I'm so sad about the recent events a the Chabad House in Mumbai, India. Most of us don't think about Chabad unless we're out in the middle of nowhere and need a place to eat for shabbos. The thing is, Chabad has been in kiruv long before it became fashionable in the US, and they really sacrifice to do it. The shlichim leave their families, friends and most kosher/frum convieniences they are used to growing up in Crown Heights. They reach people who would otherwise never come in contact with religious Jews, and strive to bring them closer to whatthey themselves love. There are many who rightly decry the Messianic sect within Lubavitch, but not all Chabad is that way, and most are not. This particular Chabad house, according to CNN, also did drug counseling.
I don't really know what else to say so I just hope their families can find some peace, and their son will grow up to make them proud.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Obey the Yield Signs?
Hey everybody, here's an update:
In my previous post, I wrote that it would be prudent to continue avoiding the market. Of course, as if on cue, the stock market has now rallied 18% (as measured by the S&P 500) over the four trading days since that post was published.
I'd like to make two points about that prediction:
(1) I still expect that the market will pull back, and anticipate that the market will soon give back much, if not all, of the past few days' gains.
(2) My advice to avoid the market was simply a Jedi mind trick, designed to move the market higher. Apparently, it worked very well. Very impressive, indeed.
To me, today's most interesting event was the downward move in interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. Prices and yields (rates) move in opposite directions, so a decline in rates means that the price of Treasuries continues to rise. What we have here is a classic "flight to quality." With investors increasingly nervous about the stock market, and especially skittish about investing in corporate debt, we've witnessed a tidal wave of money flowing into the relative safe haven of debt issued by the U.S. government (Treasuries). Today, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note closed a shade below 3.00%, marking the lowest yield on that security in fifty years.
The current yield on the 10-year Treasury looks even lower when compared to the average dividend yield on the S&P 500. About a week ago, Bloomberg news was reporting that the dividend yield on the S&P 500 had surpassed the yield on the 10-year Treasury for the first time since 1958. Actually, their analysis is somewhat flawed, as they were comparing the current yield on the Treasuries with the 12-month trailing dividend yield on the S&P. Considering how many companies have cut their dividend payouts in recent months, it's a pretty safe bet that the S&P 500 stocks, as a group, will pay out far less in dividends in the next 12 months than they did over the past 12 months. A more pertinent analysis would've used the current or anticipated yield on the S&P. Now, even by that measure, the S&P 500's dividend yield is higher than the current yield on the 10-year Treasury note.
On the surface, this is an extremely bullish signal for stocks. For those who are a bit more exotically inclined, it's probably a good time to short the 10-year Treasury (betting on higher yields), while buying stocks. This strategy assumes that the Treasury yield/S&P 500 dividend yield relationship will move back toward its more normal level via a decline in Treasury prices and a concurrent increase in stock prices. Over the long term, that's probably how it will play out. However, there are a couple of things to note:
(1) Any forward-looking analysis of the yield on the S&P 500 must take into account the high likelihood of significant cuts in dividend payouts. Simply applying a 20% haircut across the board results in a much more "normal" Treasury yield/dividend yield relationship.
(2) At the risk of sounding like one of these "we're-now-entering-a-new-era-in-the-markets" people, perhaps we've turned the clock back. Way back. According to noted stock market historian and author Peter Bernstein, prior to 1958, the dividend yields on common stocks were always higher than were the yields on government or highly-rated corporate bonds. The thinking was that investors demanded a higher regular cash payout on stocks vis a vis bonds, as they were the riskier security, based upon the greater historical variability (measured by standard deviations from the mean) of their returns. In other words, investors demanded their equity risk premium in cash, as opposed to higher expected capital returns. That relationship flipped in 1958, and has remained that way for 50 years, as investors measured stocks' greater potential for price appreciation as the primary component of their anticipated total return. While I doubt that the current, "inverted" relationship will persist for very long, perhaps we really have come full circle, and for the foreseeable future, stock prices will remain depressed enough that stocks will yield more in dividends than Treasury instruments pay out. Perhaps years from now, students of the financial markets will view the years from 1958-2008 as a curiosity.
Who knows, maybe it's time to dust off the old dividend discount model?
Again, I think that the current relationship is a mere blip on the radar screen. However, it might just represent one of the first major buy signals we've got on this market, so it bears watching.
In my previous post, I wrote that it would be prudent to continue avoiding the market. Of course, as if on cue, the stock market has now rallied 18% (as measured by the S&P 500) over the four trading days since that post was published.
I'd like to make two points about that prediction:
(1) I still expect that the market will pull back, and anticipate that the market will soon give back much, if not all, of the past few days' gains.
(2) My advice to avoid the market was simply a Jedi mind trick, designed to move the market higher. Apparently, it worked very well. Very impressive, indeed.
To me, today's most interesting event was the downward move in interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. Prices and yields (rates) move in opposite directions, so a decline in rates means that the price of Treasuries continues to rise. What we have here is a classic "flight to quality." With investors increasingly nervous about the stock market, and especially skittish about investing in corporate debt, we've witnessed a tidal wave of money flowing into the relative safe haven of debt issued by the U.S. government (Treasuries). Today, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note closed a shade below 3.00%, marking the lowest yield on that security in fifty years.
The current yield on the 10-year Treasury looks even lower when compared to the average dividend yield on the S&P 500. About a week ago, Bloomberg news was reporting that the dividend yield on the S&P 500 had surpassed the yield on the 10-year Treasury for the first time since 1958. Actually, their analysis is somewhat flawed, as they were comparing the current yield on the Treasuries with the 12-month trailing dividend yield on the S&P. Considering how many companies have cut their dividend payouts in recent months, it's a pretty safe bet that the S&P 500 stocks, as a group, will pay out far less in dividends in the next 12 months than they did over the past 12 months. A more pertinent analysis would've used the current or anticipated yield on the S&P. Now, even by that measure, the S&P 500's dividend yield is higher than the current yield on the 10-year Treasury note.
On the surface, this is an extremely bullish signal for stocks. For those who are a bit more exotically inclined, it's probably a good time to short the 10-year Treasury (betting on higher yields), while buying stocks. This strategy assumes that the Treasury yield/S&P 500 dividend yield relationship will move back toward its more normal level via a decline in Treasury prices and a concurrent increase in stock prices. Over the long term, that's probably how it will play out. However, there are a couple of things to note:
(1) Any forward-looking analysis of the yield on the S&P 500 must take into account the high likelihood of significant cuts in dividend payouts. Simply applying a 20% haircut across the board results in a much more "normal" Treasury yield/dividend yield relationship.
(2) At the risk of sounding like one of these "we're-now-entering-a-new-era-in-the-markets" people, perhaps we've turned the clock back. Way back. According to noted stock market historian and author Peter Bernstein, prior to 1958, the dividend yields on common stocks were always higher than were the yields on government or highly-rated corporate bonds. The thinking was that investors demanded a higher regular cash payout on stocks vis a vis bonds, as they were the riskier security, based upon the greater historical variability (measured by standard deviations from the mean) of their returns. In other words, investors demanded their equity risk premium in cash, as opposed to higher expected capital returns. That relationship flipped in 1958, and has remained that way for 50 years, as investors measured stocks' greater potential for price appreciation as the primary component of their anticipated total return. While I doubt that the current, "inverted" relationship will persist for very long, perhaps we really have come full circle, and for the foreseeable future, stock prices will remain depressed enough that stocks will yield more in dividends than Treasury instruments pay out. Perhaps years from now, students of the financial markets will view the years from 1958-2008 as a curiosity.
Who knows, maybe it's time to dust off the old dividend discount model?
Again, I think that the current relationship is a mere blip on the radar screen. However, it might just represent one of the first major buy signals we've got on this market, so it bears watching.
Troubled Waters
On our way home from JFK airport we went over the Triboro (this is the way I like to spell it) Bridge. It reminded me that on our way to JFK airport we saw the signs for the rededication of the bridge as the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge. I believe the dedication was that day. My first thought was, wow, that's a lot of signs that need to be changed I wonder who's paying for that. MBB's first thought was "Man, I bet the Triboro Family is upset."
So now, in a terrible economic climate, one that in the city at least has been referred to as a "meltdown," and an excuse to subvert democracy, the state will spend $4 Million Dollars to change the signs to rename a bridge that was fine the way it was. Actually, unable to see the future, and embodying the definition of Hubris, Eliot Spitzer did not know what his ultimate legacy would be, thus he is the one who put the wheels in motion for this renaming of the bridge that connects the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan.
The legislature passed it in June and sometime after that Governor Patterson signed it into law. Here's the odd part. On Jul 30, Patterson went on TV and talked about the fiscal crisis that New York was entering, so much so that he even suggested privatizing some roads and bridges. Now, I'm not an economics expert, but I certainly don't think crisis spring up in a matter of weeks. So when he signed a bill into law, he knew there were 139 signs that needed to be changed, and granted when your deficit is in the 20 something BILLION dollar range, what's 4 million dollars. But, I would like to see a politician say, "No, this vanity project is not right for this time in NY." Peter Vallone who represents Queens in the city council did issue a statement:
To be fair, the state is not even accepting bids for the signage change until 2011. It just doesn't smell right. Don't take away people's property rebate checks (city) and then turn around and do this. Yes, it's the state not the city that will be paying for most of it, but I think it's a morale issue.
There's been some talk about whether this name will stick (ever hear of the Joe Dimaggo highway?), but I think it will. It's short and easy to say fast on a traffic report.
Either way, it was a stupid thing to do at this time, and I hope there is some sort of uproar about it. Though most people are too worried about paying their bills to get up in arms about this.
So now, in a terrible economic climate, one that in the city at least has been referred to as a "meltdown," and an excuse to subvert democracy, the state will spend $4 Million Dollars to change the signs to rename a bridge that was fine the way it was. Actually, unable to see the future, and embodying the definition of Hubris, Eliot Spitzer did not know what his ultimate legacy would be, thus he is the one who put the wheels in motion for this renaming of the bridge that connects the Bronx, Queens and Manhattan.
The legislature passed it in June and sometime after that Governor Patterson signed it into law. Here's the odd part. On Jul 30, Patterson went on TV and talked about the fiscal crisis that New York was entering, so much so that he even suggested privatizing some roads and bridges. Now, I'm not an economics expert, but I certainly don't think crisis spring up in a matter of weeks. So when he signed a bill into law, he knew there were 139 signs that needed to be changed, and granted when your deficit is in the 20 something BILLION dollar range, what's 4 million dollars. But, I would like to see a politician say, "No, this vanity project is not right for this time in NY." Peter Vallone who represents Queens in the city council did issue a statement:
Robert Kennedy was a great man, but this isn’t the time. While one agency that gets money from the state is raising fares and cutting service to the neighborhood at the foot of the bridge, another has somehow found a way to spend millions of dollars on changing the signage of it.
To be fair, the state is not even accepting bids for the signage change until 2011. It just doesn't smell right. Don't take away people's property rebate checks (city) and then turn around and do this. Yes, it's the state not the city that will be paying for most of it, but I think it's a morale issue.
There's been some talk about whether this name will stick (ever hear of the Joe Dimaggo highway?), but I think it will. It's short and easy to say fast on a traffic report.
Either way, it was a stupid thing to do at this time, and I hope there is some sort of uproar about it. Though most people are too worried about paying their bills to get up in arms about this.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Life is a Highway.....
So where'd we last leave off? Aaah, yes Thursday evening. Friday is kind of a short day, so we went to play mini golf up in Dania Beach, had a few minutes for...what else? SKEE BALLL! Then down to lower Miami Beach were we spent time with the inlaws. Saturday night we visited with a cousin in North Miami, went to get a quick bite and a mojito for me (that glass was HUUUUUGE!), and well, I don't remember much else about that night!
Sunday was great. It was very windy, but we went down to the beach with some books and diet cokes. MBB didn't last that long, but after three hours I met him near the empty pool area (it was windy and cool, but the water is heated), and he went swimming. After a little while we'd had enough sun, and sunday being sunday we watched some football, went to dinner and watched more football. It was a real vacation day. Lazy, and relaxed. I don't like to do too much on a sunday since places tend to be crowded, since everyone is off. So this was just a perfect day. For me anyway.
Monday, we (gasp!) got up early (relatively!), got some provisions and headed down to Key Largo. It's about 85 miles from where we were staying, and we took the highway down Florida City and US 1 into Key Largo. The plan was to go Snorkeling and one of the boats that have set tours, but a) we got down there a little too late (I guess we didn't get up early enough!) b) many of the snorkeling boats didn't go out because they didn't have enough people c) we realized that the only way for us to go snorkeling comfortably would be with a private boat, and we had done that once before, and didn't want to spend the money.
So we went back to John Pennekamp State Park, where we had (luckily, once we realized it wasn't really for us)missed a boat by minutes. It's not like we parked and saw we missed the boat, as soon as we pulled in you stop to pay to enter the park, and the ranger suggested we try one of the other places on US-1 that had later tours. That's when we found out that no one was really in Key Largo today who wanted to snorkel (or as MBB likes to say Shnorkel), so we made our way back to JPSP, paid our lovely state park price of 6 bucks, and went to rent kayaks.
The canoe/Kayak trail in this park is a very placid mangrove creek. The water is salt water, obviously, since it is off the ocean, and we took a double- sit- on- top Kayak. We saw a cute little crab, and the mangroves themselves I found fascinating. They don't seem to be rooted in the bottom, the roots just float in the water. they're think in many places, and create their own islands in other. We saw some really nice birds in stunning colors, and hopefully didn't scare them too badly as I had difficulty with the whole right goes left and left goes right thing. MBB was none too pleased, but then we got into a groove it was a really nice time.
The whole way down we saw sign for a place called Sandal Outlet, and a little note, like a burst on the side that said "T-shirts 3 for $10." You all know about MBB and t-shirts, so needless to say we found the Sandal Outlet. What a scam! The place that advertises literally EVERY MILE once you get into Key Largo that they have 3 for $10 LIED!!!! It's a big store with lots of Sandals and t-shirts. So I asked if all the t-shirts were 3 for ten. Nope. Only the ones in the back corner. Ok, not bad. THERE WAS ONE! 1! UNO! Round clothing rack that had a bunch of ugly t-shirts on it, and the sign on top of it said "3 for $10.99." I was so annoyed we left. Even though we didn't look at everything there. I was so offended and annoyed! Boo Sandal Outlet! BOOOOO!
We decided to drive home via Card Sound Road instead of US-1 which gets you to the same point at Florida City, but you can drive faster and you see more water along the way. We opted to take US-1 the whole way back, which was nice, but it literally doubled the trip. But, we were in a convertible roadster with temperatures between 77 and 74 so how could we complain. I was heartened to see that not every store along the way was a national chain store, and there were some local private businesses still in existence.
Tomorrow it's back to frigid temperatures, so we're going roof down in the car tonight, even if it hits 60!
See you all soon in the wintry northeast. BRRRR!
Sunday was great. It was very windy, but we went down to the beach with some books and diet cokes. MBB didn't last that long, but after three hours I met him near the empty pool area (it was windy and cool, but the water is heated), and he went swimming. After a little while we'd had enough sun, and sunday being sunday we watched some football, went to dinner and watched more football. It was a real vacation day. Lazy, and relaxed. I don't like to do too much on a sunday since places tend to be crowded, since everyone is off. So this was just a perfect day. For me anyway.
Monday, we (gasp!) got up early (relatively!), got some provisions and headed down to Key Largo. It's about 85 miles from where we were staying, and we took the highway down Florida City and US 1 into Key Largo. The plan was to go Snorkeling and one of the boats that have set tours, but a) we got down there a little too late (I guess we didn't get up early enough!) b) many of the snorkeling boats didn't go out because they didn't have enough people c) we realized that the only way for us to go snorkeling comfortably would be with a private boat, and we had done that once before, and didn't want to spend the money.
So we went back to John Pennekamp State Park, where we had (luckily, once we realized it wasn't really for us)missed a boat by minutes. It's not like we parked and saw we missed the boat, as soon as we pulled in you stop to pay to enter the park, and the ranger suggested we try one of the other places on US-1 that had later tours. That's when we found out that no one was really in Key Largo today who wanted to snorkel (or as MBB likes to say Shnorkel), so we made our way back to JPSP, paid our lovely state park price of 6 bucks, and went to rent kayaks.
The canoe/Kayak trail in this park is a very placid mangrove creek. The water is salt water, obviously, since it is off the ocean, and we took a double- sit- on- top Kayak. We saw a cute little crab, and the mangroves themselves I found fascinating. They don't seem to be rooted in the bottom, the roots just float in the water. they're think in many places, and create their own islands in other. We saw some really nice birds in stunning colors, and hopefully didn't scare them too badly as I had difficulty with the whole right goes left and left goes right thing. MBB was none too pleased, but then we got into a groove it was a really nice time.
The whole way down we saw sign for a place called Sandal Outlet, and a little note, like a burst on the side that said "T-shirts 3 for $10." You all know about MBB and t-shirts, so needless to say we found the Sandal Outlet. What a scam! The place that advertises literally EVERY MILE once you get into Key Largo that they have 3 for $10 LIED!!!! It's a big store with lots of Sandals and t-shirts. So I asked if all the t-shirts were 3 for ten. Nope. Only the ones in the back corner. Ok, not bad. THERE WAS ONE! 1! UNO! Round clothing rack that had a bunch of ugly t-shirts on it, and the sign on top of it said "3 for $10.99." I was so annoyed we left. Even though we didn't look at everything there. I was so offended and annoyed! Boo Sandal Outlet! BOOOOO!
We decided to drive home via Card Sound Road instead of US-1 which gets you to the same point at Florida City, but you can drive faster and you see more water along the way. We opted to take US-1 the whole way back, which was nice, but it literally doubled the trip. But, we were in a convertible roadster with temperatures between 77 and 74 so how could we complain. I was heartened to see that not every store along the way was a national chain store, and there were some local private businesses still in existence.
Tomorrow it's back to frigid temperatures, so we're going roof down in the car tonight, even if it hits 60!
See you all soon in the wintry northeast. BRRRR!
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Musings from Miami
Hello from sunny Florida. It's not that warm by vacation standards, but it's a lot warmer than NY, so we're happy. We need to wear sweatshirts/jackets in the evening, but we're able to keep the top down on the convertible so the vacation is great!
When we left NY, we parked at an off site parking place near JFK. I was quite amused when we pulled up to read the sign that advised us to "precede with caution." Well, now we had a problem, since the sign clearly said "DO NOT BACK UP," and yet, how were we to defer to the cars behind us if we couldn't back up? Being the daring types that we are, we threw caution to the wind, and went ahead anyway. We dodged that bullet, and all went off without a hitch. The flight was great and empty.
When we finished at the car rental counter, we went into the garage to pick up our car. We knew it was a red convertible sports car, and they gave us the berth number. You know how in all the movies the loser guy gets set up with some girl, and comes into the bar and the set up man points to the girl, and the loser guy sees a stunning tall blond, and says "the blond? Wow!' The friend then tells him no, the girl right beyond the blond and she tends to be a mousy glasses wearing brunette in a button up blouse and floral skirt. So it wasn't that bad, but as we approached we saw a gorgeous red sports car convertible, but it was in the wrong slot parked next to an SUV so we couldn't see the slot two over from it where our car was sitting. MBB noted that the car we were drooling over was a Saturn Skye. We walked two cars over to see our Nissan Z, which is very cool and fun to drive.
After a fun time in Dave and Busters we went out to dinner. There we were sitting at the window, having finished our soup ( it was chilly last night, sorry folks, but low 60's is chilly in these climes)and I looked up at the gas station across the street we had noted when we drove in. Between sitting down and eating soup the price had dropped 14 cents!!!! Maybe we should have had dessert!
We got a late a start today and went to get my watch fixed, pick up some breakfast/lunch, and then out to the Everglades for an airboat ride. We've done it before, but we find it both fun and fascinating, and this time we saw a lot more alligators. The drive down was great. We opted for the long route which was straight on route 41. It was actually (top down and all) a great ride, not boring, lots of cool buildings, and ethnic neighborhoods, and once we got closer to our destination the road felt more like US 1 down to the Keys. Everglades on both sides, and a few signs here and there directing drivers to the various airboat tour companies. Interestingly, a few miles in on that part of 41 is a whole development with miamesq apartments and palm trees, it's quite lovely, though somewhat in the middle of nowhere. I think my suburb has become so urban, that a few minute drive to amenities seems like a lifetime.
Our guide was a man who looked about 60 (though he could've been 35), his voice was choked with smoke from the last 40 years, he claimed to have one eye, he wore numerous rings, one was a skull, lots of tattoos, a pony tail, and originally from Kentucky, accent and all. He informed us on the tour that he's been living on water since he was 6 years old, and first flew a plane at age 11, and landed one at 13. I know he's real tough and all, but two years seems like an awfully long time to stay up in the air. The tour was very informative, and it started off with a five minute fast ride through the sawgrass in the everglades. The water is between 4 inches and 15 inches deep, thus necessitating the airboat. When he came to a stop after this first quick ride where the boat slid sideways many times he informed us of two things. Number 1, this is when he told us he had one eye. Hmmm. Number two, this is when he told us his name. He said "My name is Scooter.'
And all I could think was "Of course it is."
When we left NY, we parked at an off site parking place near JFK. I was quite amused when we pulled up to read the sign that advised us to "precede with caution." Well, now we had a problem, since the sign clearly said "DO NOT BACK UP," and yet, how were we to defer to the cars behind us if we couldn't back up? Being the daring types that we are, we threw caution to the wind, and went ahead anyway. We dodged that bullet, and all went off without a hitch. The flight was great and empty.
When we finished at the car rental counter, we went into the garage to pick up our car. We knew it was a red convertible sports car, and they gave us the berth number. You know how in all the movies the loser guy gets set up with some girl, and comes into the bar and the set up man points to the girl, and the loser guy sees a stunning tall blond, and says "the blond? Wow!' The friend then tells him no, the girl right beyond the blond and she tends to be a mousy glasses wearing brunette in a button up blouse and floral skirt. So it wasn't that bad, but as we approached we saw a gorgeous red sports car convertible, but it was in the wrong slot parked next to an SUV so we couldn't see the slot two over from it where our car was sitting. MBB noted that the car we were drooling over was a Saturn Skye. We walked two cars over to see our Nissan Z, which is very cool and fun to drive.
After a fun time in Dave and Busters we went out to dinner. There we were sitting at the window, having finished our soup ( it was chilly last night, sorry folks, but low 60's is chilly in these climes)and I looked up at the gas station across the street we had noted when we drove in. Between sitting down and eating soup the price had dropped 14 cents!!!! Maybe we should have had dessert!
We got a late a start today and went to get my watch fixed, pick up some breakfast/lunch, and then out to the Everglades for an airboat ride. We've done it before, but we find it both fun and fascinating, and this time we saw a lot more alligators. The drive down was great. We opted for the long route which was straight on route 41. It was actually (top down and all) a great ride, not boring, lots of cool buildings, and ethnic neighborhoods, and once we got closer to our destination the road felt more like US 1 down to the Keys. Everglades on both sides, and a few signs here and there directing drivers to the various airboat tour companies. Interestingly, a few miles in on that part of 41 is a whole development with miamesq apartments and palm trees, it's quite lovely, though somewhat in the middle of nowhere. I think my suburb has become so urban, that a few minute drive to amenities seems like a lifetime.
Our guide was a man who looked about 60 (though he could've been 35), his voice was choked with smoke from the last 40 years, he claimed to have one eye, he wore numerous rings, one was a skull, lots of tattoos, a pony tail, and originally from Kentucky, accent and all. He informed us on the tour that he's been living on water since he was 6 years old, and first flew a plane at age 11, and landed one at 13. I know he's real tough and all, but two years seems like an awfully long time to stay up in the air. The tour was very informative, and it started off with a five minute fast ride through the sawgrass in the everglades. The water is between 4 inches and 15 inches deep, thus necessitating the airboat. When he came to a stop after this first quick ride where the boat slid sideways many times he informed us of two things. Number 1, this is when he told us he had one eye. Hmmm. Number two, this is when he told us his name. He said "My name is Scooter.'
And all I could think was "Of course it is."
Apocalypse Now
A bit more than a month ago, in this very space, we put forth a very gloomy prediction, that the stock market would not hit bottom, and begin to build a base, until we at least tested the October 2002 lows on the S&P 500.
We advised against trying to buy stocks until we reached that point. Unfortunately, that prediction has come to pass. The S&P 500 closed today at about 750, falling below its closing low of the last bear market, (776.76), established on October 9, 2002. I say "unfortunately," because like most Americans in one form or another, I own stock. I never want to see the market go down, even if it means that my predictions will turn out to be accurate. Had I shorted the market, that would be a different story. Alas, as with my prediction that oil prices were headed lower, I did not put my money where my mouth was. It sort of reminds me of all of those people I knew growing up who would say things like, "I could've bought that building twenty years ago for next to nothing."
At least I resisted the temptation to add to my stock holdings. Hopefully, our readers have resisted doing so as well, and recognized the false rallies over the past few weeks for what they were. What I find particularly troubling is that the market didn't hold at the 775 level. The next few trading days will be very important, to see if the index continues to fall further below the last bear market bottom. If it does, who knows where the bottom of this thing is.
So, as always, we ask the age-old question: What do we do now?
My advice would be to continue avoiding stocks. Even when prices stop falling, we probably need to see a significant period of base-building, where the market trades sideways for a while, before really moving up. Of course, the market could put in a big bounceback rally, but the risk of losing more money in this market is greater than the risk of missing out on a rally. Besides, once it does recover, the market will still have plenty of upside left, even after its first upward surge.
Supposedly, Baron Rothschild, when asked to explain his success in the stock market, stated: "It's simple. I never attempt to buy at the bottom, nor do I attempt to sell at the top." (I say "supposedly," because the investment field is filled with quotes that are attributed to very famous people, when in all likelihood, someone else is really responsible for the quote. I guess a quote has more impact if it is attributed to an extremely succesful person).
There are also other ways to position one's self for a rally in the stock market, while limiting the risk involved. I hope to discuss a strategy or two in an upcoming post.
In the meantime, sit this one out. Granted, stocks appear to be extremely cheap now, looking at things like the dividend yield on the S&P 500 vs. short-term Treasury yields, or, more importantly, the earnings yield of the S&P 500 (the inverse of the P/E ratio) vs. Treasury yields. However, just like stocks - or other assets - can be expensive for years at a time, they can also remain cheap by historical valuation standards for long periods.
Sometimes, that new paradigm can be a real kick in the pants.
We advised against trying to buy stocks until we reached that point. Unfortunately, that prediction has come to pass. The S&P 500 closed today at about 750, falling below its closing low of the last bear market, (776.76), established on October 9, 2002. I say "unfortunately," because like most Americans in one form or another, I own stock. I never want to see the market go down, even if it means that my predictions will turn out to be accurate. Had I shorted the market, that would be a different story. Alas, as with my prediction that oil prices were headed lower, I did not put my money where my mouth was. It sort of reminds me of all of those people I knew growing up who would say things like, "I could've bought that building twenty years ago for next to nothing."
At least I resisted the temptation to add to my stock holdings. Hopefully, our readers have resisted doing so as well, and recognized the false rallies over the past few weeks for what they were. What I find particularly troubling is that the market didn't hold at the 775 level. The next few trading days will be very important, to see if the index continues to fall further below the last bear market bottom. If it does, who knows where the bottom of this thing is.
So, as always, we ask the age-old question: What do we do now?
My advice would be to continue avoiding stocks. Even when prices stop falling, we probably need to see a significant period of base-building, where the market trades sideways for a while, before really moving up. Of course, the market could put in a big bounceback rally, but the risk of losing more money in this market is greater than the risk of missing out on a rally. Besides, once it does recover, the market will still have plenty of upside left, even after its first upward surge.
Supposedly, Baron Rothschild, when asked to explain his success in the stock market, stated: "It's simple. I never attempt to buy at the bottom, nor do I attempt to sell at the top." (I say "supposedly," because the investment field is filled with quotes that are attributed to very famous people, when in all likelihood, someone else is really responsible for the quote. I guess a quote has more impact if it is attributed to an extremely succesful person).
There are also other ways to position one's self for a rally in the stock market, while limiting the risk involved. I hope to discuss a strategy or two in an upcoming post.
In the meantime, sit this one out. Granted, stocks appear to be extremely cheap now, looking at things like the dividend yield on the S&P 500 vs. short-term Treasury yields, or, more importantly, the earnings yield of the S&P 500 (the inverse of the P/E ratio) vs. Treasury yields. However, just like stocks - or other assets - can be expensive for years at a time, they can also remain cheap by historical valuation standards for long periods.
Sometimes, that new paradigm can be a real kick in the pants.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Keep Checking
We'll be away for a short time, but keep checking. You never know when we decide to send a scintillating post from the beach.
Stay warm!!!
FBB and MBB
Stay warm!!!
FBB and MBB
Monday, November 17, 2008
Purple Mediocrity
Looking at our blog a few minutes ago, I was hit with the following thought:
IcebergCarwash could really use another football-related post right now.
I know, I know, you've all been thinking that same thing for weeks already.
I guess I'm a little slow on the uptake.
So sue me.
If you've got no interest in a football post, well, to paraphrase Ivan Drago, Rocky Balboa's opponent in Rocky IV, "I blog for me. For me. Not government. For me."
Speaking of Rocky the Fourth, I believe that with that movie, along with the Rambo epics, Sylvester Stallone played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War. The Russians knew that they could not compete with us.
I find it curious that Mr. Stallone has not received more recognition for his actions on our nation's behalf. Perhaps it's yet another shameful episode of a deserving immigrant not receiving his due simply because of the incredible difficulties he's had in mastering the English language after coming to our supposedly-welcoming shores.
(Pardon me, folks. My editors have informed me that Mr. Stallone, is not, in fact, an immigrant. He was born in New York City. Never mind. Still, he probably should get some recognition for his geopolitical impact).
Anyway, back to the football. Yesterday, in a generally uninspired performance, the Minnesota Vikings lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 19-13. Actually, the Vikings put in a pretty good first half, and were leading 13-6 at halftime. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything of note in the second half and ended up losing the game. The loss leaves the Vikings' record at 5-5. Five wins, five losses. That's what you call mediocre.
Officially, with six games to go in the regular season, the Vikings are still solidly in the hunt for a playoff position, owing to the general mediocrity (there's that word again) of their division, the NFC North. There's currently a three-way tie atop the division, with the Vikings, Bears and Packers sporting identical 5-5 records.
It now looks possible that the winner of that division will end up with a 9-7 record, maybe even 8-8. As the division winner, whichever team ends up on top would then automatically qualify for the playoffs. Whereupon they will probably be beaten like a rented mule by whichever decent team they end up playing.
While I didn't buy into the preseason hype, the Vikings are definitely not playing as well as most observers expected.
The offense continues to struggle, particularly when it comes to throwing the ball.
The defense, while improved, has not been dominant, and is still susceptible to giving up big plays in the passing game.
The special teams have been dismal. Specifically, the punt coverage units are the worst I've seen in the 30+ years I've been following this sport.
Typically, when a team's performance is below expectations, it is either a matter of the coaching decisions (e.g. play-calling) or the personnel. In this case, I think it's both.
* The offensive line, which was supposed to be one of the league's best units, is overrated. Specifically, the right side of the line remains a weakness. The primary culprit is RT Ryan Cook. I'm sure he'll make a nice backup in the future, given his ability to play a few positions, but the Vikings will need to upgrade this position going into next year. He was terrible yesterday, doing his best "matador" impression, while the man he was blocking walked right past him several times.
* Not surprisingly, the QB position is a mess. Tarvaris Jackson was benched after two games, and it was the right call at that point. Gus Frerotte has been inconsistent. Yesterday, he made several poor throws. At this point, I believe that the Vikings might as well put Tarvaris Jackson back in there, to see if he's learned anything by watching the action from the sidelines. Let's be serious. The Vikings aren't going anywhere this year anyway. By playing Jackson over the remaining six games, at least they'd be able to make a final decision on T-Jack this coming offseason, and move on.
* The offensive play-calling has been atrocious. The Vikings need to throw more often on first down, when opposing defenses are keying on Adrian Peterson. In addition, they just have the wrong personnel in the game most of the time. Why do they insist on playing with a fullback? They'd be better off spreading things out more often, with three - or even four - wide receivers. This would eventually give Adrian Peterson more room to run. It's not like the fullbacks are doing a good job of opening holes for him anyway. Here's a general rule to coach by: Whether on offense or defense, you should have your best 11 players on the field as often as possible.
* Unlike the offense, the defense seems to employ a decent scheme. However, there are personnel issues, which have prevented this unit from playing at a higher level. First of all, the loss of MLB E.J. Henderson was a major blow. Despite the efforts of Chad Greenway, the defense has not been able to fully overcome the loss of a player of E.J.'s caliber. In addition, the secondary has not done a great job covering receivers. Specifically, Cedric Griffin is getting burned worse than FBB trying to make creme brulee'. A key task in the offseason will be finding a starting cornerback to replace Griffin in the spot opposite Antoine Winfield next year.
* As for the punt coverage units, surely the loss of ace coverage guy Heath Farwell hasn't helped. But, even I'm at a loss to explain how bad this unit has been.
Ten games are usually more than enough to get a good feel for a football team. At 5-5, the Vikings appear headed for a record of 7-9 or 8-8, and will probably miss the playoffs for the fourth consecutive year.
Not even John Rambo could pull them out of this one.
IcebergCarwash could really use another football-related post right now.
I know, I know, you've all been thinking that same thing for weeks already.
I guess I'm a little slow on the uptake.
So sue me.
If you've got no interest in a football post, well, to paraphrase Ivan Drago, Rocky Balboa's opponent in Rocky IV, "I blog for me. For me. Not government. For me."
Speaking of Rocky the Fourth, I believe that with that movie, along with the Rambo epics, Sylvester Stallone played a pivotal role in ending the Cold War. The Russians knew that they could not compete with us.
I find it curious that Mr. Stallone has not received more recognition for his actions on our nation's behalf. Perhaps it's yet another shameful episode of a deserving immigrant not receiving his due simply because of the incredible difficulties he's had in mastering the English language after coming to our supposedly-welcoming shores.
(Pardon me, folks. My editors have informed me that Mr. Stallone, is not, in fact, an immigrant. He was born in New York City. Never mind. Still, he probably should get some recognition for his geopolitical impact).
Anyway, back to the football. Yesterday, in a generally uninspired performance, the Minnesota Vikings lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, 19-13. Actually, the Vikings put in a pretty good first half, and were leading 13-6 at halftime. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything of note in the second half and ended up losing the game. The loss leaves the Vikings' record at 5-5. Five wins, five losses. That's what you call mediocre.
Officially, with six games to go in the regular season, the Vikings are still solidly in the hunt for a playoff position, owing to the general mediocrity (there's that word again) of their division, the NFC North. There's currently a three-way tie atop the division, with the Vikings, Bears and Packers sporting identical 5-5 records.
It now looks possible that the winner of that division will end up with a 9-7 record, maybe even 8-8. As the division winner, whichever team ends up on top would then automatically qualify for the playoffs. Whereupon they will probably be beaten like a rented mule by whichever decent team they end up playing.
While I didn't buy into the preseason hype, the Vikings are definitely not playing as well as most observers expected.
The offense continues to struggle, particularly when it comes to throwing the ball.
The defense, while improved, has not been dominant, and is still susceptible to giving up big plays in the passing game.
The special teams have been dismal. Specifically, the punt coverage units are the worst I've seen in the 30+ years I've been following this sport.
Typically, when a team's performance is below expectations, it is either a matter of the coaching decisions (e.g. play-calling) or the personnel. In this case, I think it's both.
* The offensive line, which was supposed to be one of the league's best units, is overrated. Specifically, the right side of the line remains a weakness. The primary culprit is RT Ryan Cook. I'm sure he'll make a nice backup in the future, given his ability to play a few positions, but the Vikings will need to upgrade this position going into next year. He was terrible yesterday, doing his best "matador" impression, while the man he was blocking walked right past him several times.
* Not surprisingly, the QB position is a mess. Tarvaris Jackson was benched after two games, and it was the right call at that point. Gus Frerotte has been inconsistent. Yesterday, he made several poor throws. At this point, I believe that the Vikings might as well put Tarvaris Jackson back in there, to see if he's learned anything by watching the action from the sidelines. Let's be serious. The Vikings aren't going anywhere this year anyway. By playing Jackson over the remaining six games, at least they'd be able to make a final decision on T-Jack this coming offseason, and move on.
* The offensive play-calling has been atrocious. The Vikings need to throw more often on first down, when opposing defenses are keying on Adrian Peterson. In addition, they just have the wrong personnel in the game most of the time. Why do they insist on playing with a fullback? They'd be better off spreading things out more often, with three - or even four - wide receivers. This would eventually give Adrian Peterson more room to run. It's not like the fullbacks are doing a good job of opening holes for him anyway. Here's a general rule to coach by: Whether on offense or defense, you should have your best 11 players on the field as often as possible.
* Unlike the offense, the defense seems to employ a decent scheme. However, there are personnel issues, which have prevented this unit from playing at a higher level. First of all, the loss of MLB E.J. Henderson was a major blow. Despite the efforts of Chad Greenway, the defense has not been able to fully overcome the loss of a player of E.J.'s caliber. In addition, the secondary has not done a great job covering receivers. Specifically, Cedric Griffin is getting burned worse than FBB trying to make creme brulee'. A key task in the offseason will be finding a starting cornerback to replace Griffin in the spot opposite Antoine Winfield next year.
* As for the punt coverage units, surely the loss of ace coverage guy Heath Farwell hasn't helped. But, even I'm at a loss to explain how bad this unit has been.
Ten games are usually more than enough to get a good feel for a football team. At 5-5, the Vikings appear headed for a record of 7-9 or 8-8, and will probably miss the playoffs for the fourth consecutive year.
Not even John Rambo could pull them out of this one.
You Think I'm Bored????
Lately, while listening to the all news station on the radio, I have made a discovery. The writers are afraid to be repetitive. Possibly, they think that many of their listeners are listening on a constant loop for hours on end, the way you would to talk radio, music radio or sports radio. The differences is, on those stations the content changes constantly. Unless there's some breaking news, chances are it's the same stories repeated over and over at least an hour at a time.
Why then do the writers and reporters feel they need to shake things up to the point of the absurd? The other day there was a report of a rescue mission that would now be a recovery mission for one missing duck hunter. His three friends made it relative safety of a small sand bar (or island depending which story you read) after a storm hit and their boat capsized. The story ended with the reporter saying "the storm that victimized the men came up suddenly."
Now I understand that these people went through a terrible ordeal, and lost a friend in the process. But, "victimized?" in that context? It just seems more than a bit much to me. But wait. It gets better.
If you think the regular news writers/reporters feel the stories are tedious hour after hour, how about those traffic reporters? ( I once wrote an angry e-mail to management about the folksy style of one traffic "reporter," who basically gives you very little info, just inflates his own ego with what he thinks is witty reporting. I beg to differ). This one took the cake. So much so I had to draw a cartoon about it:
There were, and I quote: "DUELING ACCIDENTS."
Why then do the writers and reporters feel they need to shake things up to the point of the absurd? The other day there was a report of a rescue mission that would now be a recovery mission for one missing duck hunter. His three friends made it relative safety of a small sand bar (or island depending which story you read) after a storm hit and their boat capsized. The story ended with the reporter saying "the storm that victimized the men came up suddenly."
Now I understand that these people went through a terrible ordeal, and lost a friend in the process. But, "victimized?" in that context? It just seems more than a bit much to me. But wait. It gets better.
If you think the regular news writers/reporters feel the stories are tedious hour after hour, how about those traffic reporters? ( I once wrote an angry e-mail to management about the folksy style of one traffic "reporter," who basically gives you very little info, just inflates his own ego with what he thinks is witty reporting. I beg to differ). This one took the cake. So much so I had to draw a cartoon about it:
There were, and I quote: "DUELING ACCIDENTS."
Ummm, Waiter......
I've been sitting in front of a blank screen trying to come up with something to blog about. I haven't done it since Thursday, and our many adoring fans may be clamoring for our slice of sunshine on the 'net.
I gotta tell you people, as of right now I've got nothing, but I'll give it a shot.
I went out to dinner last night with a whole group of people, but too many of them read this blog for me to say anything about that. I'm kidding of course. It was really nice, we had a great time. Too bad there weren't any Mojitos there, but I plan to remedy that in a few days as I sit in the sun on a white sandy beach. I'm so happy that it's going to be cold in these parts when I leave. I hate going to sunnier climes when the temperature at home is mild. Blast me with cold, and I get really excited as soon as I see the palm trees in the airport.
Of course rule number one: Never go out to eat starving, you're likely to be disappointed and order way too much. I wasn't, thanks to some excellent Basmati rice I mooched off my Dad. Man, that rice took me back. I love sticky rice, and specifically the sticky rice they served in the school I went to through second grade. This was so close, I could almost smell the old hallways. Either way I wasn't starved. That brought me to rule number two: Go with your first choice. If your initial reaction is to pick a certain entree, I say go with it, you'll be the most happy. Restaurants are a great opportunity to be daring, but there's the financial element that holds you back. You want to order something different, and try new things, but if you're paying you don't want to be horribly disappointed. But don't be boring, either. Make sure you order something that's right for the place that you're in. It may be delicious, but if you're in a steakhouse, don't order chicken. Don't order steak at a Moroccan restaurant, go for the Tajine.
At least my Appetizer was right for the place I was in, but I should have ordered my first choice ( more right for the specialty cuisine there), and instead I went with what I thought was a safe choice, but ended up being just ok. I can't stand when I order something that I can make better myself. I can only blame myself. I need to not think so much, and just order.
Sorry folks, that's all I got today. Maybe MBB can pick up the slack.
I gotta tell you people, as of right now I've got nothing, but I'll give it a shot.
I went out to dinner last night with a whole group of people, but too many of them read this blog for me to say anything about that. I'm kidding of course. It was really nice, we had a great time. Too bad there weren't any Mojitos there, but I plan to remedy that in a few days as I sit in the sun on a white sandy beach. I'm so happy that it's going to be cold in these parts when I leave. I hate going to sunnier climes when the temperature at home is mild. Blast me with cold, and I get really excited as soon as I see the palm trees in the airport.
Of course rule number one: Never go out to eat starving, you're likely to be disappointed and order way too much. I wasn't, thanks to some excellent Basmati rice I mooched off my Dad. Man, that rice took me back. I love sticky rice, and specifically the sticky rice they served in the school I went to through second grade. This was so close, I could almost smell the old hallways. Either way I wasn't starved. That brought me to rule number two: Go with your first choice. If your initial reaction is to pick a certain entree, I say go with it, you'll be the most happy. Restaurants are a great opportunity to be daring, but there's the financial element that holds you back. You want to order something different, and try new things, but if you're paying you don't want to be horribly disappointed. But don't be boring, either. Make sure you order something that's right for the place that you're in. It may be delicious, but if you're in a steakhouse, don't order chicken. Don't order steak at a Moroccan restaurant, go for the Tajine.
At least my Appetizer was right for the place I was in, but I should have ordered my first choice ( more right for the specialty cuisine there), and instead I went with what I thought was a safe choice, but ended up being just ok. I can't stand when I order something that I can make better myself. I can only blame myself. I need to not think so much, and just order.
Sorry folks, that's all I got today. Maybe MBB can pick up the slack.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Pandora's Box
I think I've been had.
I'm usually very cynical when it comes to e-mails, but this one came from someone very close to me, it wasn't a forward, and it was only addressed to me, not forty people. Aaaand, my baby was screaming because she saw a bottle of soda on the counter and brought me a toy cup from her kitchen set so that I could pour her some, but mean mother that I am, I refused. So I was letting he get this little temper tantrum out of her system, and reading my emails. This one started thusly:
Hmmm. Distracted and a plea for help from someone close, I was a goner. So I sat there and sent the email to 10 people ( I cheated I only did 9 including the one who sent it to me)and I had to think of ten people she wouldn't have sent to. At the end of the e-mail it says, "see what 'll happen."
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!
That's not really true, here's what will happen:
1) I will get ten e-mails back (cuz that's what the e-mail says to do)
2)I will have 6 friends or family members who will be annoyed with me for sending them this drivel (four won't mind because they'll be into this kind of thing which leads us to the next thing...)
3)I will start to get a thousand forwards a day; jokes, urban legends parading as facts, word games, promises of untold wealth or coupons for forwarding e-mails, viruses and product warnings that are over 2 years old, and rehashed political stories with the names changed to stay topical.
So to those of you I sent it to, I'm sorry, it was a moment of weakness and hopefully will not happen again. As for myself, I just cannot believe that I fell for this. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to contribute to a science fair. Here's the rest of the e-mail:
Maybe some of you are smarter than me, and can figure out what could be sciency about this, but after doing it I realized you just get it back with the name of the people you sent it to added or starred. Big Whoop. I'm sure some of you commentators can let me know. If nothing else, I will once again have more comments than a certain someone else. hehheh.
I'm usually very cynical when it comes to e-mails, but this one came from someone very close to me, it wasn't a forward, and it was only addressed to me, not forty people. Aaaand, my baby was screaming because she saw a bottle of soda on the counter and brought me a toy cup from her kitchen set so that I could pour her some, but mean mother that I am, I refused. So I was letting he get this little temper tantrum out of her system, and reading my emails. This one started thusly:
Sorry,guys, it's quick and for a kid's school project! (And you are the onesI thought might follow through - either because you have kids, you like
science, or you're just plain nice.) This is for a science fair project. If
you could do this I would appreciate it! DON'T ASK, JUST PLAY!
Hmmm. Distracted and a plea for help from someone close, I was a goner. So I sat there and sent the email to 10 people ( I cheated I only did 9 including the one who sent it to me)and I had to think of ten people she wouldn't have sent to. At the end of the e-mail it says, "see what 'll happen."
NOTHING WILL HAPPEN!!!
That's not really true, here's what will happen:
1) I will get ten e-mails back (cuz that's what the e-mail says to do)
2)I will have 6 friends or family members who will be annoyed with me for sending them this drivel (four won't mind because they'll be into this kind of thing which leads us to the next thing...)
3)I will start to get a thousand forwards a day; jokes, urban legends parading as facts, word games, promises of untold wealth or coupons for forwarding e-mails, viruses and product warnings that are over 2 years old, and rehashed political stories with the names changed to stay topical.
So to those of you I sent it to, I'm sorry, it was a moment of weakness and hopefully will not happen again. As for myself, I just cannot believe that I fell for this. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to contribute to a science fair. Here's the rest of the e-mail:
Copy and paste this entire letter into a new e-mail (PLEASE do NOT hit
FORWARD), then read the list of names below. If your name is on the
list put a star* next to it. If not, then add your name (in
alphabetical order), and do not put in a star. Send it to ten people
and send it back to the person who sent it to you. Put your name in the
subject box! You'll see what happens...It's kind of cool! Please keep
this going. Don't mess it up, please:
Aaron, Adam, Aileen,Alastair, Alda, Alexis, Alicia, Alisa, Allison, Alyssa, Amber, Amee,Amy***, Andrea**, An dy*, Angie, Ani, Ann*, Anne***, Ardis, Arlan,
Asha, Asheley, Ashley, Astin, Austin, Becky*, Beth*, Betsy, Bill***,
Bob, Bonnie, Brittany*,Bruce, Brook, Brooke, Candace, Carey, Carl,
Carol*, Carolyn*, Carrie, Chona, Christine, Cindy*,Chris*, Christy,
Claudia, Corrie, Cortney, Crystal, Curt, Dan, Dana, Deanna,Denice,
Dennis, Diane, Domenic, Donna, Doreen, Edna, Elizabeth*, Ellen,
Emily*,Erin, Evelyn, Fevin, Frank, Gail, Gina, Gogi ,Grant,
Grayce, Hamilton, Hans, Hayley, Hazel, Heather***, Heidi, Jackie*,
Janel, Jeffery, Jen*, Jennifer****,Jessica*, Jill*, Jillian, Jodi,
John, Jonathan*, Joe, Joy, Judy**, Julie**, Julia*, Kajene, Kara,
Karen**, Kate, Kathleen*, Kathy*, Keli, Kelly*, Ken, Kevin, Kim***,
Kraig, Kristi, Kristie, Kristy, Landon*, L auren, LaMis, Laura**,
Leigh, Leigh Anne, Liliana, Linda*,Lisa***, Lori, Maricela, Mary, Matt,
Mike*, Monica, Nancy**, Naomi, Pamela, Stephen, Tammy, Tara,Theresa,
Tony, Tina*, Tzvi, Steven,Wanda
Maybe some of you are smarter than me, and can figure out what could be sciency about this, but after doing it I realized you just get it back with the name of the people you sent it to added or starred. Big Whoop. I'm sure some of you commentators can let me know. If nothing else, I will once again have more comments than a certain someone else. hehheh.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Stupid Creme Bruleee
You know that old Joke about the soldier writing a letter home to his girl, and his buddy asks why he's writing so slowly, and the reply is: "cuz my girl don't read too fast"?
Well, read this post very slowly, because that's how I'm writing it. Why? Because I'm stupid. Not stupid in the sense that I can't write or type quickly, no, stupid in the stupid sense.
I've been stupid before. Like when I was blending thawed frozen broccoli with a hand blender and cleaned out the blade while it was still plugged in, and I was pressing the button. I only needed skin glue for that stupidity.
Now, many of you dear readers know where this post is going. You knew it from the title. Because you were there. Those of you who were not there, let's get you up to speed.
I made a dinner party last night for a newly married couple and 28 of their friends and relatives. It was actually a very nice shindig with the first two courses served, the main as buffet, and then dessert served as well. Aaaaah, dessert. I'm not much of a bakestress and dessert tends to be a bit of a pressure for me since it is not, (to steal a favored phrase of MBB's) in my wheelhouse. So after much thought and a bit of deliberation I decided, based on my menu and decor, to take a stab at making creme brulee. I know a few people who own the little ramekins that are needed to make and serve them, so it wasn't like I needed to go out and get 28 of them. So, once the decision was made, I knew I had to get a kitchen torch (no, I didn't do something stupid with the torch just read the whole thing and stop trying to guess). I went to Bed Bath and Beyond ( I think I even had a coupon!), and I picked one up, I came home and it wouldn't light. I read the directions a few times, and finally in small print I saw it said the fuel was not included. The next morning I went to Home Depot to pick up some Butane. After only a few tries, the torch was full and ready to flame!
Alright. Creme Brulee it will be! I found a really easy recipe online, and in order not to be embarrassed by a failed culinary experiment I made some test creme brulees a week in advance. My friend and I had a very nice tasting lunch as we tweaked various aspects of the caramelized sugar (plus she offered to make me crescent cookies dipped in chocolate, which she did and were gorgeous). Apparently, it wasn't tweaked enough, because I tried it in one size ramekin, and made it for the party in a smaller size, and so the sugar was a little too thick and was not as delicious and crackly perfect as the samples.
When we reached a point in the party when everyone was at the peak of their socializing we stopped it all for a quick poem from the kids, and a small speech from MBB. I stayed in the kitchen and began to torch the sugar on top of the creme brulees.
I will tell you another lesson I learned from this party. Don't plan a menu that has foods that must be prepared AT THAT MOMENT, when you are having 28 people. The gnocchi was delicious, but I was busy in the kitchen when my guests arrived. The creme brulee would have been better without all the pressure to torch so many of them. A lot of them ended up with too many scorched spots, and I definitely needed to be in a more relaxed mood when I did it. I wasn't.
I was actually nearing the very end of the torching process, and had just finished one of the last five when I saw some of the sugar puddling a bit. My first thought was that I should spread it out a little. So I turned off the torch and stuck my finger on the just caramelized sugar, and then reflexively stuck the same finger, now adorned with a burning hot piece of melted sugar into my mouth. At that point the sugar hardened immediately, and I was left with a very burnt left index finger, which has now blistered to about 1/4 of an inch above the surface of my finger and the size of a dime if a dime was oval.
Another lesson. You learn a lot here at IcebergCarwash! Don't touch burning hot sugar.
Being married to Superman, I was able to keep my finger in ice water while he finished cleaning up all the dishes after all the guests had left.
So to nutshell this post, I burnt my finger last night so it's making me type slower.
Well, read this post very slowly, because that's how I'm writing it. Why? Because I'm stupid. Not stupid in the sense that I can't write or type quickly, no, stupid in the stupid sense.
I've been stupid before. Like when I was blending thawed frozen broccoli with a hand blender and cleaned out the blade while it was still plugged in, and I was pressing the button. I only needed skin glue for that stupidity.
Now, many of you dear readers know where this post is going. You knew it from the title. Because you were there. Those of you who were not there, let's get you up to speed.
I made a dinner party last night for a newly married couple and 28 of their friends and relatives. It was actually a very nice shindig with the first two courses served, the main as buffet, and then dessert served as well. Aaaaah, dessert. I'm not much of a bakestress and dessert tends to be a bit of a pressure for me since it is not, (to steal a favored phrase of MBB's) in my wheelhouse. So after much thought and a bit of deliberation I decided, based on my menu and decor, to take a stab at making creme brulee. I know a few people who own the little ramekins that are needed to make and serve them, so it wasn't like I needed to go out and get 28 of them. So, once the decision was made, I knew I had to get a kitchen torch (no, I didn't do something stupid with the torch just read the whole thing and stop trying to guess). I went to Bed Bath and Beyond ( I think I even had a coupon!), and I picked one up, I came home and it wouldn't light. I read the directions a few times, and finally in small print I saw it said the fuel was not included. The next morning I went to Home Depot to pick up some Butane. After only a few tries, the torch was full and ready to flame!
Alright. Creme Brulee it will be! I found a really easy recipe online, and in order not to be embarrassed by a failed culinary experiment I made some test creme brulees a week in advance. My friend and I had a very nice tasting lunch as we tweaked various aspects of the caramelized sugar (plus she offered to make me crescent cookies dipped in chocolate, which she did and were gorgeous). Apparently, it wasn't tweaked enough, because I tried it in one size ramekin, and made it for the party in a smaller size, and so the sugar was a little too thick and was not as delicious and crackly perfect as the samples.
When we reached a point in the party when everyone was at the peak of their socializing we stopped it all for a quick poem from the kids, and a small speech from MBB. I stayed in the kitchen and began to torch the sugar on top of the creme brulees.
I will tell you another lesson I learned from this party. Don't plan a menu that has foods that must be prepared AT THAT MOMENT, when you are having 28 people. The gnocchi was delicious, but I was busy in the kitchen when my guests arrived. The creme brulee would have been better without all the pressure to torch so many of them. A lot of them ended up with too many scorched spots, and I definitely needed to be in a more relaxed mood when I did it. I wasn't.
I was actually nearing the very end of the torching process, and had just finished one of the last five when I saw some of the sugar puddling a bit. My first thought was that I should spread it out a little. So I turned off the torch and stuck my finger on the just caramelized sugar, and then reflexively stuck the same finger, now adorned with a burning hot piece of melted sugar into my mouth. At that point the sugar hardened immediately, and I was left with a very burnt left index finger, which has now blistered to about 1/4 of an inch above the surface of my finger and the size of a dime if a dime was oval.
Another lesson. You learn a lot here at IcebergCarwash! Don't touch burning hot sugar.
Being married to Superman, I was able to keep my finger in ice water while he finished cleaning up all the dishes after all the guests had left.
So to nutshell this post, I burnt my finger last night so it's making me type slower.
Yo, Watchoo Lookin' At?
Last week, I traveled to Houston on business. On my way back home, as I am wont to do when I'm in a city I haven't previously visited, I purchased a snow globe, to add to the collection we have at home.
While searching through several stores, all featuring an eclectic mix of souvenir items, I realized that there seemed to be common thread running through all of these retail establishments. All of these places featured something with the phrase "Don't Mess With Texas" emblazoned on it. It was everywhere. On T-shirts, hats, key chains, ash trays, you name it. You couldn't go more than ten feet in that airport without seeing the phrase "Don't Mess With Texas" somewhere.
My initial reaction was something along the lines of "Boy, they must be really tough here. I'd better not mess with Texas." On second thought, maybe it's just the opposite. Why do these people have to spend so much time telling other people not to mess with them?
Take my home state, New York, for instance. Have you ever seen a "Don't Mess With New York" T-shirt anywhere? Of course not. In fact, most New Yorkers are secretly hoping that someone will mess with them, just so that they have an excuse to slap somebody around.
New Yorkers have a reputation for being tough. We don't need a T-shirt to prove it.
Okay, I'll admit it. I've really bought in to the "tough New Yorker" thing. Perhaps it's a matter of civic pride. As FBB knows all too well, I get a kick out of telling people that I grew up in Queens, in a tough neighborhood. So, you'd better not mess with me.
The truth is that the part of Queens in which I grew up, a town called Kew Gardens, was a rather idyllic place, actually. Nothing tough about it at all, really. I can hardly recall any incidents in my childhood where my toughness was tested.
Then again, there was that incident at the stickball game.
Here's the story:
I had a friend who lived on the other side of Kew Gardens, and we used to hang out a lot and play ball after school and on weekends. About a block away from his house, right off a major street, there was an area where the neighborhood kids used to play stickball. For those of you who are unfamiliar with stickball, it's very much a New York City game, and is basically baseball, designed to fit the unique dimensions and characteristics of the city streets. As the name implies, the game involves using a broomstick instead of a bat, with the bottom portion of the stick covered with tape, for a better grip. We typically used a rubber ball, although sometimes we played with a tennis ball. The interesting thing about stickball is that different parts of New York have different rules. In Queens, the ball was pitched on a bounce, with an umpire calling balls and strikes. A foul ball on a third strike resulted in an out. Otherwise, everything was based on distance. Anything that got through the infield was a single. If the ball landed on the crosswalk, it was a double. If it landed in the cross street, it was a triple. If you hit the ball clear over the cross street (quite a distance), it was a homerun.
One day, when I was 11 or 12 years old, I was playing football with my friend outside his house, and we noticed a stickball game in progress, so we went down the block to watch. It turned out that they were short on players that day, so they asked us to join. We did, although we felt a bit awkward, as we were the only Jewish kids playing in a game that was clearly skewed toward the Italian-American demographic. When it became obvious that my friend and I were both pretty good at the game, we were invited back to play whenever we wanted.
A couple of weeks later, I was playing stickball, and I was hanging around, awaiting my turn at bat. One of my teammates was a 16 year old kid named Anthony. (Actually, about half of the kids there were named Anthony). Anthony was one of those guys who made you wonder how the Roman Empire lasted longer than 20 minutes. Let's just say he was a few beans short of a pasta fazool.
(Blogger's note: In the next section, readers will be well-served to read Anthony's lines with a heavy, almost caricature-like Italian-American accent. Think of any mobster movie or TV show you've ever seen).
As I'm just standing off to the side, minding my own business, Anthony sidled over to me, and pointed to a spot about 100 feet away, where a bunch of girls named Angie, Gina and Tina and the rest of the local chapter of Future Hairdressers of America (FHA) were hanging out, listening to the radio.
The following conversation ensued:
Anthony: "See that girl over there? That's my girlfriend, Angie."
Me: "Oh."
Anthony: "I think she's nice."
Me: "Oh."
Anthony (gesturing towards the group of girls): "Hey Angie, come here."
At this point, the warning bells started ringing in my head.
Few things on this planet are as frightening as an Italian guy trying to show off for his girlfriend. This would probably not end well, for anyone involved.
Angie came over to where we were standing.
Anthony: "Hey, Angie, I think you're beautiful."
Angie (cracking her gum): "Aww, thanks Anthony."
Anthony (turning to me): "Isn't she beautiful?"
Me: "Uhhh."
Anthony: "Whatsa matter, you don't think she's beautiful?"
Me: "Uhhh."
Anthony: "Hey kid, tell Angie that you think she's beautiful."
Me: "Uhhh."
Angie: "Knock it off, Anthony, leave the kid alone."
Anthony: "No. I think you're beautiful, and he's gonna say it."
Now, just for the record, let me point out the following. Angie was not beautiful. She was not pretty. Not even remotely so. Angie was far from beautiful. Very far. It was a long distance call from Angie to pretty. And long distance calls cost a fortune back then. Of course, this was all besides the point. This was about intimidation. For some reason I can't quite explain, perhaps sheer stubbornness, I made up my mind right then and there that I wasn't going to be Anthony's puppet, no matter what the consequences. That's just how we rolled in the 11415. It was a way of life in "the Q."
Anthony then picked up a stickball bat, and waved it in my face. The veins in his neck started to bulge, and he was turning red. "If you don't tell Angie she's beautiful right now, I'm gonna hit you with this bat."
Angie: "Cut it out Anthony, what's wrong with you?"
Anthony: "Stay out of it, Angie, this ain't about you."
Angie: "You're a jerk, Anthony."
Anthony: "Oh yeah? Well you're a pig."
After that romantic exchange, Angie stormed off, leaving me alone with Anthony. Unfortunately, he wasn't done. "I'm tellin' you, kid, you say that Angie's beautiful, or I'll hit you with this thing."
I said nothing.
Anthony tensed, then swung the stick at me...and stopped short. He dropped the stick, and broke out in a wide grin. "Aww, I was just messing with you. It's alright."
He then put his arm around my shoulder, and said, "I like you. You're tough." Of course, he then felt compelled to boadcast his opinion to everyone. "See this kid here," he said, pointing to me. "He's tough. He's all right."
About a minute later, it was my turn at bat. I strode to the plate, and either because of the fear-induced adrenaline rush I had just experienced, or emboldened by Anthony's endorsement (or simply because I was lucky enough to get a pitch right where I wanted it), I crushed the first pitch I saw, sending the ball across the street. And over the sidewalk. And over a house. Off the roof of the second house.
For the second time in about two minutes, I earned some respect.
The interesting thing is, Anthony still wasn't happy. "Hey, that was my ball you just lost. You owe me a quarter."
The rest of the game, and my childhood, for that matter, passed by without a similar incident.
Looking back, I'm not sure if I really was tough, or just really, really stupid. Well, at least Anthony thought I was tough.
You know, the funny thing is, I don't remember ever paying Anthony for that ball. If I ever did run into him again, perhaps I'd just hand him a dollar bill, for the ball.
I'd tell him to keep the change.
...to buy something nice, for Angie.
While searching through several stores, all featuring an eclectic mix of souvenir items, I realized that there seemed to be common thread running through all of these retail establishments. All of these places featured something with the phrase "Don't Mess With Texas" emblazoned on it. It was everywhere. On T-shirts, hats, key chains, ash trays, you name it. You couldn't go more than ten feet in that airport without seeing the phrase "Don't Mess With Texas" somewhere.
My initial reaction was something along the lines of "Boy, they must be really tough here. I'd better not mess with Texas." On second thought, maybe it's just the opposite. Why do these people have to spend so much time telling other people not to mess with them?
Take my home state, New York, for instance. Have you ever seen a "Don't Mess With New York" T-shirt anywhere? Of course not. In fact, most New Yorkers are secretly hoping that someone will mess with them, just so that they have an excuse to slap somebody around.
New Yorkers have a reputation for being tough. We don't need a T-shirt to prove it.
Okay, I'll admit it. I've really bought in to the "tough New Yorker" thing. Perhaps it's a matter of civic pride. As FBB knows all too well, I get a kick out of telling people that I grew up in Queens, in a tough neighborhood. So, you'd better not mess with me.
The truth is that the part of Queens in which I grew up, a town called Kew Gardens, was a rather idyllic place, actually. Nothing tough about it at all, really. I can hardly recall any incidents in my childhood where my toughness was tested.
Then again, there was that incident at the stickball game.
Here's the story:
I had a friend who lived on the other side of Kew Gardens, and we used to hang out a lot and play ball after school and on weekends. About a block away from his house, right off a major street, there was an area where the neighborhood kids used to play stickball. For those of you who are unfamiliar with stickball, it's very much a New York City game, and is basically baseball, designed to fit the unique dimensions and characteristics of the city streets. As the name implies, the game involves using a broomstick instead of a bat, with the bottom portion of the stick covered with tape, for a better grip. We typically used a rubber ball, although sometimes we played with a tennis ball. The interesting thing about stickball is that different parts of New York have different rules. In Queens, the ball was pitched on a bounce, with an umpire calling balls and strikes. A foul ball on a third strike resulted in an out. Otherwise, everything was based on distance. Anything that got through the infield was a single. If the ball landed on the crosswalk, it was a double. If it landed in the cross street, it was a triple. If you hit the ball clear over the cross street (quite a distance), it was a homerun.
One day, when I was 11 or 12 years old, I was playing football with my friend outside his house, and we noticed a stickball game in progress, so we went down the block to watch. It turned out that they were short on players that day, so they asked us to join. We did, although we felt a bit awkward, as we were the only Jewish kids playing in a game that was clearly skewed toward the Italian-American demographic. When it became obvious that my friend and I were both pretty good at the game, we were invited back to play whenever we wanted.
A couple of weeks later, I was playing stickball, and I was hanging around, awaiting my turn at bat. One of my teammates was a 16 year old kid named Anthony. (Actually, about half of the kids there were named Anthony). Anthony was one of those guys who made you wonder how the Roman Empire lasted longer than 20 minutes. Let's just say he was a few beans short of a pasta fazool.
(Blogger's note: In the next section, readers will be well-served to read Anthony's lines with a heavy, almost caricature-like Italian-American accent. Think of any mobster movie or TV show you've ever seen).
As I'm just standing off to the side, minding my own business, Anthony sidled over to me, and pointed to a spot about 100 feet away, where a bunch of girls named Angie, Gina and Tina and the rest of the local chapter of Future Hairdressers of America (FHA) were hanging out, listening to the radio.
The following conversation ensued:
Anthony: "See that girl over there? That's my girlfriend, Angie."
Me: "Oh."
Anthony: "I think she's nice."
Me: "Oh."
Anthony (gesturing towards the group of girls): "Hey Angie, come here."
At this point, the warning bells started ringing in my head.
Few things on this planet are as frightening as an Italian guy trying to show off for his girlfriend. This would probably not end well, for anyone involved.
Angie came over to where we were standing.
Anthony: "Hey, Angie, I think you're beautiful."
Angie (cracking her gum): "Aww, thanks Anthony."
Anthony (turning to me): "Isn't she beautiful?"
Me: "Uhhh."
Anthony: "Whatsa matter, you don't think she's beautiful?"
Me: "Uhhh."
Anthony: "Hey kid, tell Angie that you think she's beautiful."
Me: "Uhhh."
Angie: "Knock it off, Anthony, leave the kid alone."
Anthony: "No. I think you're beautiful, and he's gonna say it."
Now, just for the record, let me point out the following. Angie was not beautiful. She was not pretty. Not even remotely so. Angie was far from beautiful. Very far. It was a long distance call from Angie to pretty. And long distance calls cost a fortune back then. Of course, this was all besides the point. This was about intimidation. For some reason I can't quite explain, perhaps sheer stubbornness, I made up my mind right then and there that I wasn't going to be Anthony's puppet, no matter what the consequences. That's just how we rolled in the 11415. It was a way of life in "the Q."
Anthony then picked up a stickball bat, and waved it in my face. The veins in his neck started to bulge, and he was turning red. "If you don't tell Angie she's beautiful right now, I'm gonna hit you with this bat."
Angie: "Cut it out Anthony, what's wrong with you?"
Anthony: "Stay out of it, Angie, this ain't about you."
Angie: "You're a jerk, Anthony."
Anthony: "Oh yeah? Well you're a pig."
After that romantic exchange, Angie stormed off, leaving me alone with Anthony. Unfortunately, he wasn't done. "I'm tellin' you, kid, you say that Angie's beautiful, or I'll hit you with this thing."
I said nothing.
Anthony tensed, then swung the stick at me...and stopped short. He dropped the stick, and broke out in a wide grin. "Aww, I was just messing with you. It's alright."
He then put his arm around my shoulder, and said, "I like you. You're tough." Of course, he then felt compelled to boadcast his opinion to everyone. "See this kid here," he said, pointing to me. "He's tough. He's all right."
About a minute later, it was my turn at bat. I strode to the plate, and either because of the fear-induced adrenaline rush I had just experienced, or emboldened by Anthony's endorsement (or simply because I was lucky enough to get a pitch right where I wanted it), I crushed the first pitch I saw, sending the ball across the street. And over the sidewalk. And over a house. Off the roof of the second house.
For the second time in about two minutes, I earned some respect.
The interesting thing is, Anthony still wasn't happy. "Hey, that was my ball you just lost. You owe me a quarter."
The rest of the game, and my childhood, for that matter, passed by without a similar incident.
Looking back, I'm not sure if I really was tough, or just really, really stupid. Well, at least Anthony thought I was tough.
You know, the funny thing is, I don't remember ever paying Anthony for that ball. If I ever did run into him again, perhaps I'd just hand him a dollar bill, for the ball.
I'd tell him to keep the change.
...to buy something nice, for Angie.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Hmmmm
What is with my family and SHOES??? You'd think we were muslim with all the bad luck attached to our footwear!
So the saga has extended. The baby is happily ensconced in her cute pink shoes (black patent leather on the weekend), but we hit a snag with the 13 year old (incidentally, today is her birthday).
About three weeks ago she went ice skating on a Friday, and when she got home she took a shower and changed her clothes and shoes. Sunday through Wednesday were holidays, so she again wore special shoes, and mentioned in passing that her school shoes were missing. On Friday she was getting ready for school, and told me again that her shoes were missing. So she put on boots. I'm thinking it must have been very cold, or very rainy, because it still hadn't registered with me that her shoes were gone. By Sunday I was on board, and we tore the house apart looking for the missing footwear. Nope. Nowhere to be found. The fact that she refused to wear her very nice, normal looking sneakers was just a function of her age and ensuing teenagerhood (which she has since reached). So her choice to wear thick boots on 65 degree days seemed odd and ridiculous to me, her obviously clueless mother. And I really must be clueless because when I am out and about and I see people in UGG boots, I wonder why they think they look good. UGG, short for Ugly if you ask me. But I digress.
At this point, I noticed every morning that she was wearing boots. Then I forgot about her problem, and she came home and took them off, and the whole cycle started over in the morning. Until one day she mentioned it again in the evening, and I concluded that the baby must have thrown them in the garbage (along with one of her cups, a dustpan, and probably many other things we haven't even noticed yet). It would turn out I was half right, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
We sat down one day when Lands End was offering free shipping, and purchased an adorable pair of patent leather red flats. They came on Thursday.
Saturday night, my oldest was playing with my youngest, and stuck her head down an old laundry chute that is no longer used, and goes nowhere because the metal is bent upward at the bottom. There, sitting on the metal pieces were the shoes. I guess that baby likes playing there (I'll have to seal it up), and of course my daughter wore the new shoes on Friday, so now my very happy 13 year old has two pairs of shoes.
And not one person predicted this.
So the saga has extended. The baby is happily ensconced in her cute pink shoes (black patent leather on the weekend), but we hit a snag with the 13 year old (incidentally, today is her birthday).
About three weeks ago she went ice skating on a Friday, and when she got home she took a shower and changed her clothes and shoes. Sunday through Wednesday were holidays, so she again wore special shoes, and mentioned in passing that her school shoes were missing. On Friday she was getting ready for school, and told me again that her shoes were missing. So she put on boots. I'm thinking it must have been very cold, or very rainy, because it still hadn't registered with me that her shoes were gone. By Sunday I was on board, and we tore the house apart looking for the missing footwear. Nope. Nowhere to be found. The fact that she refused to wear her very nice, normal looking sneakers was just a function of her age and ensuing teenagerhood (which she has since reached). So her choice to wear thick boots on 65 degree days seemed odd and ridiculous to me, her obviously clueless mother. And I really must be clueless because when I am out and about and I see people in UGG boots, I wonder why they think they look good. UGG, short for Ugly if you ask me. But I digress.
At this point, I noticed every morning that she was wearing boots. Then I forgot about her problem, and she came home and took them off, and the whole cycle started over in the morning. Until one day she mentioned it again in the evening, and I concluded that the baby must have thrown them in the garbage (along with one of her cups, a dustpan, and probably many other things we haven't even noticed yet). It would turn out I was half right, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
We sat down one day when Lands End was offering free shipping, and purchased an adorable pair of patent leather red flats. They came on Thursday.
Saturday night, my oldest was playing with my youngest, and stuck her head down an old laundry chute that is no longer used, and goes nowhere because the metal is bent upward at the bottom. There, sitting on the metal pieces were the shoes. I guess that baby likes playing there (I'll have to seal it up), and of course my daughter wore the new shoes on Friday, so now my very happy 13 year old has two pairs of shoes.
And not one person predicted this.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Why Do You Play The Game?
I'm no football expert, but being married to MBB for over 15 years, I have become quite enamored of the game. I really enjoy watching it, though I will never reach the level of emotion that MBB has for his preferred team. It is lots of fun to root for teams you like, and root against teams you dislike. For those who don't follow the game that doesn't make a lot of sense. Why would you dislike a team? Two words: Dallas Cowboys.
Anyway, I was out most of the day, but when I returned home, I had a few minutes and the ability to access a few late games (not on tv, it's a long story). Having sat in traffic, driven home with fighting kids who finally fell asleep, then putting those kids into bed after waking them up when we got home I felt I could use a few minutes to decompress. what better way to do that, then watch a few minutes of late game football in a tight Steelers Colts game. So I watched the last few minutes, knowing the inevitable would occur after Roethlisberger was picked off, and of course Peyton Manning and the Colts being who they are capitalized and won the game. OK, boom they switch the feed to the end of the San Diego / Kansas City game. Wow, 51 seconds left, each team has one time out and the score is San Diego 20, Kansas City 13. OK, this looks like it could be exciting. Granted, the Chiefs (KC)have a record of 1 win and 7 losses, but still it's fun when games come down to the wire! So After surviving a challenge ona pass completion on a 4th and 8 from the 29 yard line, the hapless Chiefs find themselves with an 11 yard pick up at the SD 18 (that's 18 yards to go to the touchdown, for those unaware). The Quarterback throws, and the pass is incomplete, and lucky break for the Chiefs they get an iffy pass interference call, which now puts them on the one yard line. ONE! Yard! LINE! Kansas City being Kansas City, they finally get the touchdown on 3rd down. YAAAAY! This is so exciting. So what does Herm do? Almost immediately? HE puts up TWO fingers.
For our readers who don't understand, a touchdown is worth six points, so the score is now KC 19 SD 20. There are two choices for the "extra points" after a touchdown. A team can kick what is almost always a guaranteed one point field goal, or they can try to get the ball in the endzone again, and it's worth two points.
So Herm Edwards, former coach of the Jets, and now Head Coach of these Kansas City Chiefs decides to go for a two point play with 29 seconds remaining. He forgoes the almost definite tie, and instead opts for a play whose percentages of success are low even on very good teams. They don't get the points, they lose the game by one.
I know, they're a team with a losing record and aren't going anywhere post seasonally, but C'MON! Herm, what is it you say?
Maybe he had dinner reservations.
Anyway, I was out most of the day, but when I returned home, I had a few minutes and the ability to access a few late games (not on tv, it's a long story). Having sat in traffic, driven home with fighting kids who finally fell asleep, then putting those kids into bed after waking them up when we got home I felt I could use a few minutes to decompress. what better way to do that, then watch a few minutes of late game football in a tight Steelers Colts game. So I watched the last few minutes, knowing the inevitable would occur after Roethlisberger was picked off, and of course Peyton Manning and the Colts being who they are capitalized and won the game. OK, boom they switch the feed to the end of the San Diego / Kansas City game. Wow, 51 seconds left, each team has one time out and the score is San Diego 20, Kansas City 13. OK, this looks like it could be exciting. Granted, the Chiefs (KC)have a record of 1 win and 7 losses, but still it's fun when games come down to the wire! So After surviving a challenge ona pass completion on a 4th and 8 from the 29 yard line, the hapless Chiefs find themselves with an 11 yard pick up at the SD 18 (that's 18 yards to go to the touchdown, for those unaware). The Quarterback throws, and the pass is incomplete, and lucky break for the Chiefs they get an iffy pass interference call, which now puts them on the one yard line. ONE! Yard! LINE! Kansas City being Kansas City, they finally get the touchdown on 3rd down. YAAAAY! This is so exciting. So what does Herm do? Almost immediately? HE puts up TWO fingers.
For our readers who don't understand, a touchdown is worth six points, so the score is now KC 19 SD 20. There are two choices for the "extra points" after a touchdown. A team can kick what is almost always a guaranteed one point field goal, or they can try to get the ball in the endzone again, and it's worth two points.
So Herm Edwards, former coach of the Jets, and now Head Coach of these Kansas City Chiefs decides to go for a two point play with 29 seconds remaining. He forgoes the almost definite tie, and instead opts for a play whose percentages of success are low even on very good teams. They don't get the points, they lose the game by one.
I know, they're a team with a losing record and aren't going anywhere post seasonally, but C'MON! Herm, what is it you say?
Maybe he had dinner reservations.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Small Packages...Blah, Blah, Blah
My feet hurt.
Last night I went to a wedding (which was really nice, and lots of fun), and I danced. A lot. Why do my feet hurt? Because I was wearing three inch heels. Why was I wearing three inch heels? Because, as mentioned in a previous post, I am short. Very short. Three inch heels both level the playing field and make me feel really good. I like being taller. How sad is that? There's something in my life that I am unhappy with, and unless I go for radical surgery will never inherently change. Or will it? I CAN change it empirically by wearing heels. and I do.
But not without comment. If I had 100 million dollars for every time someone made a comment about my shoes last night, I could have funded that whole AIG bailout myself. Why does it bother people that I like to wear high heels, that it elevates my self-esteem, and gives a new perspective on life, quite literally? As a matter of fact, I was once washing dishes in heels, and was amazed at how uncomfortable it was being so much higher than the sink, but on the other hand I was easily able to reach the vinegar on the top shelf of the spice cabinet. (For those of you wondering why I would put it that high in my own cabinet, rest assured I did not. I'll let you guess who did!)
Maybe, they all want to be wearing heels, they know it makes them look better, but because they choose not to do it because of the pain it causes, they need to comment on my choice. I don't care if they want to stay their regular heights, I really don't, but I think they do. They look at me, willing to scrunch my toes and blister the balls of my feet for a few extra inches, and wonder why they themselves don't sacrifice. I'm not saying they have to, but when you make a decision, stick with it, own it, and be comfortable that you've made the choice that's right for you. If you're commenting to me, I think you have not reached that nirvana just yet.
There was someone there who wore really nice high heels, but for dancing changed into sensible flats. She had no qualms about it, because she knew she was doing what worked for her, and she owned those black wedges! And that's how it should be. Of course I'll still look at those weirdos who pierce up their faces as just that weirdos, but if they own it? I respect that.
I'll call it the "Shall I zoom" theory. If you're going to do something, commit! Do it all the way. Don't start making a left into oncoming traffic and hesitate. Zoom!
Vanity over comfort, I think I'll go with vanity almost every time. I know it's a flaw, but it's my flaw, and one that I can embrace.
Cuz it's really low down.
Last night I went to a wedding (which was really nice, and lots of fun), and I danced. A lot. Why do my feet hurt? Because I was wearing three inch heels. Why was I wearing three inch heels? Because, as mentioned in a previous post, I am short. Very short. Three inch heels both level the playing field and make me feel really good. I like being taller. How sad is that? There's something in my life that I am unhappy with, and unless I go for radical surgery will never inherently change. Or will it? I CAN change it empirically by wearing heels. and I do.
But not without comment. If I had 100 million dollars for every time someone made a comment about my shoes last night, I could have funded that whole AIG bailout myself. Why does it bother people that I like to wear high heels, that it elevates my self-esteem, and gives a new perspective on life, quite literally? As a matter of fact, I was once washing dishes in heels, and was amazed at how uncomfortable it was being so much higher than the sink, but on the other hand I was easily able to reach the vinegar on the top shelf of the spice cabinet. (For those of you wondering why I would put it that high in my own cabinet, rest assured I did not. I'll let you guess who did!)
Maybe, they all want to be wearing heels, they know it makes them look better, but because they choose not to do it because of the pain it causes, they need to comment on my choice. I don't care if they want to stay their regular heights, I really don't, but I think they do. They look at me, willing to scrunch my toes and blister the balls of my feet for a few extra inches, and wonder why they themselves don't sacrifice. I'm not saying they have to, but when you make a decision, stick with it, own it, and be comfortable that you've made the choice that's right for you. If you're commenting to me, I think you have not reached that nirvana just yet.
There was someone there who wore really nice high heels, but for dancing changed into sensible flats. She had no qualms about it, because she knew she was doing what worked for her, and she owned those black wedges! And that's how it should be. Of course I'll still look at those weirdos who pierce up their faces as just that weirdos, but if they own it? I respect that.
I'll call it the "Shall I zoom" theory. If you're going to do something, commit! Do it all the way. Don't start making a left into oncoming traffic and hesitate. Zoom!
Vanity over comfort, I think I'll go with vanity almost every time. I know it's a flaw, but it's my flaw, and one that I can embrace.
Cuz it's really low down.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
You Talkin' To Me?
I resisted! I was in Walmart and Target today. Not at the same time, though it would be a neat trick if I could do it. Well, I could, but not in a bricks and mortar store. Hey, maybe that's how Al Gore invented the internet! He wanted to shop in two stores at once, to save gas and a polar bear somewhere, and it hit him. If he could shop via his computer at home with a smaller carbon footprint, he'd be helping the world and could keep two windows open at once! Alas, there'd be no cheap chocolate, but apparently he has found other sources of munchies since he left office.
Anyway, I did not buy any chocolate. I'll amend that to any MORE chocolate. Because really, I think I'm good. Maybe that's what happened in the election. Maybe the wealthy people and the almost wealthy people (depending on this week's definition by President elect Obama and his democrat minions), just felt like they had enough. There was enough money in the bank, and they had no debt, so they could be altruistic and take a tax hit. I tend to doubt it, since most people are buying the chocolate whether it's on sale or not, after all they're selling it to them, so why can't they buy it? But it's possible. After the rollicking '90s and six years of a war that most Americans are not really affected by maybe some people just felt guilty. Either way, I'm proud that I resisted today.
However, I did notice something peculiar. I happened to have purchased two very large items (a box of diapers and a box of paper)which did not go into bags. So as I left the store the Walmart "Greeter" stopped me and asked to see my receipt. I gotta wonder about this Walmart corporation. I guess they make so much money they can afford to have the person who deters shoplifting remember when a loaf bread, a dozen eggs and three bottles of milk cost a total of 10 cents. This woman was shorter than me, which as those of you who know me know, that means she was pretty darn short. She approached and asked to see my receipt. Now had I been trying to take a five finger discount (the big box of paper was heavy, let's make it ten)I could have just pretended not to hear her and walk a little faster than normal. I'da left her in the dust. I mean how is this woman going to stop anyone who is really determined to take the stuff and is a few inches bigger? It just cracks me up every time, what would happen if everything in life worked like this? Imagine what Manhattan or LA would look like if the bouncers at all the clubs were like this. Imagine if the poll workers from yesterday were manning the velvet ropes. Or refereeing a dog fight. Or prison guards.
Granted, there's not lots of alcohol and drugs at Walmart (unless you count the cough medicine and happen to have a meth lab),and the crowd there isn't always that tough, but c'mon Walmart, we know you're so rich you sneeze money, pretend you care!
If little old ladies can keep Walmart rolling in dough, I think 350 million Americans can keep our president from doing us all in.
Anyway, I did not buy any chocolate. I'll amend that to any MORE chocolate. Because really, I think I'm good. Maybe that's what happened in the election. Maybe the wealthy people and the almost wealthy people (depending on this week's definition by President elect Obama and his democrat minions), just felt like they had enough. There was enough money in the bank, and they had no debt, so they could be altruistic and take a tax hit. I tend to doubt it, since most people are buying the chocolate whether it's on sale or not, after all they're selling it to them, so why can't they buy it? But it's possible. After the rollicking '90s and six years of a war that most Americans are not really affected by maybe some people just felt guilty. Either way, I'm proud that I resisted today.
However, I did notice something peculiar. I happened to have purchased two very large items (a box of diapers and a box of paper)which did not go into bags. So as I left the store the Walmart "Greeter" stopped me and asked to see my receipt. I gotta wonder about this Walmart corporation. I guess they make so much money they can afford to have the person who deters shoplifting remember when a loaf bread, a dozen eggs and three bottles of milk cost a total of 10 cents. This woman was shorter than me, which as those of you who know me know, that means she was pretty darn short. She approached and asked to see my receipt. Now had I been trying to take a five finger discount (the big box of paper was heavy, let's make it ten)I could have just pretended not to hear her and walk a little faster than normal. I'da left her in the dust. I mean how is this woman going to stop anyone who is really determined to take the stuff and is a few inches bigger? It just cracks me up every time, what would happen if everything in life worked like this? Imagine what Manhattan or LA would look like if the bouncers at all the clubs were like this. Imagine if the poll workers from yesterday were manning the velvet ropes. Or refereeing a dog fight. Or prison guards.
Granted, there's not lots of alcohol and drugs at Walmart (unless you count the cough medicine and happen to have a meth lab),and the crowd there isn't always that tough, but c'mon Walmart, we know you're so rich you sneeze money, pretend you care!
If little old ladies can keep Walmart rolling in dough, I think 350 million Americans can keep our president from doing us all in.
The Day After
Within a few days, I expect to post something about the economic policy outlook under an Obama presidency. (I know you've all been waiting desperately for that post). I think I'll wait until we know who Obama has chosen as his Treasury Secretary. For the record, I predict it'll be Lawrence Summers. Timothy Geitner, currently president of the N.Y. Federal Reserve Bank, has also been mentioned, and would be an interesting choice, in my opinion.
As to yesterday's events themselves, I'll admit it. I'm pretty bummed out about the results of the presidential election, inevitable though it might have been over the past few weeks.I'm sure most of our readership feels the same way.
However, as FBB so accurately put it in the previous post, there are some silver linings.
I'd like to add another one to the list:
While Barack Obama was not my choice for the position, I think that there is tremendous significance in the election of a black man to the highest position in our land. If nothing else, perhaps it shows that our nation is capable of overcoming our racial divisions. It's been a long time coming.
While I'm not naïve enough to believe that racism is a thing of the past, I do believe that this represents progress. The ongoing relegation of a group of people to second-tier status, based solely on the color of their skin, is shameful. While this relegation might not exist to that large an extent anymore in actual practice, far too many of us subscribe to this abhorrent thinking, whether in our speech or in our hearts and minds. So, although I'm extremely apprehensive about President-elect Obama's policies, today I am very proud of my country. As I am every day.
So, how is a good conservative Republican to react to Obama's victory? Far be it from me to tell anyone how to behave, but here's a recommendation.
Keep your chin up. Don't sulk about it, or become bitter. That's what whiny liberals do. Conservatives focus on finding solutions. Clearly, the Republican party needs to reinvigorate itself. Let's get some youthful, articulate people out in front of the public. They're out there. I've got no doubt that there is great talent in our party. We just need to introduce those folks to America.
Speaking of whiny liberals, let me make one plea for sanity. Please, please do not go out and plaster your cars with anti-Obama bumper stickers. It's not that there's anything wrong with voicing anti-Obama opinions. On the contrary, it's important that our voices be heard over the next four years. My issue is with the medium. Bumper stickers. Does anything look worse than a car that is plastered with bumper stickers? It's so hippie looking.
Bumper stickers. They're like armpit hair for cars.
Don't do it.
We shall prevail.
That is all.
As to yesterday's events themselves, I'll admit it. I'm pretty bummed out about the results of the presidential election, inevitable though it might have been over the past few weeks.I'm sure most of our readership feels the same way.
However, as FBB so accurately put it in the previous post, there are some silver linings.
I'd like to add another one to the list:
While Barack Obama was not my choice for the position, I think that there is tremendous significance in the election of a black man to the highest position in our land. If nothing else, perhaps it shows that our nation is capable of overcoming our racial divisions. It's been a long time coming.
While I'm not naïve enough to believe that racism is a thing of the past, I do believe that this represents progress. The ongoing relegation of a group of people to second-tier status, based solely on the color of their skin, is shameful. While this relegation might not exist to that large an extent anymore in actual practice, far too many of us subscribe to this abhorrent thinking, whether in our speech or in our hearts and minds. So, although I'm extremely apprehensive about President-elect Obama's policies, today I am very proud of my country. As I am every day.
So, how is a good conservative Republican to react to Obama's victory? Far be it from me to tell anyone how to behave, but here's a recommendation.
Keep your chin up. Don't sulk about it, or become bitter. That's what whiny liberals do. Conservatives focus on finding solutions. Clearly, the Republican party needs to reinvigorate itself. Let's get some youthful, articulate people out in front of the public. They're out there. I've got no doubt that there is great talent in our party. We just need to introduce those folks to America.
Speaking of whiny liberals, let me make one plea for sanity. Please, please do not go out and plaster your cars with anti-Obama bumper stickers. It's not that there's anything wrong with voicing anti-Obama opinions. On the contrary, it's important that our voices be heard over the next four years. My issue is with the medium. Bumper stickers. Does anything look worse than a car that is plastered with bumper stickers? It's so hippie looking.
Bumper stickers. They're like armpit hair for cars.
Don't do it.
We shall prevail.
That is all.
Silver Linings?
Does everything have a silver lining, or when faced with a situation that we can't get out of do we rationalize why it won't be so bad? Either way here are the rationalizations/silver linings following the results last night.
1)GW and his father GHW Bush were principled men who did what they believed in and the polls be damned. Granted, they may have stayed with a losing proposition a little to long in some cases, but they really did what they felt was right. Clinton didn't, he ran whichever way the polls went, and I believe Obama will be the same. This is good because the people of this country are not quite as liberal as our President-Elect, and if he follows the polls then the will of the people, moderates mostly, will be done.
2)As noted before, I believe Congress will flip ala 1994 as soon as voters get a good look at what the policies really are.
3)All things government run inefficiently and slowly. By the time any damage can be inflicted, the Republicans will be back to block legislation.
4)I believe that Obama loves this country and really wants what is best for us, misguided though he may be of how to get there.. Tales of all of us running around in Hijabs and Kafiahs and smoking Hookas are, well, ridiculous .
5)There's probably a few more, but for now I'll let Senator John McCain have the last one
"Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth....
....to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.
Americans never quit. We never surrender.
We never hide from history. We make history.
1)GW and his father GHW Bush were principled men who did what they believed in and the polls be damned. Granted, they may have stayed with a losing proposition a little to long in some cases, but they really did what they felt was right. Clinton didn't, he ran whichever way the polls went, and I believe Obama will be the same. This is good because the people of this country are not quite as liberal as our President-Elect, and if he follows the polls then the will of the people, moderates mostly, will be done.
2)As noted before, I believe Congress will flip ala 1994 as soon as voters get a good look at what the policies really are.
3)All things government run inefficiently and slowly. By the time any damage can be inflicted, the Republicans will be back to block legislation.
4)I believe that Obama loves this country and really wants what is best for us, misguided though he may be of how to get there.. Tales of all of us running around in Hijabs and Kafiahs and smoking Hookas are, well, ridiculous .
5)There's probably a few more, but for now I'll let Senator John McCain have the last one
"Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth....
....to not despair of our present difficulties, but to believe, always, in the promise and greatness of America, because nothing is inevitable here.
Americans never quit. We never surrender.
We never hide from history. We make history.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Hangin' with Chad
Election Day is finally here. Here's a quick dispatch from the polling station.
As I needed to catch an early afternoon flight out of town today, I went vote earlier in the day than usual. FBB came along, so that I could tell her who to vote for.
Wait a second. Please scratch that last sentence. It is absolutely wrong. Pardon me.
The sentence should read "...so that I could tell her whom to vote for."
Anyway, things were rather uneventful, and the place was actually quite empty. We didn't have to wait at all, and were finished voting in just a few minutes. Generally speaking, it was a rather pleasant experience.
Until I realized that I'd been cheated.
Later, at the airport, I noticed several people wearing "Election '08: I Voted" stickers. Hmmm. That's funny. I didn't get a sticker.
Later, I was watching the news on the flight (it was a Jet Blue excursion), and they were showing footage of voting places, and massive boxes of "I Voted" stickers.
Where was my sticker?
The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. As our local readers are aware, we pay extremely high property taxes in this voting district. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to give out stickers.
What do you have to do around here to score a sticker?
I realize that it seems like I'm blowing this out of proportion. Some ofyou probably think I'm just frustrated about the probable, highly unfortunate outcome of this presidential election. But you've got to understand. I like free stuff.
Luckily, they weren't giving out free T-shirts. I'd do anything for a free T-shirt. Why, if the Socialist Workers/Legalize Marijuana Party were to hand out T-shirts at the polling station, I'd probably vote for their candidate. Of course, it's probably not legal to hand out T-shirts at the polls. Neither is marijuana. Yet.
Then again, maybe I'm just the most naïve voter out there. Perhaps you don't get a sticker for only voting once. Any idiot can vote once. Maybe it's really a "frequent voter" sticker.
Here's what I'll do next time. I will return to the voting location approximately 60 minutes after voting. I'll walk up to the desk and announce my name. The kindly, octogenarian volunteer will look up my name in her book. Upon seeing that I had already signed my name earlier, she will look up at me, and just as she's about to say "I'm sorry sir, it appears as though you've already voted today," I'll say, "I'm going for the sticker this time." I will then wink. Probably my left eye. That's my winking eye. She'll nod her head, almost imperceptibly, and I'll step into the booth. Upon leaving the booth, I will ask for the sticker. I will then ask if I can earn more stickers for voting more often. Perhaps I can then trade in three stickers for a large stuffed Bugs Bunny doll.
You get the picture. So, if at some point over the next four years, you hear me say, "Boy, I just cannot wait until Election Day," you'll know why.
As I needed to catch an early afternoon flight out of town today, I went vote earlier in the day than usual. FBB came along, so that I could tell her who to vote for.
Wait a second. Please scratch that last sentence. It is absolutely wrong. Pardon me.
The sentence should read "...so that I could tell her whom to vote for."
Anyway, things were rather uneventful, and the place was actually quite empty. We didn't have to wait at all, and were finished voting in just a few minutes. Generally speaking, it was a rather pleasant experience.
Until I realized that I'd been cheated.
Later, at the airport, I noticed several people wearing "Election '08: I Voted" stickers. Hmmm. That's funny. I didn't get a sticker.
Later, I was watching the news on the flight (it was a Jet Blue excursion), and they were showing footage of voting places, and massive boxes of "I Voted" stickers.
Where was my sticker?
The more I thought about it, the more upset I became. As our local readers are aware, we pay extremely high property taxes in this voting district. Don't tell me that they couldn't afford to give out stickers.
What do you have to do around here to score a sticker?
I realize that it seems like I'm blowing this out of proportion. Some ofyou probably think I'm just frustrated about the probable, highly unfortunate outcome of this presidential election. But you've got to understand. I like free stuff.
Luckily, they weren't giving out free T-shirts. I'd do anything for a free T-shirt. Why, if the Socialist Workers/Legalize Marijuana Party were to hand out T-shirts at the polling station, I'd probably vote for their candidate. Of course, it's probably not legal to hand out T-shirts at the polls. Neither is marijuana. Yet.
Then again, maybe I'm just the most naïve voter out there. Perhaps you don't get a sticker for only voting once. Any idiot can vote once. Maybe it's really a "frequent voter" sticker.
Here's what I'll do next time. I will return to the voting location approximately 60 minutes after voting. I'll walk up to the desk and announce my name. The kindly, octogenarian volunteer will look up my name in her book. Upon seeing that I had already signed my name earlier, she will look up at me, and just as she's about to say "I'm sorry sir, it appears as though you've already voted today," I'll say, "I'm going for the sticker this time." I will then wink. Probably my left eye. That's my winking eye. She'll nod her head, almost imperceptibly, and I'll step into the booth. Upon leaving the booth, I will ask for the sticker. I will then ask if I can earn more stickers for voting more often. Perhaps I can then trade in three stickers for a large stuffed Bugs Bunny doll.
You get the picture. So, if at some point over the next four years, you hear me say, "Boy, I just cannot wait until Election Day," you'll know why.
ELECTION DAY!!!!
I love this country. I love our Freedom and our Democracy, but in this era of change I have some ideas.
Number One: If you run for President you should have to give up your current governmental position to do so. Why? Two reasons. First, if you run and lose, you keep your job and raise your profile, which helps serve, well, you. Your speaking fees most likely go up, and you probably get invited on to more Sunday morning talk shows then the other senators. Second, while spending almost two years campaigning and fund raising, how much work are you actually doing for your state? In a senator's case this can often be a good thing for those he represents, but if the Governor isn't around, I think that's a bigger problem. So give up your seat or Governor's chair, and really run for President to serve the people. If you lose, well that's the sacrifice you made for our democracy.
Number Two: Make voting more secure. Why is it that I feel like the old guy who sits next to the machine is sizing me up and can easily invalidate my vote with a push of a button. We are supposed to be the icon of freedom and democracy I'd like to know that that's true. I don't necessarily want it to be as bad as getting on to a plane, but there should be something more than old people you could knock over because you spoke to loudly protecting the integrity of the vote.
Number Three: No more polls. It seems that the readers of IcebergCarwash agree with this, since no one really votes, even on a poll about voting. But as far as this country goes, I wonder how things would shake out if sheeple didn't know what the polls were saying. What would happen if Americans actually had to make a decision on their own? In a country with Freedom of the Press (yaay!)we will thankfully not silence the Olbermans, Matthews,Courics and Williams, but we could stop publicizing polls, I really don't know what benefit they serve.
So these are my thoughts for today. I love that we live in a country, that no matter how disappointed people are with the result of today's vote there will be no burning cars (a sacred act, reserved for when one's sports team wins a championship), shootings, or bombings in response.
I've said this many times, but my absolute favorite moment of democracy was after the vote on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, a contentious time to be sure, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott shook hands, smiled, and life went back to normal.
Let's Hope.
Number One: If you run for President you should have to give up your current governmental position to do so. Why? Two reasons. First, if you run and lose, you keep your job and raise your profile, which helps serve, well, you. Your speaking fees most likely go up, and you probably get invited on to more Sunday morning talk shows then the other senators. Second, while spending almost two years campaigning and fund raising, how much work are you actually doing for your state? In a senator's case this can often be a good thing for those he represents, but if the Governor isn't around, I think that's a bigger problem. So give up your seat or Governor's chair, and really run for President to serve the people. If you lose, well that's the sacrifice you made for our democracy.
Number Two: Make voting more secure. Why is it that I feel like the old guy who sits next to the machine is sizing me up and can easily invalidate my vote with a push of a button. We are supposed to be the icon of freedom and democracy I'd like to know that that's true. I don't necessarily want it to be as bad as getting on to a plane, but there should be something more than old people you could knock over because you spoke to loudly protecting the integrity of the vote.
Number Three: No more polls. It seems that the readers of IcebergCarwash agree with this, since no one really votes, even on a poll about voting. But as far as this country goes, I wonder how things would shake out if sheeple didn't know what the polls were saying. What would happen if Americans actually had to make a decision on their own? In a country with Freedom of the Press (yaay!)we will thankfully not silence the Olbermans, Matthews,Courics and Williams, but we could stop publicizing polls, I really don't know what benefit they serve.
So these are my thoughts for today. I love that we live in a country, that no matter how disappointed people are with the result of today's vote there will be no burning cars (a sacred act, reserved for when one's sports team wins a championship), shootings, or bombings in response.
I've said this many times, but my absolute favorite moment of democracy was after the vote on the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, a contentious time to be sure, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott shook hands, smiled, and life went back to normal.
Let's Hope.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Chocolatezilla III: Enter the Caramel
Okay, people. Listen up.
I've got to make this quick, so I'll keep it short.
FBB has just left the premises, so I've got a few minutes to get this out.
And, we've got to keep it quiet. Think of this post as having been written sotto voce. Hopefully, FBB will not read it.
This chocolate stuff is killing me.
Here's the story. A little while ago, on this very blog, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece gloating about how much I was looking forward to buying candy and chocolate after Halloween, at greatly reduced prices.
In reality, in our household, FBB is the one who goes on the post-Halloween chocolate-buying excursions. This year, things have spun completely out of control.
Sure, the stuff is cheap, relative to its pre-Halloween price. But we've bought more chocolate than our entire extended family could ever hope to eat in two years, and I fear that the spree is not over yet.
We're buying things that nobody even likes.
I've been asked to clear out half of my closet to make room for more chocolate.
I'm not sure, but I now suspect that we've also rented out some space at one of those self-storage facilities.
I don't want to accuse anyone of going overboard, but at one store, FBB ran into Augustus Gloop, who took one look at her shopping cart and said, "How are you ever going to eat all of that?"
To be fair, I like chocolate and candy as much as the next guy, but I fear that we're at risk of being crushed by this avalanche of discount confections.
I'm now starting to feel silly about having written that previous post.
My dream of buying deeply-discounted candy is rapidly turning into a nightmare.
As the famous saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."
Speaking of which, that's a very appropriate quote in light of tomorrow's presidential election.
Lots of people (a majority of the American voting public, in fact, according to all the polls), think that electing Barack Obama president is a neat idea. He represents "change" and "hope."
Wow. I've got to admit, it's tough to argue with change and hope, isn't it?
But change isn't always a good thing, especially if it's done just for change's sake. And sometimes hope is rather empty.
Will everyone feel the same way about Obama if the U.S. becomes a laughingstock, as it did during Jimmy Carter's time?
When we're turning over a larger-than-ever percentage of our hard-earned money to the government via a confiscatory tax scheme, will that "discount candy" seem inordinately expensive?
If economic policies that are designed to simply redistribute wealth, thereby choking off investment, cause the current recession to deepen into a depression, will we still be so hopeful?
Unfortunately, it seems as though an Obama victory is somewhat inevitable. For the sake of our nation, I hope that we don't one day live to regret that which so many are currently wishing for.
In the meantime, if anyone needs some chocolate, let me know. We've got plenty.
I've got to make this quick, so I'll keep it short.
FBB has just left the premises, so I've got a few minutes to get this out.
And, we've got to keep it quiet. Think of this post as having been written sotto voce. Hopefully, FBB will not read it.
This chocolate stuff is killing me.
Here's the story. A little while ago, on this very blog, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece gloating about how much I was looking forward to buying candy and chocolate after Halloween, at greatly reduced prices.
In reality, in our household, FBB is the one who goes on the post-Halloween chocolate-buying excursions. This year, things have spun completely out of control.
Sure, the stuff is cheap, relative to its pre-Halloween price. But we've bought more chocolate than our entire extended family could ever hope to eat in two years, and I fear that the spree is not over yet.
We're buying things that nobody even likes.
I've been asked to clear out half of my closet to make room for more chocolate.
I'm not sure, but I now suspect that we've also rented out some space at one of those self-storage facilities.
I don't want to accuse anyone of going overboard, but at one store, FBB ran into Augustus Gloop, who took one look at her shopping cart and said, "How are you ever going to eat all of that?"
To be fair, I like chocolate and candy as much as the next guy, but I fear that we're at risk of being crushed by this avalanche of discount confections.
I'm now starting to feel silly about having written that previous post.
My dream of buying deeply-discounted candy is rapidly turning into a nightmare.
As the famous saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for."
Speaking of which, that's a very appropriate quote in light of tomorrow's presidential election.
Lots of people (a majority of the American voting public, in fact, according to all the polls), think that electing Barack Obama president is a neat idea. He represents "change" and "hope."
Wow. I've got to admit, it's tough to argue with change and hope, isn't it?
But change isn't always a good thing, especially if it's done just for change's sake. And sometimes hope is rather empty.
Will everyone feel the same way about Obama if the U.S. becomes a laughingstock, as it did during Jimmy Carter's time?
When we're turning over a larger-than-ever percentage of our hard-earned money to the government via a confiscatory tax scheme, will that "discount candy" seem inordinately expensive?
If economic policies that are designed to simply redistribute wealth, thereby choking off investment, cause the current recession to deepen into a depression, will we still be so hopeful?
Unfortunately, it seems as though an Obama victory is somewhat inevitable. For the sake of our nation, I hope that we don't one day live to regret that which so many are currently wishing for.
In the meantime, if anyone needs some chocolate, let me know. We've got plenty.
The Best Way To Save Money.....
.....is to take your husband shopping with you. In my never ending quest to get cheap chocolate, preferably caramel filled, we went to Walmart today. Firstly, I am a fool for not going here first. If something is marked down 50%, but was cheaper to begin with, of course it's going to be really cheap now. So I really should have gone to Walmart from the start.
I found Milk Duds and caramel Apple kisses, milky way, three musketeers, and assorted assorted bags. Granted, I already have lots of chocolate in teh house, but I couldn't resist.
MBB could. He didn't really say anything, just looked at me with his mouth agape, and I knew I had to put some back. So I kept the Milk Duds, The Kisses, and One Assorted bag (snickers, mms, twix, and milky ways). I put back the stand alone milky ways because I would have finished the bag by the time I got home. So I was actually happy that he was with me, because I really didn't need all that temptation. As it I'm having a hard time. I mean, who am I kidding? I didn't get this for the kids! I think I might have to store it in his car, then it won't always be here, and will certainly be more of a pain in the neck to get. I did that with the Valentines Day candy, and one day I almost drove to the commuter lot just to get a piece of it. Thinner heads prevailed, and I did not, but it was tempting.
So I was very happy to have put the stuff back. Until I paid. It was so cheap, I wanted to cry. I'm not sure if I'm addicted to the chocolate or paying almost nothing for it, but it's all I can think of. I've been debating going back for the last few hours. My skin is itchy, and I'm calmed by milk duds and kisses. Learn from me people. It's a dangerous place this off- price candy world. It looks so colorful, and tastes so wonderful, you get a thrill at the cashier, but then what? You can't turn back. You must avoid the post holiday candy at all costs! It's not worth it. Rushing to get the best of the seconds, slinking in the day or two after the holiday, relegated to the aisle with messed up shelves, and digging haphazardly through thrown together bags of treats to satisfy a craving that will never abate. You'll gain weight and always be looking for that next score. Take my advice. Steer clear. Avoid! Avoid! Don't go down this treacherous road.
Espescially, if you shop in the same stores as me.
I found Milk Duds and caramel Apple kisses, milky way, three musketeers, and assorted assorted bags. Granted, I already have lots of chocolate in teh house, but I couldn't resist.
MBB could. He didn't really say anything, just looked at me with his mouth agape, and I knew I had to put some back. So I kept the Milk Duds, The Kisses, and One Assorted bag (snickers, mms, twix, and milky ways). I put back the stand alone milky ways because I would have finished the bag by the time I got home. So I was actually happy that he was with me, because I really didn't need all that temptation. As it I'm having a hard time. I mean, who am I kidding? I didn't get this for the kids! I think I might have to store it in his car, then it won't always be here, and will certainly be more of a pain in the neck to get. I did that with the Valentines Day candy, and one day I almost drove to the commuter lot just to get a piece of it. Thinner heads prevailed, and I did not, but it was tempting.
So I was very happy to have put the stuff back. Until I paid. It was so cheap, I wanted to cry. I'm not sure if I'm addicted to the chocolate or paying almost nothing for it, but it's all I can think of. I've been debating going back for the last few hours. My skin is itchy, and I'm calmed by milk duds and kisses. Learn from me people. It's a dangerous place this off- price candy world. It looks so colorful, and tastes so wonderful, you get a thrill at the cashier, but then what? You can't turn back. You must avoid the post holiday candy at all costs! It's not worth it. Rushing to get the best of the seconds, slinking in the day or two after the holiday, relegated to the aisle with messed up shelves, and digging haphazardly through thrown together bags of treats to satisfy a craving that will never abate. You'll gain weight and always be looking for that next score. Take my advice. Steer clear. Avoid! Avoid! Don't go down this treacherous road.
Espescially, if you shop in the same stores as me.
You Can't Disappoint Your Fans.....
So one of our most loyal followers (reading, commenting, voting, rechecking the site for new posts)was curious why there was no new post yet at 12 pm today. Talk about pressure.
But it did get me thinking about the phrase "give the people what they want," and whether this country really wants Obama, or just doesn't want anyone even remotely associated with Bush/Cheney.
As MBB and I discussed this morning, does the country really understand HOW liberal he is, and can the southern democrats (moderates)really stomach an Obama Presidency? Over the course of this campaign I have heard many lay people discuss a lot of different things about Obama, many of them untrue, and mostly I refuted them by saying : If elected, it will be to the Presidency, not King, we still have a legislature.
What I left out is that there IS a Democrat Majority, and there are MANY liberals in the House and Senate which really does not portend well for those who understand how liberal policies will cripple this country. The one silver lining may be a new Republican Revolution ala Gingrich's successful one in 1994.
There's hope, because there's always hope, but an Obama presidency could be a real disaster for this nation, and one we will have brought upon ourselves.
But it did get me thinking about the phrase "give the people what they want," and whether this country really wants Obama, or just doesn't want anyone even remotely associated with Bush/Cheney.
As MBB and I discussed this morning, does the country really understand HOW liberal he is, and can the southern democrats (moderates)really stomach an Obama Presidency? Over the course of this campaign I have heard many lay people discuss a lot of different things about Obama, many of them untrue, and mostly I refuted them by saying : If elected, it will be to the Presidency, not King, we still have a legislature.
What I left out is that there IS a Democrat Majority, and there are MANY liberals in the House and Senate which really does not portend well for those who understand how liberal policies will cripple this country. The one silver lining may be a new Republican Revolution ala Gingrich's successful one in 1994.
There's hope, because there's always hope, but an Obama presidency could be a real disaster for this nation, and one we will have brought upon ourselves.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Hey, Who Spilled The Beans?
So last night I made my semi-annual chocolate run to Walgreens. Post Halloween and post Valentines Day are when I go and stock up on candy and chocolate that really no one needs to be eating. Those are the two times of year that the stores are most in a rush to put out the candy for the next holidays, i.e., Christmas and Easter. It is possible that post Christmas candy goes on sale quickly to make way for Valentines day, but I can't say I've ever checked. Though honestly, that's the time of the year that the news and ads are squawking about diet and exercise so the environment is not one conducive to purchasing large quantities of chocolate. I think I may have gone too early this year, even though I waited til about 7:30pm on Nov 1. Either that, or the shelves of Walgreens are a good economic indicator. There was a lot of chocolate left.
I'd say double to triple what's been there in past years. Which means it will probably be cheaper in the next day or so as they slash it to 75% off. Why though was there so much candy left? Aside from the small twizzler packs, and dum-dum lollipops it was mostly chocolate. So has the economy become so bad that the children must suffer as they trick or treat, awarded less candy in these bleak times? Or, does it have something to do with food allergies. In this one store, the preponderance of chocolate that was left unsold contained peanuts. Mostly, it was snickers, baby ruth and butterfingers, and mixed packs that had those chocolates in them (plus those dreaded peanut butter cups). There were other things that were left, a few nestle's crunches and some plain hershey's kisses, but upon reflection, it was mostly peanut stuff. I would certainly peg it to the ubiquity of allergies, and the awareness that has been created through peanut free schools and classes, that people have opted not to purchase these products for distribution.
Much to MBB's chagrin I think I need to make this study a little more scientific, and it may just require a trip to a few more stores to search for cheap candy, and maybe, just maybe, there'll be something left that has some caramel in it!
I mean really people, leave some cheap Rolos out there!!
I'd say double to triple what's been there in past years. Which means it will probably be cheaper in the next day or so as they slash it to 75% off. Why though was there so much candy left? Aside from the small twizzler packs, and dum-dum lollipops it was mostly chocolate. So has the economy become so bad that the children must suffer as they trick or treat, awarded less candy in these bleak times? Or, does it have something to do with food allergies. In this one store, the preponderance of chocolate that was left unsold contained peanuts. Mostly, it was snickers, baby ruth and butterfingers, and mixed packs that had those chocolates in them (plus those dreaded peanut butter cups). There were other things that were left, a few nestle's crunches and some plain hershey's kisses, but upon reflection, it was mostly peanut stuff. I would certainly peg it to the ubiquity of allergies, and the awareness that has been created through peanut free schools and classes, that people have opted not to purchase these products for distribution.
Much to MBB's chagrin I think I need to make this study a little more scientific, and it may just require a trip to a few more stores to search for cheap candy, and maybe, just maybe, there'll be something left that has some caramel in it!
I mean really people, leave some cheap Rolos out there!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)