Congratulations Jason Collins on becoming the first openly-gay player in major team sports history. Now go and get more rebounds. While the media is going nuts over yesterday's release of the Sports Illustrated cover story of Collins coming out of the closet, the average sports fan's reaction is "meh" at best.
Perhaps it's because Collins is a career journeyman who averaged just over two points a game last year. Or maybe it's because we've just become accustomed to the presence of homosexuality in all other aspects of society (I believe every tv show and movie is required to have at least one gay character). But most sports fans will give Collins announcement just passing attention because the only thing we care about is if he can actually perform on the court.
That is one of the beauties of sports--it is a results-oriented medium. We don't care if you are gay, straight, white, black, Christian or Muslim. If you can put the ball in the hoop, make tacklers miss while carrying the ball or throw a fastball 98-miles an hour, we will want you on our teams and we will cheer you.
I haven't seen the movie 42 yet--but I hope they don't portray Dodgers President Branch Rickey as some crusader for social justice and equality. He signed Jackie Robinson to play for Brooklyn because he knew that it would give his team a better chance to win--nothing more, nothing less. And if other teams wanted to maintain the "gentlemen's agreement" then the Dodgers would gladly take the competitive advantage and run with it. Jackie Robinson didn't advance the African-American cause by turning the other cheek for two seasons--he did it by hitting over .300 and driving in runs and stealing bases--which kept him in the league and opened the door to others behind him. A .210 hitter who couldn't catch the ball wouldn't have lasted half a season--regardless of historical importance.
The modern gay athlete actually has an advantage that Robinson and the "trailblazers" of the other sports did not enjoy. They have actually been allowed to play the game--really since the inception of professional sports. They have the stats, the championships and the big money contracts to prove they can compete at the highest levels--and general managers and coaches aren't suddenly going to turn that backs on that kind of track record--whether the player comes out or not.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Monday, April 29, 2013
What's Good For the Goose Ain't Good Enough For the Gander
While everybody bemoans the lack of bi-partisanship in Washington nowadays, there is apparently one thing both sides can agree on: That members of Congress and their staffs should not be bound by the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Politico.com reported last week that members of both parties in both houses have joined the White House in "super secret" talks to exempt Congress from ObamaCare.
Many Americans would be surprised to find out that Congress is actually exempted from several laws already--some of which are the Freedom Of Information Act and the Social Security deduction. It likely would have been exempted from the ACA from the outset as well--but Senator Jim Demint slipped in an amendment right before Congress passed it (so they could find out what was in it)--to make sure that those on the The Hill got to "enjoy" all the same benefits at their constituents.
Well now it turns out, our elected officials aren't too keen on the very law they foisted upon us just three short years ago. It seems that ObamaCare is going to force all of those Congressional staffers (many of whom helped to write the monstrosity of a bill that only Russ Feingold read) to pay more for their health insurance! And that is not sitting well with the wonks--whom it is feared will run to the private sector in droves (where the rates won't be much cheaper) and lawmakers will have to read their own bills and write their own speeches (the horror!!). It's hard to believe that the "best and brightest minds" didn't know the Economics 101 principle that increased demand for a limited supply service will result in higher costs for everyone.
Kudos to Oshkosh West graduate Jim Vandehei and his staff at Politico.com for uncovering this nugget and proving yet again the blatant hypocrisy of those who claim the Affordable Care Act was meant to improve care for "all Americans".
Oh, and if your blood wasn't boiling enough this morning, I leave you with the comments of James Reschovsky--a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington--who addressed a conference on the health care law in Madison last week: "the law seeks to improve quality of care but that doesn't necessarily mean costs will go down." By that logic, the "Affordable" Care Act is going to go down as the greatest misnomer in American history.
Many Americans would be surprised to find out that Congress is actually exempted from several laws already--some of which are the Freedom Of Information Act and the Social Security deduction. It likely would have been exempted from the ACA from the outset as well--but Senator Jim Demint slipped in an amendment right before Congress passed it (so they could find out what was in it)--to make sure that those on the The Hill got to "enjoy" all the same benefits at their constituents.
Well now it turns out, our elected officials aren't too keen on the very law they foisted upon us just three short years ago. It seems that ObamaCare is going to force all of those Congressional staffers (many of whom helped to write the monstrosity of a bill that only Russ Feingold read) to pay more for their health insurance! And that is not sitting well with the wonks--whom it is feared will run to the private sector in droves (where the rates won't be much cheaper) and lawmakers will have to read their own bills and write their own speeches (the horror!!). It's hard to believe that the "best and brightest minds" didn't know the Economics 101 principle that increased demand for a limited supply service will result in higher costs for everyone.
Kudos to Oshkosh West graduate Jim Vandehei and his staff at Politico.com for uncovering this nugget and proving yet again the blatant hypocrisy of those who claim the Affordable Care Act was meant to improve care for "all Americans".
Oh, and if your blood wasn't boiling enough this morning, I leave you with the comments of James Reschovsky--a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington--who addressed a conference on the health care law in Madison last week: "the law seeks to improve quality of care but that doesn't necessarily mean costs will go down." By that logic, the "Affordable" Care Act is going to go down as the greatest misnomer in American history.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Death of the Album
This week, iTunes marked its 10th anniversary. Many credit iTunes with "saving the music industry" which had seen a marked drop-off in sales after people realized they could download CD's to their computers and share their music files for free on the internet. But once musicians won their lawsuits against Napster--and iTunes debuted with its 99-cents per song format, sales eventually went back up. Now audiophiles are just as likely to download the music they want as they are to buy an actual CD.
While I'm glad that artists are once again getting paid for their work, I still feel that iTunes has done irreparable harm to one of my favorite formats: the album. As a Beatles fan, I've come to appreciate the work and consideration they put into laying out an album in a certain way--so that songs flow in a logical order. The greatest examples of that would be their seminal Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road albums. Other bands like The Who and Rush carried on the tradition in the 70's. And bands like U2 and REM--along with solo artists like Michael Jackson and Prince created great "albums" in the 80's and the 90's. A check of the top Album Downloads on iTunes today shows a mix of adult standards, alternative bands and greatest hits packages by 70's rockers--showing its the older generation that still bothers to buy entire albums.
The a la carte nature of iTunes has destroyed the idea of a total listening experience encompassing 45 minutes to an hour. Now, artists strive for just those one or two songs that can get five or ten million downloads and if the other ten tracks get a handful of listens--that's just icing on the cake. I doubt even the most hardcore Pink or Mumford and Sons or Maroon Five fan could tell you the name of those artist's latest album. Nowadays its just a list of album tracks and checkmarks for the ones you want to download and sync with your iPod.
And the iPod has also destroyed the album listening experience as well. Features like syncing just specific tracks, playlists and shuffle allow listeners to jump from song to song, artist to artist in search of the ultimate mix of hits without the physical act of changing a disc or fast-forwarding to find specific tracks.
Maybe some of the artists who want their entire bodies of work consumed, enjoyed and appreciated can fight the trend--by putting an entire album in just one track--and bringing the best listening experience back to it's rightful place in the industry.
While I'm glad that artists are once again getting paid for their work, I still feel that iTunes has done irreparable harm to one of my favorite formats: the album. As a Beatles fan, I've come to appreciate the work and consideration they put into laying out an album in a certain way--so that songs flow in a logical order. The greatest examples of that would be their seminal Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Abbey Road albums. Other bands like The Who and Rush carried on the tradition in the 70's. And bands like U2 and REM--along with solo artists like Michael Jackson and Prince created great "albums" in the 80's and the 90's. A check of the top Album Downloads on iTunes today shows a mix of adult standards, alternative bands and greatest hits packages by 70's rockers--showing its the older generation that still bothers to buy entire albums.
The a la carte nature of iTunes has destroyed the idea of a total listening experience encompassing 45 minutes to an hour. Now, artists strive for just those one or two songs that can get five or ten million downloads and if the other ten tracks get a handful of listens--that's just icing on the cake. I doubt even the most hardcore Pink or Mumford and Sons or Maroon Five fan could tell you the name of those artist's latest album. Nowadays its just a list of album tracks and checkmarks for the ones you want to download and sync with your iPod.
And the iPod has also destroyed the album listening experience as well. Features like syncing just specific tracks, playlists and shuffle allow listeners to jump from song to song, artist to artist in search of the ultimate mix of hits without the physical act of changing a disc or fast-forwarding to find specific tracks.
Maybe some of the artists who want their entire bodies of work consumed, enjoyed and appreciated can fight the trend--by putting an entire album in just one track--and bringing the best listening experience back to it's rightful place in the industry.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
We Just Don't Get It
I'm often accused of having "no sympathy" for people who find themselves in difficult financial positions. Critics will say that "you don't understand that things happen that people can't control". And while that may be true, we continue to get reports and studies like the one this week on the complete and total lack of planning for long-term care--and I am completely justified in my feelings once again.
The Associated Press finds that 70-percent of respondents to their poll have done ABSOLUTELY NO PLANNING FOR THEIR LONG-TERM CARE AS THEY AGE!! None. No savings, no long-term care insurance, not even writing out advanced care directives--70% of us truly believe that we are never going to get old and need help to live some semblence of a life.
Adding to the frustration are what people do have as a "plan" for old age. The first option is "my family will just take care of me". That would be the children who will already be burdened by the excessive costs of the Obamacare system--and other massive debt accumulated by the Government by that time. Yet they are just going to "magically" find more money to take care of Mom and Dad.
And then there is the second option: "I'll just let the government take care of me." According to the study, many people think Medicare pays for nursing home and hospice care. Actually, it does not. State-run Medicaid programs pay for that--and the only way to be eligible for those programs is to be flat-out broke. I guess that when you consider most Americans haven't saved nearly enough for retirement to begin with, reaching that point shouldn't be too difficult.
Let me point out a couple of things to everyone in my age group (30's and 40's): the average cost of a nursing home is $6700 a month--or $80,400 a year. And the average American will spend at least three years in assisted living. So you can expect to need at least $241,200 saved up for that. And keep in mind that those are today's prices. As the Affordable Care Act drives up those costs even more in the next few decades--you can expect those nursing home expenses to increase as well--so maybe you should plan for at least $300,000. I would suggest getting to work on that right away.
Unless of course you are going to be like the rest of the ostriches out there and just bury your head in the sand and pretend like you aren't ever going to get old or sick. Just don't expect me to pay for it--or to feel sorry for you.
The Associated Press finds that 70-percent of respondents to their poll have done ABSOLUTELY NO PLANNING FOR THEIR LONG-TERM CARE AS THEY AGE!! None. No savings, no long-term care insurance, not even writing out advanced care directives--70% of us truly believe that we are never going to get old and need help to live some semblence of a life.
Adding to the frustration are what people do have as a "plan" for old age. The first option is "my family will just take care of me". That would be the children who will already be burdened by the excessive costs of the Obamacare system--and other massive debt accumulated by the Government by that time. Yet they are just going to "magically" find more money to take care of Mom and Dad.
And then there is the second option: "I'll just let the government take care of me." According to the study, many people think Medicare pays for nursing home and hospice care. Actually, it does not. State-run Medicaid programs pay for that--and the only way to be eligible for those programs is to be flat-out broke. I guess that when you consider most Americans haven't saved nearly enough for retirement to begin with, reaching that point shouldn't be too difficult.
Let me point out a couple of things to everyone in my age group (30's and 40's): the average cost of a nursing home is $6700 a month--or $80,400 a year. And the average American will spend at least three years in assisted living. So you can expect to need at least $241,200 saved up for that. And keep in mind that those are today's prices. As the Affordable Care Act drives up those costs even more in the next few decades--you can expect those nursing home expenses to increase as well--so maybe you should plan for at least $300,000. I would suggest getting to work on that right away.
Unless of course you are going to be like the rest of the ostriches out there and just bury your head in the sand and pretend like you aren't ever going to get old or sick. Just don't expect me to pay for it--or to feel sorry for you.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Bucking the Trend
A new report from the Pew Research Foundation finds that the as the economy "recovers" the rich keep getting richer--while the middle class get a little less "middle class". For the period from 2009 to 2011, the upper 7% of American households saw their net worth increase by 28-percent--while those in the "lower" 93% saw their net worth decrease by 4%.
(Before we go any farther, can we please come up with a set percentage for the "evil rich"? When Occupy Wall Street first floated this idea it was the "1%"--meaning that I was in the "99%". Then Mitt Romney came along and put me in the "53%" of Americans that was actually paying income taxes--meaning my "majority" had declined significantly. Then it was President Obama who claimed/lied about how only the "Top 2%" were going to pay more in taxes under the fiscal cliff agreement--which put me back {not really} in the 98% category. And now Pew comes around and tells us that it's actually the top "7%" that are screwing us. Let's just pick a set percentage of people to blame here, so that my identity politics crisis can be solved)
Anyway, taking a look at our own finances for that period (NERD ALERT!) I find that the Krause household's net value increased by just over 23.5%. So how did the decidedly "non-7%" couple from Oshkosh, Wisconsin outperform their peers by so much in that two year period?
First off, we both kept working. That was a big part of it--maintaining two full-time incomes. However, 2010 was a down year in terms of revenue as I decided to take a pay cut in order to try and "better the public good". But we were able to make corresponding cuts in expenditures to absorb that lost revenue.
Secondly, we continued to reap the benefits of past good decisions. This was especially true in the area of home equity--which was apparently the biggest drag on our fellow middle-class members' net worth for the period. We bought an underpriced, undervalued property with cash down and continued to build equity by paying off our mortgage at a rate faster than the devaluation seen during the housing bubble burst. We also went into the period with zero consumer debt--making any decline in real wages much easier to handle.
And lastly, we continued to make good decisions during those two years. Remember Cash For Clunkers? It was a great little program to help the Detroit automakers out of their sales doldrums--but it also put more Americans into vehicles carrying greater debt than what they were driving before. And as we all know, unless the car we're talking about is the 1966 Corvette Sting Ray sitting in my Dad's garage, that vehicle starting losing its value the second you drove it off the lot--and continued to lose value every day after that--further reducing the "net value" of the owners. The Krauses rejected Cash For Clunkers--keeping both our "clunkers" and our cash. And we followed the same process the "7%" did to boost their status,according to the study--investing 12% of our gross income into investments--which saw steady growth for the period.
It's too bad we're going to have to wait another two years to find out how we did versus the rest of our peers from 2011 to 2013. I know our percentage of net worth growth was even better than what the "7%" saw last time around. And I'm guessing that for "some reason" the "bottom 93%" kept making the same financial mistakes that hindered their growth in the last study.
(Before we go any farther, can we please come up with a set percentage for the "evil rich"? When Occupy Wall Street first floated this idea it was the "1%"--meaning that I was in the "99%". Then Mitt Romney came along and put me in the "53%" of Americans that was actually paying income taxes--meaning my "majority" had declined significantly. Then it was President Obama who claimed/lied about how only the "Top 2%" were going to pay more in taxes under the fiscal cliff agreement--which put me back {not really} in the 98% category. And now Pew comes around and tells us that it's actually the top "7%" that are screwing us. Let's just pick a set percentage of people to blame here, so that my identity politics crisis can be solved)
Anyway, taking a look at our own finances for that period (NERD ALERT!) I find that the Krause household's net value increased by just over 23.5%. So how did the decidedly "non-7%" couple from Oshkosh, Wisconsin outperform their peers by so much in that two year period?
First off, we both kept working. That was a big part of it--maintaining two full-time incomes. However, 2010 was a down year in terms of revenue as I decided to take a pay cut in order to try and "better the public good". But we were able to make corresponding cuts in expenditures to absorb that lost revenue.
Secondly, we continued to reap the benefits of past good decisions. This was especially true in the area of home equity--which was apparently the biggest drag on our fellow middle-class members' net worth for the period. We bought an underpriced, undervalued property with cash down and continued to build equity by paying off our mortgage at a rate faster than the devaluation seen during the housing bubble burst. We also went into the period with zero consumer debt--making any decline in real wages much easier to handle.
And lastly, we continued to make good decisions during those two years. Remember Cash For Clunkers? It was a great little program to help the Detroit automakers out of their sales doldrums--but it also put more Americans into vehicles carrying greater debt than what they were driving before. And as we all know, unless the car we're talking about is the 1966 Corvette Sting Ray sitting in my Dad's garage, that vehicle starting losing its value the second you drove it off the lot--and continued to lose value every day after that--further reducing the "net value" of the owners. The Krauses rejected Cash For Clunkers--keeping both our "clunkers" and our cash. And we followed the same process the "7%" did to boost their status,according to the study--investing 12% of our gross income into investments--which saw steady growth for the period.
It's too bad we're going to have to wait another two years to find out how we did versus the rest of our peers from 2011 to 2013. I know our percentage of net worth growth was even better than what the "7%" saw last time around. And I'm guessing that for "some reason" the "bottom 93%" kept making the same financial mistakes that hindered their growth in the last study.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Trouble in (LIberal) Paradise
While the nations of southern Europe are racked by the financial and economic effects of creating a socialist nanny-state, one of their neighbors to the north is dealing with the cultural effect of Government taking care of your every need. The New York Times has published an article on the growing trend of "welfare queens (and kings)" in Denmark.
Denmark is the liberal utopia of Europe. Here are some of the government benefits afforded to its citizens:
But now all of that is threatened not by the global recession but by the growing attitude among the populace that it no longer "pays to work". The article describes how a single mother of two makes 47-thousand dollars in government benefits--without having to think about looking for a job. The poster child of the new Danish attitude has become "Lazy Robert" Oleson--who is quoted in the article as boasting about having lived on welfare programs exclusively since 2001--and is pictured sitting in a curbside lounge chair, with his feet up, along the curb on a bright sunny day. Lazy Robert says most available jobs are "demeaning".
Add to that, the graying of of the Danish population and you run into the same problem every other nanny state reaches--too many on the dole, and not enough working to foot the bill.
So Denmark is making some changes to "encourage" people to actually get back to work and contribute to their society. I love this quote from the nation's Minister of Social Affairs who oversees the welfare state:
"They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded. But now we have to go back to the rights and the duties. We all need to contribute."
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar to the arguments that were used for the Affordable Care Act and increased spending for colleges and universtities? "Every American has a right to cheap health care" and "Everyone has a right to a low-cost college education." You never seem to hear that "Everyone has an obligation to pay for that" too.
The most ironic thing in how the nanny states are collapsing under their own weight, is that we here in America are being told all the time how we need to be "more like Europe"--when Europe is finding out they needed to be "more like us".
Denmark is the liberal utopia of Europe. Here are some of the government benefits afforded to its citizens:
- Free health care
- Free child care
- Free education through six years of college
- Four years of unemployment benefits
- Free maid service for the elderly
- Lifetime diasbility benefits
- Government retirement pensions starting in your 50's
- A minimum wage of $20 an hour--with short work weeks and extended vacations
But now all of that is threatened not by the global recession but by the growing attitude among the populace that it no longer "pays to work". The article describes how a single mother of two makes 47-thousand dollars in government benefits--without having to think about looking for a job. The poster child of the new Danish attitude has become "Lazy Robert" Oleson--who is quoted in the article as boasting about having lived on welfare programs exclusively since 2001--and is pictured sitting in a curbside lounge chair, with his feet up, along the curb on a bright sunny day. Lazy Robert says most available jobs are "demeaning".
Add to that, the graying of of the Danish population and you run into the same problem every other nanny state reaches--too many on the dole, and not enough working to foot the bill.
So Denmark is making some changes to "encourage" people to actually get back to work and contribute to their society. I love this quote from the nation's Minister of Social Affairs who oversees the welfare state:
"They think of these benefits as their rights. The rights have just expanded and expanded. But now we have to go back to the rights and the duties. We all need to contribute."
Doesn't that sound eerily familiar to the arguments that were used for the Affordable Care Act and increased spending for colleges and universtities? "Every American has a right to cheap health care" and "Everyone has a right to a low-cost college education." You never seem to hear that "Everyone has an obligation to pay for that" too.
The most ironic thing in how the nanny states are collapsing under their own weight, is that we here in America are being told all the time how we need to be "more like Europe"--when Europe is finding out they needed to be "more like us".
Monday, April 22, 2013
The Wisdom of Uncle Ruslan
Until the live capture of the second alleged Boston Marathon bomber Friday night, it appeared the "best" thing to come out of that day's news cycle was going to be the impromptu press conference held by the suspects' uncle Ruslan Tsarni. "Uncle Ruslan"--as he came to be known on social media--captured the hearts and minds of millions of Americans with his brutal honesty and refreshing candor in answering questions about his nephews.
When asked what caused the brothers to pull off a terrorist attack his answer was simple: "BEING LOSERS!!" Not, "Oh, they were bullied as kids" or "They felt persecuted for their Muslim faith" or "They were frustrated by the growing income disparity in the US". For Uncle Ruslan, his nephews were meatheads who made their own decisions to follow a path of radicalism and violence.
When asked what advice he had for his surviving nephew Uncle Ruslan advised him to "BEG FOR FORGIVENESS FROM THE REAL VICTIMS!!" This stands in sharp contrast to the responses of the suspects' aunt who lives in Canada--who swore up and down that the "boys" could not have done this and that the FBI had no proof (apparently the use of similar devices during the Friday morning police chase and the cache of weapons and bomb-making materials wasn't enough for the self-described lawyer) and that somehow her nephews were the "victims" of a giant government conspiracy.
And doesn't the use of the word "shame" (on a family and a culture) strike a refreshing tone? I know we are not an "honor-based" society here in the US (thus the lack of bloody family feuds and honor killings you see in other cultures)--but it's a concept that perhaps people like the Kardashians, the Jacksons, and the cast of Jersey Shore might want to consider.
And finally, Uncle Ruslan was asked what he thought about the US himself--and the answer was exactly like that of so many of our immigrant forefathers: America is still a land of opportunity for those willing to work hard and follow the rules. And I'm guessing that Uncle Ruslan has a lot to appreciate. He likely knows abject poverty--not the "I can't afford premium cable channels for my Hi-Def TV AND unlimited text and data for my smartphone" "poverty" that we hear about all the time here in the US. And he understands real political oppression--not "I now have to pay 12% of my health care insurance premiums at my public sector job" or "Women will now have to drive 50-miles to the nearest abortion clinic" complaints that pass as "oppression" here in the US.
While certainly not as tragic as what happened all of last week in the Boston area, it's still sad that it takes a televised rant by a middle-aged immigrant unwillingly thrust into the national spotlight to remind us that the United States is the greatest country on Earth--even if everybody doesn't have taxpayer funded health care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)