college located in the southwestern (barrio) section of San Antonio; for business reasons, the college had decided to allow men to enroll some time before I went to school there. I absolutely loved the sisters running my college; I have the highest respect for them.
The movie follows the improbable true story of Cathy Rush, the 23 year old (in 1972) head female basketball coach for 500-student Philadelphia-area Immaculata College from 1971 to 1976. Immaculata appeared in the finals of 5 of the first 6 women's college basketball championships (before Title IX changed the game), winning the first 3 championships (the second one an undefeated season). Rush resigned in 1976 to raise her young family after the school decided not to offer athletic scholarships, a Title IX policy. Coach Rush has a 149-15 record, an eye-popping 91% lifetime coaching record. (It's hard for Chicago Democrats to get 91% of the vote in their own cemetery precincts....)
The movie covers the improbable Cinderella story of a #15 seed in the very first college female basketball championship, which held fundraisers to get trip money and had to leave 3 of its players behind; the team at times didn't even have a decent supply of basketballs, borrowing (or exchanging deflated) balls with their opponents, winning the championship from a team that had beaten them by over 30 points a week earlier.
I have not seen the movie, but the story is pure Americana.
Steve Jobs' 2005 Stanford Commencement Address: Thumbs UP!
I don't have much regard for valedictories and commencement addresses. I don't care for predictable rhetoric--e.g., "the world is your oyster"; "we've only just begun"; "knowledge is power", etc. I still cringe at the memory of my own high school commencement address ("woulda coulda shoulda"); of course, I was more embarrassed that, over my objections, the rest of my senior class voted to wear orange graduation gowns--our school name, like UT Austin, was the Longhorns, and high school sports are like a religion in Texas. We had a mediocre football team, but I seem to recall our basketball team was fantastic--we hadn't lost a district game in years. I think I had to buy the orange gown and still have it in storage somewhere. It's not like there's a pent-up demand for orange gown rentals. I've never gone to a reunion, but I'll be damned if I'm going to rent or buy an orange tux.
As a writer, I am a perfectionist. Maintaining daily posts of a reasonably high caliber takes considerable work and I'll spend time editing and reorganizing commentaries (not to mention routine edits like typos, which I sometimes catch after initial publication). I also have a talent for reorganizing the work of others, e.g., my summarization of the Taphandles case earlier this week, which I think is better than the original New York Times column/interview. Whereas a lot of my commentaries are lengthy, they are also densely packed.
I have mixed feelings over the late Steve Jobs; for example, there was a notorious rivalry between Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and I have generally sided with Gates. Never mind the fact that Microsoft has been, throughout its history, a leading software publisher for Apple's platforms: I think Jobs was jealous of Gates' business success, and the last time I checked, Apple was still running its snarky Mac ads portraying a look-alike Gates as a clueless buffoon. It is rumored (and I can't vouch for its legitimacy) that Steve Jobs in part attributed his creativity to the use of LSD and suggested that Bill Gates should be a more well-rounded person if he used it, too. I think what's happened to the economy over the past 3 years under Barack Obama, a self-admitted user of cocaine and marijuana during his high school and college years, is the most potent anti-drug message available. (He has a hard time letting things go--like Bush-bashing, the car in the ditch, class warfare politics, etc. The reason why the American people reject ObamaCare is because they just don't understand it. He thinks he's going to win reelection because, gosh darn, people like him...)
Most people have probably seen the last two minutes of Jobs' 2005 commencement address at Stanford, particularly in the aftermath of his passing; I finally watched the whole address by downloading the free video from iTunes University (accessible as a menu option within the iTunes application). I strongly recommend the whole address, roughly 15 minutes. From a fellow writer and speaker, Jobs did a very good job here; maybe he doesn't deliver the speech with Obama-style cadence, but he had my undivided attention for his whole speech (unlike the overly predictable Obama whom seems to confuse political spin with rhetoric.) There are only a few speakers whom have kept my attention--e.g., the late Randy Pausch's famous last lecture.
I am not going to highlight the whole speech here, but Steve mentioned at the outset that he had three stories to tell. As a writer, I like to see a writer/speaker set expectations and provide an advance organizer. Second, he personalizes his stories in a way that's personal and touching. The first story explains the inspiration behind fonts, a prominent word processing feature in the early Apple models. Along the way he explains his early adoption and why he dropped out of an expensive college. I think part of his motivation for telling the story is to point out that some seemingly impractical college courses you take can have an unexpected payoff down the line: they become part of you and your creative vision. (I own a small library of books involving the creative process.)
The second story reflects on Jobs' devastation of being fired from the company he co-founded but how he rebounded with successful startup businesses, one of which led his way back into Apple. There is an important lesson here, too: out of failure, one has the ability to create anew, without the shackles of a large company.
The discussion reminds me of one of my favorite bosses, the techie co-founder of a marketing applications vendor later acquired by Equifax. My boss loved developing software; he would get up early every morning to work on creating computer games. At work, as a co-founder, he found himself getting dragged into boring business meetings with important clients, dealing with difficult staffing issues, etc. I was a DBA, but I had initially caught his eye by designing and implementing, in service of our original and largest customer, a customized application (written in Pro*C, an extension of Oracle database software). He decided to leave the company for one which offered more of a tech management role, but his separation agreement did not allow him to bring me along. The co-founders were at war over his departure (the other partner considered the second company a competitor); his last couple of weeks with the company were very surreal: he barricaded himself into his office. There were rumors of lawsuits along the office grapevine. When he left recommending me to succeed him (he called hiring me of the 2 best management decisions he ever made--the other one was hiring a sales guy whom dealt with high-maintenance clients), it was like getting the kiss of death.
Jobs also mentions one of the benefits of his interim leave from Apple was meeting his beautiful wife. There are all sorts of lessons here. For example, there is more than one path to or criterion of success, good things can happen when we go outside our comfort zone, when we think outside the box, and failure is but a life correction, not the end of the world. Jobs expanded his vision from managing a computer company to a broader concept of a digital products company; Pixar, iPod/iTunes, iPhone and iPad, involving digital voice, news and entertainment, have been logical extensions of that vision.
The third story Job talks about death. College students and graduates in their early 20's seem to have a sense of immortality. Jobs explains being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (the same disease that took one of the most prolific television actors and director/producers, Michael Landon, at a fairly young age). [It turned out that he had a rare form of pancreatic cancer which was operable.] Jobs is trying to impress on young graduates the need to take bold action now, not to fritter one's youth away because life is far too short to delay making one's impact.
FNC Annoyances
The other morning's Fox & Friends was looking at Obama's "jobs bill", which is really a revamped version of the stimulus ("Recovery Act") bill. There was references to stimulus funds then being used for other than intended purposes. (This could have been in reference to a well-known past GAO finding that about half of a $38K grant for a North Carolina summer program was spent on teacher expenses, with the remainder being used for water park admissions, fast food, movie tickets, and other entertainment expenses.)
My concern wasn't so much with the news item. My position on federal spending is quite clear: I believe that borrowing 40 cents on the dollar is morally indefensible, an unconscionable burden on future generations. It's the nature and extent of spending; progressive Democratic policies have resorted to stealthily vesting the middle class on ineffectual government programs, precisely to make government benefits not a privilege, but a right; it becomes all but politically impossible to rollback vested benefits.
What annoyed me was host Gretchen Carlson's ad lib that there was nothing wrong with progressive Democrat attempts to subsidize teachers (or other politically favored public employee groups, like first responders like police and firemen). HOLD IT! Speak for yourself, Ms. Carlson. I have LOTS of problems with state and/or municipal bailouts. The fact that some states and/or localities hired an unsustainable number of teachers and/or first responders is NOT a federal problem. There are a number of ways the private sector tries to cope with financial problems, e.g., sell assets, freeze or cut salaries/hours and/or benefits, offer early retirement deals, etc. In many union-dominated states (e.g., California), there are no serious attempts to get meaningful public pension reforms, e.g., in some cases retired teachers make more money than new full-time teachers. Why should the federal government subsidize the refusal of Democratic governors and legislatures to address this problem? Why should residents in other states (like Indiana) be forced to subsidize more lucrative pension benefits paid out in other states? It constitutes moral hazard of the highest order.
Keep in mind that there should already be rainy day funds for states and municipalities; what about first reallocating budgets, and how do we know whether existing funding is at or below right-sized levels (e.g., must-have vs. nice-to-have staffing)? Why are state or municipal employees "more equal" than private sector employees? Since when does a $50K state or local employee merit consideration over a $50K private sector employee? Even assuming we've gotten state and local unions to agree to common sense reforms like stripping out morally unconscionable LIFO policies, putting all new public employees on 403-B style retirement plans, and making more sustainable pension concessions, including capping distributions (I'm not holding my breath), why aren't state and local governments borrowing the money vs. getting federal grants?
Let's be clear--this isn't about the economy for reasons I mentioned in yesterday's post: today's federal distribution is tomorrow's taxpayer bill. This is all about Democrats trying to repackage government spending in a more palatable form solely for political gain and daring the GOP to say no to Mom, pie, and Chevrolet. In fact, conservatives are not saying no to Mom, pie and Chevrolet: we're saying that it's the responsibility of states or municipalities to pay their own bills.
The second thing I want to quibble about was the way Fox News was trying to hype a Rasmussen poll showing for the first time Cain with a slender lead in a national head to head with Obama. Remember a year ago last July when a PPP poll showed Romney beating Obama by 3, Huckabee by 2, Gingrich by 1, and Palin even? With Gallup Presidential approval in the 38-42% favorable range, it shouldn't be surprising that even Cain wins an occasional head to head. But keep in mind Rasmussen's numbers always seem a little more positive to GOP candidates than other polls. When I look at the preponderance of state or national polls of head to heads out there, though, I'm seeing Romney systematically doing relatively better against Obama by a minimum of 4 points over his competition.
I am not concerned here about the GOP candidates currently doing worse than the generic GOP candidate against Obama. If and when someone gets the nomination, that candidate will poll better. I strongly feel that Cain doesn't have a chance against Obama, no matter how many Rasmussen polls. If you've read my comments about Cain over the past few weeks, you know that he lost me--permanently--over being uninformed over the Palestinian right to return issue. I will support the most viable candidate against Obama--by any objective standard, that candidate right now is clearly Mitt Romney. Cain's blowing that issue was exactly one of the things that worried me about a Sarah Palin bid. It was not a gotcha moment. I am almost 100% certain Cain has other knowledge gaps. There are two particularly seminal national alliances (beyond our NAFTA partners) that any serious candidate needs to be cognizant of: Britain and Israel. You cannot have a serious policy on Israel if you don't understand the basics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I am totally mystified by Cain's appeal. Make no mistake--if Cain was nominated, I would support him over Barack Obama. But never underestimate the power of a gaffe. I still remember watching the Ford-Carter debate with my middle brother when President Ford said, "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe." I and my brother looked at each other and started laughing. The moderator gave him a chance to step back from what he said, but Ford dug himself in deeper. Where Ford lost me was his preemptive pardon of Nixon (I would have been supportive of a pardon if and when there was a charge filed.)
The fact of the matter is that Herman Cain is the latest flavor of the month. He has no public sector track record. He has no public sector administrative experience. We have seen the anti-Romney as first Cain to Bachmann to Perry to Cain. I suspect that Perry and Romney are biding their time.
But, and this is just my opinion here, I think Rasmussen has an agenda sometimes. There was last year's Delaware Senate upset of Castle, whom had been elected statewide as governor and to the US Congress multiple times, by Christine O'Donnell, whom had never won a statewide race. Castle was regularly beating the eventual winner, Coons, by double-digits, but Rasmussen showed Castle only getting 5% of a potential write-in vote. As the Murkowski write-in general election win in Alaska proved, popular incumbent politicians are viable write-in candidates. There are clear methodological problems when a sample showed the incumbent GOP Congressman with wide name recognition barely registering in the poll after losing a very close primary. At the time, I recall only one of many polls showing O'Donnell ahead of Coons in a big GOP wave year, and that one was within statistical error, unlike Castle's lopsided leads over Coons. All it took was a 10-year-old film clip of O'Donnell on a Bill Maher show to finish her off with independents and moderates in a traditional blue state; Maher wasn't about to help the Castle campaign out over their incompetent opposition research--he was willing to bide his time and let ideologues get rid of the most viable GOP candidate in the state.
Are the Dems sitting on some Cain audio-visual clip, say, some boneheaded thing he said during his radio shows, or will Cain have a Gerald Ford moment in an Obama debate? I don't know. But I can't shake the feeling that the activists behind Cain are setting up the GOP for another O'Donnell moment, only with the risk of Obama serving a second term; the election of Coons was bad for Delaware but did not cripple the country, like a second Obama term. It's time for activists to stop playing with fire.... Romney has run two statewide races in Massachusetts and also ran in the 2008 Presidential campaign: he's been well-vetted.
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Creedence Clearwater Revival, "Susie Q". From 1969 to 1971, CCR had 9 consecutive Top 10 hits, including 5 at #2 (without hitting #1 once in the US! Talk about bridesmaid, never the bride!) This first song hit #11 in 1968. I mean, really: is there a better rock 'n roll singer than John Fogarty? There are some great pipes out there, like Mick Jagger, Steve Perry and Steve Tyler, but if I was going to pick a voice to imitate it would be the gravelly blue-eyed soul vocals of John Fogarty.
