Now that the stock market has closed for the year, we can take a step back and survey the carnage. As is our custom here at IcebergCarwash, we will use the S&P 500 Index as our benchmark.
In 2008, as measured by the S&P 500, the U.S. stock market declined 38.5%.
While that number is ugly enough on its own, let's put some historical context around it. For background, consider that the S&P 500 Index reliably goes back to 1926. The full 500-stock index did not appear until around 1957, but the index existed in other forms for about 30 years prior to that point.
Looking at the annual (January 1st-December 31st) returns on the S&P 500 going back to 1926, giving us 83 years of annual performance statistics, we calculated the rolling, annualized 3, 5, 10, 25, and 50-year (when available) returns for each year, starting with 1926. For example, in examining the rolling 10-year returns, we looked at 1926 through 1935, 1927 through 1936, 1928 through 1937, and so on.
The research yielded some interesting information:
(1) This year's performance represented the second largest annual (January 1st - December 31st) decline in the Index's 83 year history, surpassed only by the 43.3% drop in 1931.
(2) The annualized three-year return (2006-08) on the S&P 500 is a negative 9.1%. Out of the 81 years in our database where trailing three year returns could be measured (1928-2008), only 13 three-year periods witnessed a negative annualized return.
(3) The annualized five-year return (2004-08) is a negative 2.7%. This has only happened 11 times out of the 79 rolling 5-year return calculations in our database.
(4) In order to get a really good feel for the historical stock market weakness we're witnessing, look at the annualized ten-year (1999-2008) on the S&P 500, which was a negative 1.6%. This represents the first time a ten-year investment period yielded a negative return since 1939, and only the third time overall (the 1929-1938 period also saw a negative return). The negative 1.6% annualized return for the period from the beginning of 1999 through the end of 2008 represents the worst ten-year return in the database. While our database only goes back to 1926, so this is speculating a bit, it is possible that 1999 through 2008 was the worst ten year period ever for U.S. stocks. The ten year period from 1869 through 1878 might have been worse; I'll have to check to see if anyone has data on a broad market index going back that far. It's really scary when you consider that the first year of that ten-year period, 1999, featured a 21% gain in the index. Absent a very strong rally next year, the period from 2000 through 2009 will look rather bleak as well.
(5) The annualized return on the S&P 500 over the past 25 and 50 years was 9.7% and 9.1%, respectively.
(6) Speaking of the long term, if you had invested $1 in the S&P 500 on January 1, 1926, you'd have $1,871.69 today. Or, more likely, your heirs would.
As a reminder, we're still taking entries for The First Annual IcebergCarwash Stock Market Prediction Contest.
To join, use the "comments" section of our earlier post to register your prediction of where the S&P 500 Index will be at the end of 2009. As a starting point, consider that the S&P 500 finished 2008 at 903.25.
Entries will be accepted until 9:30AM on Friday, January 2, 2009.
Good luck, everyone, and here's hoping for a better year in 2009.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Look at the Bright Side. Maybe Obama Won't Be Our President
As the calendar creeps toward 2009, I find myself, like most Americans I suppose, looking forward to next year with guarded optimism. Sure, things look bleak, and it will likely be quite a while before our economy returns to normal. However, downturns don't last forever, and if there's one thing that history has taught us, it's that you can't keep America down for long. Brighter days are ahead.
Or, maybe not.
According to this article , Igor Panarin, a Russian professor, is predicting that the United States will fall apart in 2010. Specifically, he believes:
So there you have it. The Russians are predicting the end of the American Empire. You're familiar with Russia, aren't you? The country that's less stable than the weapons-grade plutonium that about one-quarter of its citizens seem to have in their storage sheds. The place where a civil war of some sort breaks out every time two people disagree over the proper way to spell "Alexei." (Or is it "Aleksei?" "Alexy?" Can I just call you "Alex?"). The nation that doesn't seem to have figured out the need for decent public restrooms.
My personal biases aside, I do have some questions for Professor Panarin, as I prepare for the coming American Apocalypse.
(1) How, exactly, will the 50 states be divided up into the six new countries? Specifically, will New York and Massachusetts be in the same new country? Personally, I'd really love to avoid that. Is there anyone I could speak to about this now?
(2) Which new country will Barack Obama run?
(3) Will travel between the six countries require a passport?
(4) Regarding the three factors you cite as causes of the breakup, mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation, a couple of questions:
(a) Have these factors already occurred, or are they expected to intensify? In other words, can we expect even more moral degradation? If so, while I'd hate to see the end of America as much as the next guy, you've gotta admit, things could get really interesting over the next 18 months.
(b) Are these three factors inter-related? Should we expect millions of people to show up from other countries, not wearing any pants, thereby causing all of our stores to immediately close?
(5) When Alaska reverts to Russian control, will you drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? Oh, wait. Scratch that question. You people already possess around 40% of the world's proven natural gas reserves, but are too stupid/ stubborn/lazy to do anything about exploiting it. Never mind.
(6) Will each new country have its own Olympic team?
(7) Is your comrade, Vladimir (Ras)Putin busy? As the recent U.S. presidential election indicated, we seem to have a real dearth of viable leaders in this country. I can't imagine having to chose six leaders. Just in case, I'd like to send "Ras" a nice "welcome-aboard-now-please-don't-jail-me-for-daring-to-be-successful-while-not-pledging-you-my-undying-support" gift. To which of his residences should I send it? The one in Moscow? New York? London? Paris? St. Moritz? Tuscany?
So many questions. So many things to prepare for.
By the way, those of our readers who reside in my new country (exact name and borders to be determined) are invited to a Labor Day barbecue at my house on September 6, 2010. The rest of you infidels can get your own darn burgers.
Or, maybe not.
According to this article , Igor Panarin, a Russian professor, is predicting that the United States will fall apart in 2010. Specifically, he believes:
...that mass immigration, economic decline, and moral degradation will trigger a civil war next fall and the collapse of the dollar. Around the end of June 2010, or early July, he says, the U.S. will break into six pieces -- with Alaska reverting to Russian control.
So there you have it. The Russians are predicting the end of the American Empire. You're familiar with Russia, aren't you? The country that's less stable than the weapons-grade plutonium that about one-quarter of its citizens seem to have in their storage sheds. The place where a civil war of some sort breaks out every time two people disagree over the proper way to spell "Alexei." (Or is it "Aleksei?" "Alexy?" Can I just call you "Alex?"). The nation that doesn't seem to have figured out the need for decent public restrooms.
My personal biases aside, I do have some questions for Professor Panarin, as I prepare for the coming American Apocalypse.
(1) How, exactly, will the 50 states be divided up into the six new countries? Specifically, will New York and Massachusetts be in the same new country? Personally, I'd really love to avoid that. Is there anyone I could speak to about this now?
(2) Which new country will Barack Obama run?
(3) Will travel between the six countries require a passport?
(4) Regarding the three factors you cite as causes of the breakup, mass immigration, economic decline and moral degradation, a couple of questions:
(a) Have these factors already occurred, or are they expected to intensify? In other words, can we expect even more moral degradation? If so, while I'd hate to see the end of America as much as the next guy, you've gotta admit, things could get really interesting over the next 18 months.
(b) Are these three factors inter-related? Should we expect millions of people to show up from other countries, not wearing any pants, thereby causing all of our stores to immediately close?
(5) When Alaska reverts to Russian control, will you drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? Oh, wait. Scratch that question. You people already possess around 40% of the world's proven natural gas reserves, but are too stupid/ stubborn/lazy to do anything about exploiting it. Never mind.
(6) Will each new country have its own Olympic team?
(7) Is your comrade, Vladimir (Ras)Putin busy? As the recent U.S. presidential election indicated, we seem to have a real dearth of viable leaders in this country. I can't imagine having to chose six leaders. Just in case, I'd like to send "Ras" a nice "welcome-aboard-now-please-don't-jail-me-for-daring-to-be-successful-while-not-pledging-you-my-undying-support" gift. To which of his residences should I send it? The one in Moscow? New York? London? Paris? St. Moritz? Tuscany?
So many questions. So many things to prepare for.
By the way, those of our readers who reside in my new country (exact name and borders to be determined) are invited to a Labor Day barbecue at my house on September 6, 2010. The rest of you infidels can get your own darn burgers.
Purple Playoff Participants
The Viking ship is setting sail for the postseason.
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the New York Giants on Sunday, 20-19, on a last-second, 50-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell. Although they would have won the NFC North Division title and made the playoffs anyway, owing to the Chicago Bears' defeat at the hands of the Houston Texans, the victory allowed the Vikings to reach the 10-win plateau for the first time since the 2000 season.
While I don't expect the Vikings to go very far, making the playoffs for the first time since 2004 represents another important step forward for the team. After going 6-10 in 2006, they improved to 8-8 in 2007, and now 10-6 in 2008. This team is not a Super Bowl contender in my opinion, but could possibly be a few short steps away from attaining that lofty status. I'll save the "what-they-need-to-do-next" discussion for a later post.
In looking back at the regular season, the Vikings turned things around nicely after starting 1-3. More recently, after going 5-5 through the first 10 weeks of the season, they finished with a 5-1 run, allowing them to win the division and make the playoffs.
An interesting note is that even in their losses, the Vikings were never blown out of any game. Five of their six losses were by 7 points or less, and in most of those games, they had the ball late in the game, with a chance to tie the score or take the lead. Even in their one double-digit loss (30-17 to the Tennessee Titans in Week 4), they were within a touchdown until about 4 minutes remained, and Gus Frerotte threw an interception that led to an "insurance" touchdown near the end of the game. On the other hand, the Vikings put together few complete games, looking sloppy or sluggish at some point in nearly every contest. For example, while they beat the Detroit Lions twice, they did so by a total of six points. This, against the first team in history to post an 0-16 record, who were blown out of most games, was a frustrating sign of weakness of the part of the Vikings. In short, even in retrospect, this is a tough team to figure out.
By winning the division title and taking the team to the playoffs, head coach Brad Childress has probably saved his job. I'm still not a big fan of Coach Childress, who seems utterly clueless at times, but I'd have to expect that he will be back in 2009. There is definitely a benefit to be derived from coaching continuity, but Childress has got to improve as a coach if this team is ever going to make the leap to becoming a Super Bowl contender. The Vikings still commit too many silly penalties, and their clock management leaves a lot to be desired.
The jury is still out on QB Tarvaris Jackson as well. While T-Jack has appeared to be vastly improved in his second stint as the team's starting QB, after being benched for most of the season, he hasn't yet developed into a reliable signal-caller. It will be very interesting to see how he performs this coming week, in the crucible of a playoff game, against the aggressive Philadelphia Eagles defense, which will probably attempt to blitz him into submission.
Still, flaws and all, the Vikings will be participating in the playoffs this coming Sunday. Should be fun. (Unless they lose).
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the New York Giants on Sunday, 20-19, on a last-second, 50-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell. Although they would have won the NFC North Division title and made the playoffs anyway, owing to the Chicago Bears' defeat at the hands of the Houston Texans, the victory allowed the Vikings to reach the 10-win plateau for the first time since the 2000 season.
While I don't expect the Vikings to go very far, making the playoffs for the first time since 2004 represents another important step forward for the team. After going 6-10 in 2006, they improved to 8-8 in 2007, and now 10-6 in 2008. This team is not a Super Bowl contender in my opinion, but could possibly be a few short steps away from attaining that lofty status. I'll save the "what-they-need-to-do-next" discussion for a later post.
In looking back at the regular season, the Vikings turned things around nicely after starting 1-3. More recently, after going 5-5 through the first 10 weeks of the season, they finished with a 5-1 run, allowing them to win the division and make the playoffs.
An interesting note is that even in their losses, the Vikings were never blown out of any game. Five of their six losses were by 7 points or less, and in most of those games, they had the ball late in the game, with a chance to tie the score or take the lead. Even in their one double-digit loss (30-17 to the Tennessee Titans in Week 4), they were within a touchdown until about 4 minutes remained, and Gus Frerotte threw an interception that led to an "insurance" touchdown near the end of the game. On the other hand, the Vikings put together few complete games, looking sloppy or sluggish at some point in nearly every contest. For example, while they beat the Detroit Lions twice, they did so by a total of six points. This, against the first team in history to post an 0-16 record, who were blown out of most games, was a frustrating sign of weakness of the part of the Vikings. In short, even in retrospect, this is a tough team to figure out.
By winning the division title and taking the team to the playoffs, head coach Brad Childress has probably saved his job. I'm still not a big fan of Coach Childress, who seems utterly clueless at times, but I'd have to expect that he will be back in 2009. There is definitely a benefit to be derived from coaching continuity, but Childress has got to improve as a coach if this team is ever going to make the leap to becoming a Super Bowl contender. The Vikings still commit too many silly penalties, and their clock management leaves a lot to be desired.
The jury is still out on QB Tarvaris Jackson as well. While T-Jack has appeared to be vastly improved in his second stint as the team's starting QB, after being benched for most of the season, he hasn't yet developed into a reliable signal-caller. It will be very interesting to see how he performs this coming week, in the crucible of a playoff game, against the aggressive Philadelphia Eagles defense, which will probably attempt to blitz him into submission.
Still, flaws and all, the Vikings will be participating in the playoffs this coming Sunday. Should be fun. (Unless they lose).
Monday, December 29, 2008
Join The Party!!!
In keeping with the rest of the world, here is my Top Ten List of things that happened to ME this year. (keep in mind my life is, thankfully, VERY mundane)
DRUMROLL.................................
10. Got a server for my dining room
9. Won a Gift Certificate for laser hair removal
8. Went to six flags for the first time
7. Got a swingset
6. My oldest started High School
5. (I would love to write learned to drive a stick, but a certain someone never taught me...)
4. Was in a film
3. Went on vacation with MBB for the first time in two years
2. Had a healthy happy year with my family and friends
1. Started this blog
Feel free to compile your own list in the comments section of this post.
DRUMROLL.................................
10. Got a server for my dining room
9. Won a Gift Certificate for laser hair removal
8. Went to six flags for the first time
7. Got a swingset
6. My oldest started High School
5. (I would love to write learned to drive a stick, but a certain someone never taught me...)
4. Was in a film
3. Went on vacation with MBB for the first time in two years
2. Had a healthy happy year with my family and friends
1. Started this blog
Feel free to compile your own list in the comments section of this post.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Welcome to the Soothsayer's Ball
We've entered the last week of the calendar year, which (to me) can only mean one thing:
We're about to be inundated by "Top 10 _____ of 2008" lists.
I've always found these lists to be quite amusing, if not pointless. On the financial markets side of things, does it really matter which story was #1, and which was #7? I wonder, if someone lost $100MM in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, and then reads that the Madoff scandal was the #1 financial story of 2008, does that provide any comfort? Conversely, if the poor fellow sees that the Madoff scandal is the #6 story, behind the overall market drop, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the fire sale of Bear Stearns, the AIG bailout and the collapse of the housing market, does that add insult to injury?
While these lists seem silly to me, thay do serve one important purpose. A person could space out for 51 weeks, and then catch up on everything over the last few days of the year. That's pretty neat.
The really pointless exercise lies not in the sundry annual "wrap up" stories, but in the "prediction" pieces that also typically run at this time of year. In stock market terms, different media outlets will assemble a formidable collection of pundits who will polish their crystal balls and tell us where the market will be at the end of the next year. Invariably, you will get a very wide range of predictions. One guy will say that he expects the stock market to rise by 35% in the next year, while some other person will call for a 40% drop. One thing you can be certain of is that anyone who lobs a prediction at us will be sure to back it up with an impressive-sounding argument.
Over the years, I've struggled with the question of which prediction to follow. Several years ago, when I was working as a stock analyst, a colleague of mine gave me this sage advice: "When in doubt, go with the guy who is wearing a bow tie." This made a great deal of sense to me at the time, so I made a mental note to do so going forward. About a year later, my illusions were shattered when our firm's bow tie-wearing chief economist showed up 30 minutes late to a meeting, sheepishly saying, "I thought this meeting was called for Thursday, not Tuesday." I realized that this guy couldn't figure out his schedule for the week ahead, let alone predict the stock market's level 12 months out.
Flamboyant neckwear aside, I think that it's rather obvious by now that even the "pros" have a difficult time accurately predicting the future. So, I figured that we should just have at it ourselves.
I am therefore pleased to introduce The First Annual IcebergCarwash Stock Market Prediction Contest.
To join, use the "comments" section to register your prediction of where the S&P 500 Index will be at the end of 2009. For reference, consider that the Index is currently at 865.42. It ended 2007 at 1468.36 (ouch).
We will keep track of everyone's predictions, and at the end of 2009, we will award a prize to the person whose prediction came closest to the actual closing level of the S&P 500 Index at the end of 2009. (Please read the disclaimer below). You've got until the market opens on January 2, 2009 to join. Good luck, everyone.
Disclaimer
This contest does not represent an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. It is open to anyone in the world, provided that the jurisdiction in which the entrant primarily resides does not expressly or implicitly prohibit joining contests of this nature. There is no fee to join this contest. IcebergCarwash disavows any connection to any individuals, including, but not limited to, the Governor of the State of Illinois, who might attempt to solicit fees from those who join this contest. The contest is open to relatives, friends or enemies of the operators of IcebergCarwash. The contest is not open to anyone named Charles who chooses to be referred to by the nickname "Chaz." In such instance, either "Charlie" or "Chuck" is acceptable. IcebergCarwash reserves the right to award a truly stinky prize to the winner of this contest. Reference to the term "stinky" in relation to the proposed prize includes any prize which could be deemed to be inadequate for the winner of such a contest, generally unattractive, or possessing a particularly foul odor, whether such prize is the actual source of said foul odor, or if the foul odor was derived from something which came in contact with the prize, thereby imparting - temporarily or permanently - the odor upon the prize. Taxes will be the sole responsibility of the contest winner. IcebergCarwash makes no representations whatsoever regarding the tax liability arising from winning the contest's prize. Each participant is advised to consult with his/her tax adviser to determine any potential tax liability, prior to accepting any prize awarded by IcebergCarwash in connection with this, or any, contest or promotional event.
We're about to be inundated by "Top 10 _____ of 2008" lists.
I've always found these lists to be quite amusing, if not pointless. On the financial markets side of things, does it really matter which story was #1, and which was #7? I wonder, if someone lost $100MM in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, and then reads that the Madoff scandal was the #1 financial story of 2008, does that provide any comfort? Conversely, if the poor fellow sees that the Madoff scandal is the #6 story, behind the overall market drop, the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the fire sale of Bear Stearns, the AIG bailout and the collapse of the housing market, does that add insult to injury?
While these lists seem silly to me, thay do serve one important purpose. A person could space out for 51 weeks, and then catch up on everything over the last few days of the year. That's pretty neat.
The really pointless exercise lies not in the sundry annual "wrap up" stories, but in the "prediction" pieces that also typically run at this time of year. In stock market terms, different media outlets will assemble a formidable collection of pundits who will polish their crystal balls and tell us where the market will be at the end of the next year. Invariably, you will get a very wide range of predictions. One guy will say that he expects the stock market to rise by 35% in the next year, while some other person will call for a 40% drop. One thing you can be certain of is that anyone who lobs a prediction at us will be sure to back it up with an impressive-sounding argument.
Over the years, I've struggled with the question of which prediction to follow. Several years ago, when I was working as a stock analyst, a colleague of mine gave me this sage advice: "When in doubt, go with the guy who is wearing a bow tie." This made a great deal of sense to me at the time, so I made a mental note to do so going forward. About a year later, my illusions were shattered when our firm's bow tie-wearing chief economist showed up 30 minutes late to a meeting, sheepishly saying, "I thought this meeting was called for Thursday, not Tuesday." I realized that this guy couldn't figure out his schedule for the week ahead, let alone predict the stock market's level 12 months out.
Flamboyant neckwear aside, I think that it's rather obvious by now that even the "pros" have a difficult time accurately predicting the future. So, I figured that we should just have at it ourselves.
I am therefore pleased to introduce The First Annual IcebergCarwash Stock Market Prediction Contest.
To join, use the "comments" section to register your prediction of where the S&P 500 Index will be at the end of 2009. For reference, consider that the Index is currently at 865.42. It ended 2007 at 1468.36 (ouch).
We will keep track of everyone's predictions, and at the end of 2009, we will award a prize to the person whose prediction came closest to the actual closing level of the S&P 500 Index at the end of 2009. (Please read the disclaimer below). You've got until the market opens on January 2, 2009 to join. Good luck, everyone.
Disclaimer
This contest does not represent an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. It is open to anyone in the world, provided that the jurisdiction in which the entrant primarily resides does not expressly or implicitly prohibit joining contests of this nature. There is no fee to join this contest. IcebergCarwash disavows any connection to any individuals, including, but not limited to, the Governor of the State of Illinois, who might attempt to solicit fees from those who join this contest. The contest is open to relatives, friends or enemies of the operators of IcebergCarwash. The contest is not open to anyone named Charles who chooses to be referred to by the nickname "Chaz." In such instance, either "Charlie" or "Chuck" is acceptable. IcebergCarwash reserves the right to award a truly stinky prize to the winner of this contest. Reference to the term "stinky" in relation to the proposed prize includes any prize which could be deemed to be inadequate for the winner of such a contest, generally unattractive, or possessing a particularly foul odor, whether such prize is the actual source of said foul odor, or if the foul odor was derived from something which came in contact with the prize, thereby imparting - temporarily or permanently - the odor upon the prize. Taxes will be the sole responsibility of the contest winner. IcebergCarwash makes no representations whatsoever regarding the tax liability arising from winning the contest's prize. Each participant is advised to consult with his/her tax adviser to determine any potential tax liability, prior to accepting any prize awarded by IcebergCarwash in connection with this, or any, contest or promotional event.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
You Want Me To Do WHAT?!?!? II
In a recent post (there haven't been too many of those lately), we spoke of the need to help other people out even if it's not really something you're thrilled to do. I believe that, but I don't think that gives people the right to assume that others will do things for them, and put them on the spot.
Last night at 10:42 I went to pick up my daughter from a school party. I came a little late, because she told me the party was over at 10:30, but that I shouldn't come before 10:40 the EARLIEST. So trying to be a nice Mom, and overcome my need for punctuality I got there at 10:50. The party was now "officially" over for 20 minutes, and unofficially for 10 minutes. Through the window I could see my daughter still dancing and having a good time, she looked really happy. After about a minute she came outside, opened the door to the car, and said "Mom, there's some kids who need a ride home, can you take them?" So of course I said yes. I was really tired, and these kids live in my general neighborhood, but not "on my way" and not on my block. Granted, all told it was a seven minute difference, but I was annoyed.
Not at the kids. At their parents. How do you send your kid off to a party and just basically abdicate your responsibility to pick them up to some anonymous person, because you don't feel like coming out to get them? If I live two houses away from them, sure. We could have arranged it in advance, but no problem if we didn't. But this? This is just so....I can't even think of the word. Oh, wait I got it. Selfish. Both houses I went to were completely dark, so those parents didn't have to wait up to go pick up their kids, they just assumed someone else would do it. I could have said no, and the kids would have asked someone who lives even further away, or GASP! called their parents, but I felt bad. For the kids who were put in the situation. Because, really, how hard is it for the parents to make a phone call and ask someone to do something, as opposed to ambushing them at 11 at night.
What's the difference, you may ask, if you would do it either way? Good question. AND I HAVE THE ANSWER!!! Aside from it being the more courteous thing to do,I think the main reason people DO NOT call to set it up in advance (it was a three hour party there was ample time to call and ask)is that they don't want to feel like they asked a favor, or need to return one. So they have their kids ask, at the party, spur of the moment, and that way they are beholden to no one. Not that I feel there needs to be a quid pro quo,and I'm happy to help someone out, but I can't think of another possible reason not to set it up in advance. They may feel they're not "close" enough with me to ask the favor, so they let the kid do it instead? It's just weird. the whole thing is just weird.
THEY'RE YOUR KIDS TAKE CARE OF THEM!!!!
Last night at 10:42 I went to pick up my daughter from a school party. I came a little late, because she told me the party was over at 10:30, but that I shouldn't come before 10:40 the EARLIEST. So trying to be a nice Mom, and overcome my need for punctuality I got there at 10:50. The party was now "officially" over for 20 minutes, and unofficially for 10 minutes. Through the window I could see my daughter still dancing and having a good time, she looked really happy. After about a minute she came outside, opened the door to the car, and said "Mom, there's some kids who need a ride home, can you take them?" So of course I said yes. I was really tired, and these kids live in my general neighborhood, but not "on my way" and not on my block. Granted, all told it was a seven minute difference, but I was annoyed.
Not at the kids. At their parents. How do you send your kid off to a party and just basically abdicate your responsibility to pick them up to some anonymous person, because you don't feel like coming out to get them? If I live two houses away from them, sure. We could have arranged it in advance, but no problem if we didn't. But this? This is just so....I can't even think of the word. Oh, wait I got it. Selfish. Both houses I went to were completely dark, so those parents didn't have to wait up to go pick up their kids, they just assumed someone else would do it. I could have said no, and the kids would have asked someone who lives even further away, or GASP! called their parents, but I felt bad. For the kids who were put in the situation. Because, really, how hard is it for the parents to make a phone call and ask someone to do something, as opposed to ambushing them at 11 at night.
What's the difference, you may ask, if you would do it either way? Good question. AND I HAVE THE ANSWER!!! Aside from it being the more courteous thing to do,I think the main reason people DO NOT call to set it up in advance (it was a three hour party there was ample time to call and ask)is that they don't want to feel like they asked a favor, or need to return one. So they have their kids ask, at the party, spur of the moment, and that way they are beholden to no one. Not that I feel there needs to be a quid pro quo,and I'm happy to help someone out, but I can't think of another possible reason not to set it up in advance. They may feel they're not "close" enough with me to ask the favor, so they let the kid do it instead? It's just weird. the whole thing is just weird.
THEY'RE YOUR KIDS TAKE CARE OF THEM!!!!
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Leading off, and playing center field, Charles Ponzi
As more information emerges about the stunning fraud perpetrated by Bernard Madoff, we have begun to hear about some of his bigger victims.
It is important to note that while Madoff's "fund" had a relatively small number of investors, many of these investors were hedge funds, who in turn had many investors. It seems that thousands of people were caught up in this scam.
Looking at the list of prominent investors who lost money, one name in particular stands out: Fred Wilpon, the owner of the New York Mets. It has been reported that Wilpon's real estate company, Sterling Equities, might have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in Madoff's fraud.
What makes the Wilpon case interesting is that this hardly represents the first time that he has been duped. My preliminary analysis has revealed that over the past ten years alone, Wilpon has invested tens of millions of dollars with certain individuals, and has little to show for his expenditures. Some of the people who have taken millions from Wilpon, and left him "holding the bag" include:
* Mo Vaughn
* Mike Hampton
* Carlos Baerga
* Pedro Martinez
* Luis Castillo
Perhaps most sad is the fact that Mr. Wilpon continues to throw his money at investments with a less-than-certain future. Earlier this month, he committed to pay a certain Francisco Rodriguez, of Caracas, Venezuela, $37 million over the next three years. Mets fans are surely hoping that Wilpon doesn't get Madoffed again in regards to this investment.
Wilpon's losses in the Madoff scam prove yet again that the New York Mets are at the epicenter of the current financial earthquake. (An earlier post detailed how the Mets brought Citigroup down).
It's bad enough that this team has now choked away a division title in each of the past two Septembers. Must they also destroy everything in their wake?
At this point, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Met was running the credit default swap (CDS) desk at AIG. I imagine that the hiring decision-making process went a little something like this:
Trading manager: "Thanks for coming in today, Mr. Met. It was nice meeting with you. We'll be in touch."
Mr. Met leaves, and walks two blocks to the parking garage where he left his extra-large golf cart with the Mets cap on top. Upon paying the cashier, he is dismayed to learn that he has been charged an extra $20 for an "oversized vehicle." He decides then and there that he will not tip the garage attendant who retrieves his car.
Trading manager (to the head of derivatives trading): "Well, what did you think of the guy?
Head of Derivatives Trading: "I'm not sure. He gave me a funny vibe. What do you think?"
Trading manager: "I thought he was great. He's a genius. We should hire him."
Head of Derivatives Trading: "A genius? Why do you say that? Is he a Phd.?"
Trading Manager: "No. But he must be a genius. Just look at the size of his head."
Head of Derivatives Trading: "You're right. He's our guy."
It is important to note that while Madoff's "fund" had a relatively small number of investors, many of these investors were hedge funds, who in turn had many investors. It seems that thousands of people were caught up in this scam.
Looking at the list of prominent investors who lost money, one name in particular stands out: Fred Wilpon, the owner of the New York Mets. It has been reported that Wilpon's real estate company, Sterling Equities, might have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in Madoff's fraud.
What makes the Wilpon case interesting is that this hardly represents the first time that he has been duped. My preliminary analysis has revealed that over the past ten years alone, Wilpon has invested tens of millions of dollars with certain individuals, and has little to show for his expenditures. Some of the people who have taken millions from Wilpon, and left him "holding the bag" include:
* Mo Vaughn
* Mike Hampton
* Carlos Baerga
* Pedro Martinez
* Luis Castillo
Perhaps most sad is the fact that Mr. Wilpon continues to throw his money at investments with a less-than-certain future. Earlier this month, he committed to pay a certain Francisco Rodriguez, of Caracas, Venezuela, $37 million over the next three years. Mets fans are surely hoping that Wilpon doesn't get Madoffed again in regards to this investment.
Wilpon's losses in the Madoff scam prove yet again that the New York Mets are at the epicenter of the current financial earthquake. (An earlier post detailed how the Mets brought Citigroup down).
It's bad enough that this team has now choked away a division title in each of the past two Septembers. Must they also destroy everything in their wake?
At this point, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Met was running the credit default swap (CDS) desk at AIG. I imagine that the hiring decision-making process went a little something like this:
Trading manager: "Thanks for coming in today, Mr. Met. It was nice meeting with you. We'll be in touch."
Mr. Met leaves, and walks two blocks to the parking garage where he left his extra-large golf cart with the Mets cap on top. Upon paying the cashier, he is dismayed to learn that he has been charged an extra $20 for an "oversized vehicle." He decides then and there that he will not tip the garage attendant who retrieves his car.
Trading manager (to the head of derivatives trading): "Well, what did you think of the guy?
Head of Derivatives Trading: "I'm not sure. He gave me a funny vibe. What do you think?"
Trading manager: "I thought he was great. He's a genius. We should hire him."
Head of Derivatives Trading: "A genius? Why do you say that? Is he a Phd.?"
Trading Manager: "No. But he must be a genius. Just look at the size of his head."
Head of Derivatives Trading: "You're right. He's our guy."
You Want Me To Do What?
Recently I've become aware of a problem that does not really effect me. As the mother of two teen aged girls, there are very few circumstances in which I need to look for and hire a babysitter. I am, and always have been, very lucky on that front having my young cousins live across the street from me. Again, luckily, as my cousins grew too old to babysit (and I mean getting married, they would ALWAYS babysit for me in a pinch even in their twenties)new neighbors moved in, with teen aged girls. So the issue of needing to get out and being unable to find a babysitter was not one I struggled with. But, when speaking to mothers of young children, I see that this is more likely NOT the case.
So as someone who never faced this problem myself, I feel that I can somewhat objectively give my opinion on this matter.
Mishpacha magazine recently ran an article on this topic, and I think they did not go far enough. Most Bais Yaakov high schools have a Chesed program where they send their students to disadvantaged homes, or homes with special needs children, to help the family in whatever way the family may need. Usually it's a dire or grim situation in these homes, the girls go for their one hour of "Chesed" per month or two weeks, depending on the school, and then they fill in their paperwork. What have they learned? Well, they've learned they need to help those less fortunate than themselves, and generally garner a new appreciation for all the things that are good in their lives. A worthy endeavor indeed. However, maybe there is something missing. What we need to be teaching these girls is their responsibility to help those who need it, even if it doesn't come under the classic banner of high school "chesed." I think what throws a lot of these kids, is the women who call requesting their babysitting services live in clean homes, with well children, and can afford to pay. But if their getting out to a wedding, a dinner, a sale, or even a date with their spouse is incumbent on the cooperation of their young neighbor, I believe those girls should indeed agree to help them out. They do not have to decline payment to achieve the act of chesed. If the woman has already called ten girls all of whom have said no, then a quick yes, and a night of watching someone's kids and eating whatever they find in the pantry and getting paid has now been elevated to lofty status.
The fact that this is a sad commentary on both the kids and parents of today is an issue as well. When parenting teenagers it is important to pick your spots, and maybe some parents feel this is not an avenue of friction they wish to travel down. However, as many things in life, the more you work towards something the more it sticks with you. If a girls realizes that what she is doing is a huge help, chesed if you will, to the other person, she will have learned a valuable lesson in real life. Sometimes those who need help are right there, and it's relatively easy to do. It doesn't have to be the most exciting and most prestigious sounding project to be a help. And that's a lesson that parents can teach their kids. It's OK to help someone even if the whole world doesn't know about it, and it doesn't sound all that exciting when you repeat it or put it on a resume. But these days, it seems to be what is needed, and that's the truest form of chesed. Helping someone the way they need the help.
(That girls don't feel the need to babysit, from an economic standpoint, and whether that is sustainable in the current economic climate is an issue for another blog).
So it's really become something that needs to be reformed in people's mind. Parents need to press upon the kids the importance babysitting plays in the community at large. And what is a bigger chesed than that?
For now, it's up to you dear reader, whether you are a parent of a teen ager, a teen ager, or parent of young children who needs a babysitter you need to get the word out. Change people's attitudes. It can be done.
So as someone who never faced this problem myself, I feel that I can somewhat objectively give my opinion on this matter.
Mishpacha magazine recently ran an article on this topic, and I think they did not go far enough. Most Bais Yaakov high schools have a Chesed program where they send their students to disadvantaged homes, or homes with special needs children, to help the family in whatever way the family may need. Usually it's a dire or grim situation in these homes, the girls go for their one hour of "Chesed" per month or two weeks, depending on the school, and then they fill in their paperwork. What have they learned? Well, they've learned they need to help those less fortunate than themselves, and generally garner a new appreciation for all the things that are good in their lives. A worthy endeavor indeed. However, maybe there is something missing. What we need to be teaching these girls is their responsibility to help those who need it, even if it doesn't come under the classic banner of high school "chesed." I think what throws a lot of these kids, is the women who call requesting their babysitting services live in clean homes, with well children, and can afford to pay. But if their getting out to a wedding, a dinner, a sale, or even a date with their spouse is incumbent on the cooperation of their young neighbor, I believe those girls should indeed agree to help them out. They do not have to decline payment to achieve the act of chesed. If the woman has already called ten girls all of whom have said no, then a quick yes, and a night of watching someone's kids and eating whatever they find in the pantry and getting paid has now been elevated to lofty status.
The fact that this is a sad commentary on both the kids and parents of today is an issue as well. When parenting teenagers it is important to pick your spots, and maybe some parents feel this is not an avenue of friction they wish to travel down. However, as many things in life, the more you work towards something the more it sticks with you. If a girls realizes that what she is doing is a huge help, chesed if you will, to the other person, she will have learned a valuable lesson in real life. Sometimes those who need help are right there, and it's relatively easy to do. It doesn't have to be the most exciting and most prestigious sounding project to be a help. And that's a lesson that parents can teach their kids. It's OK to help someone even if the whole world doesn't know about it, and it doesn't sound all that exciting when you repeat it or put it on a resume. But these days, it seems to be what is needed, and that's the truest form of chesed. Helping someone the way they need the help.
(That girls don't feel the need to babysit, from an economic standpoint, and whether that is sustainable in the current economic climate is an issue for another blog).
So it's really become something that needs to be reformed in people's mind. Parents need to press upon the kids the importance babysitting plays in the community at large. And what is a bigger chesed than that?
For now, it's up to you dear reader, whether you are a parent of a teen ager, a teen ager, or parent of young children who needs a babysitter you need to get the word out. Change people's attitudes. It can be done.
REALLY????
Caroline Kennedy has officially announced her desire to have Hilary Clinton's Senate seat. And why not? She's a Kennedy, she wants it, it should be hers, what could be more simple? That there are others in New York politics who have paid their dues through sweat and campaigns and actual work for the people of New York? Who cares. She wants it. She has no experience or track record of any kind. That could be a plus, but more than likely not. She's lived a very sheltered life away from the riff raff and dirtiness of politics and populace.
You may ask why experience matters when we have a soon -to- be President who also lacks credentials and experience. There is a difference though. The people of this country knew he had no qualifications and chose to elect him anyway. Ms. Kennedy would be appointed, having never shown to be the choice of any people, for anything, anywhere. Big difference. According to The New York Times, her commitments generally involve nonprofit boards: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the American Ballet Theater, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. She also worked for the New York City Schools, taking just a $1 salary, to essentially work on private fund raising. She was on the board to choose the President Of Harvard, and part of the committee that helped vett Vice Presidential candidates for Obama. Oh, and she wrote a really good memo to him.
This stinks. Politics being what it is, I'd be shocked if this doesn't happen. She helped Obama. Clinton, Obama's chief rival in the primary, is now going to serve in Obama's cabinet, hmmm, who will get that seat? Could it be that pressure will be applied to Governor Patterson by Hillary, on orders from her new boss (the CHICAGO politician)to throw a thank you appointment at Caroline Kennedy?
Welcome to New York.
You may ask why experience matters when we have a soon -to- be President who also lacks credentials and experience. There is a difference though. The people of this country knew he had no qualifications and chose to elect him anyway. Ms. Kennedy would be appointed, having never shown to be the choice of any people, for anything, anywhere. Big difference. According to The New York Times, her commitments generally involve nonprofit boards: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the American Ballet Theater, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. She also worked for the New York City Schools, taking just a $1 salary, to essentially work on private fund raising. She was on the board to choose the President Of Harvard, and part of the committee that helped vett Vice Presidential candidates for Obama. Oh, and she wrote a really good memo to him.
This stinks. Politics being what it is, I'd be shocked if this doesn't happen. She helped Obama. Clinton, Obama's chief rival in the primary, is now going to serve in Obama's cabinet, hmmm, who will get that seat? Could it be that pressure will be applied to Governor Patterson by Hillary, on orders from her new boss (the CHICAGO politician)to throw a thank you appointment at Caroline Kennedy?
Welcome to New York.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Return of the Prodigal Purple
When we last saw Mr. Tarvaris Jackson, he had lost his job as the starting quarterback of the Minnesota Vikings after an 0-2 start, replaced by Gus Frerotte. Worse still, this very Blog-ojevich was comparing him to a disappointing toy.
Since that point, T-Jack, as we've taken to calling him, sat on the bench, while Gus Frerotte did a decent job righting the Vikings' ship (pun semi-intended). The Vikings won 7 of their next 10 games.
Then, last week, playing in Detroit against the winless Lions, the Vikings were putting in an embarrassingly sluggish performance, and were trailing 6-3 at halftime. With Gus Frerotte banged up, Tarvaris Jackson entered the game early in the third quarter, and immediately drove the Vikings for the go-ahead touchdown. After the Lions regained the lead, T-Jack rallied the Vikings again, and they escaped with a 20-16 win.
Yesterday, with Frerotte still nursing an injured back, T-Jack got the start in Arizona against the Cardinals, and he responded with perhaps the best game of his career, throwing four touchdown passes in a 35-14 Vikings romp. The Vikings' running game was dominant, so Jackson didn't have to throw that often (17 times), but he looked very sharp. He made several perfect throws, and I can only think of one pass that was poorly thrown.
Although one game and a half of action is hardly enough evidence, it would appear that T-Jack has taken some positive strides. Perhaps it was just a function of playing against relatively weak defenses. Or, he might just have learned something by watching the action from the bench.
At this point, T-Jack has not yet officially regained his starting job. However, I'd expect him to start at quarterback next week, against the Atlanta Falcons, as Gus Frerotte is not yet fully healed. I, for one, would like to see T-Jack as the starter at this point, as the Vikings need to determine, for once and for all, whether or not he is their quarterback of the future. If he is not, they will have to address that position in the offseason. In my opinion, T-Jack gives the Vikings as much chance to win as does Gus Frerotte.
In general, the Vikings have done a nice job turning around a season that started poorly. With two games remaining in the regular season, the Vikings have a record of 9-5 (already surpassing my typically-pessimistic preseason prediction of an 8-win season), and lead the NFC North division by one game over the Chicago Bears. The Vikings can clinch the division title with either one more win or one more Chicago loss. While I still don't think that the Vikings are serious Super Bowl contenders, it would be nice to make the playoffs for the first time since 2004.
Welcome back, T-Jack. It's nice to see you again.
Since that point, T-Jack, as we've taken to calling him, sat on the bench, while Gus Frerotte did a decent job righting the Vikings' ship (pun semi-intended). The Vikings won 7 of their next 10 games.
Then, last week, playing in Detroit against the winless Lions, the Vikings were putting in an embarrassingly sluggish performance, and were trailing 6-3 at halftime. With Gus Frerotte banged up, Tarvaris Jackson entered the game early in the third quarter, and immediately drove the Vikings for the go-ahead touchdown. After the Lions regained the lead, T-Jack rallied the Vikings again, and they escaped with a 20-16 win.
Yesterday, with Frerotte still nursing an injured back, T-Jack got the start in Arizona against the Cardinals, and he responded with perhaps the best game of his career, throwing four touchdown passes in a 35-14 Vikings romp. The Vikings' running game was dominant, so Jackson didn't have to throw that often (17 times), but he looked very sharp. He made several perfect throws, and I can only think of one pass that was poorly thrown.
Although one game and a half of action is hardly enough evidence, it would appear that T-Jack has taken some positive strides. Perhaps it was just a function of playing against relatively weak defenses. Or, he might just have learned something by watching the action from the bench.
At this point, T-Jack has not yet officially regained his starting job. However, I'd expect him to start at quarterback next week, against the Atlanta Falcons, as Gus Frerotte is not yet fully healed. I, for one, would like to see T-Jack as the starter at this point, as the Vikings need to determine, for once and for all, whether or not he is their quarterback of the future. If he is not, they will have to address that position in the offseason. In my opinion, T-Jack gives the Vikings as much chance to win as does Gus Frerotte.
In general, the Vikings have done a nice job turning around a season that started poorly. With two games remaining in the regular season, the Vikings have a record of 9-5 (already surpassing my typically-pessimistic preseason prediction of an 8-win season), and lead the NFC North division by one game over the Chicago Bears. The Vikings can clinch the division title with either one more win or one more Chicago loss. While I still don't think that the Vikings are serious Super Bowl contenders, it would be nice to make the playoffs for the first time since 2004.
Welcome back, T-Jack. It's nice to see you again.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I Got It!!!
Last night, while driving home from parent teacher conferences (for some reason known around town as PTA, which I guess it is, since the parents and teachers DO associate), it hit me. I figured out a solution that will kill two birds with one stone. The only problem is, I doubt he'll go for it.
As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, the Governor of Illinois was arrested by the FBI for numerous things, including attempting to "sell" the senate seat of former Senator-now-President-Elect Obama.
This puts even more pressure on NY Governor David Patterson, who needs to pick a replacement for Senator Hillary Clinton, our soon to be Secretary of State. He needs to pick someone who is both qualified and avoids the stench of a quid pro quo so rampant in Albany, and all political machines.
I have the answer. Michaal Bloomberg. Here's where the two birds come in. If Bloomberg is appointed Senator, he won't run for Mayor, and democracy, though already subverted, may triumph yet. The problem is I doubt he'd agree. The Senate is much different from the executive suites, be it corporate or political. Aside from building his Bloomberg empire he has been the Mayor for almost 8 years, and is used to an executive position. Can he play well with others? From a politics stand point I have no doubt that he would be fine, though I don't know that he'd be happy playing junior to Chuck Schumer. Plus, I don't think could stand two Senators with such annoyingly grating voices.
I heard some one say last night, that since the Governor was not elected he should not appoint Clinton's successor, but call a special election. That is a ridiculous argument. Did Lyndon Johnson call special elections everytime he had to appoint judges, or make a tough decision? No. Why? Because he was elected to a position that every knew he would take over if anything happened to his boss. So too with Patterson. He was elected Lieutenant Governor to Eliot Spitzer's Governor. The fact that no one expected Spitzer to leave? Well, as Monty Python says "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
So who should Patterson appoint? As much as it pains me to say this, the answer is Andrew Cuomo. If New York state wants a representative who will represent the interests of New York in a tough and uncompromising way, a man who's been to Washington and knows it's culture, I believe he's the man for the job. Certainly not Caroline Kennedy, despite her uncle's desire to keep a Kennedy in the Senate now that his clock is ticking. Though I don't know who's waiting in the wings as State Attorney General.
If Cuomo is appointed, the Legislature would appoint an Attorney General, thus leaving New York State without a Lieutenant Governor, an appointed Senator, an appointed Attorney General, and a Mayor who uses political promises to secure himself an unearned spot on the ballot.
Ship him off to Washington.
As I'm sure many of you have heard by now, the Governor of Illinois was arrested by the FBI for numerous things, including attempting to "sell" the senate seat of former Senator-now-President-Elect Obama.
This puts even more pressure on NY Governor David Patterson, who needs to pick a replacement for Senator Hillary Clinton, our soon to be Secretary of State. He needs to pick someone who is both qualified and avoids the stench of a quid pro quo so rampant in Albany, and all political machines.
I have the answer. Michaal Bloomberg. Here's where the two birds come in. If Bloomberg is appointed Senator, he won't run for Mayor, and democracy, though already subverted, may triumph yet. The problem is I doubt he'd agree. The Senate is much different from the executive suites, be it corporate or political. Aside from building his Bloomberg empire he has been the Mayor for almost 8 years, and is used to an executive position. Can he play well with others? From a politics stand point I have no doubt that he would be fine, though I don't know that he'd be happy playing junior to Chuck Schumer. Plus, I don't think could stand two Senators with such annoyingly grating voices.
I heard some one say last night, that since the Governor was not elected he should not appoint Clinton's successor, but call a special election. That is a ridiculous argument. Did Lyndon Johnson call special elections everytime he had to appoint judges, or make a tough decision? No. Why? Because he was elected to a position that every knew he would take over if anything happened to his boss. So too with Patterson. He was elected Lieutenant Governor to Eliot Spitzer's Governor. The fact that no one expected Spitzer to leave? Well, as Monty Python says "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
So who should Patterson appoint? As much as it pains me to say this, the answer is Andrew Cuomo. If New York state wants a representative who will represent the interests of New York in a tough and uncompromising way, a man who's been to Washington and knows it's culture, I believe he's the man for the job. Certainly not Caroline Kennedy, despite her uncle's desire to keep a Kennedy in the Senate now that his clock is ticking. Though I don't know who's waiting in the wings as State Attorney General.
If Cuomo is appointed, the Legislature would appoint an Attorney General, thus leaving New York State without a Lieutenant Governor, an appointed Senator, an appointed Attorney General, and a Mayor who uses political promises to secure himself an unearned spot on the ballot.
Ship him off to Washington.
Monday, December 8, 2008
A Little Lite Housekeeping
Some of you maybe wondering why our blog production seems to have slipped lately. Here are some thoughts.
Many people who heard that MBB and I had started a blog had the same reactions: Either
a)You must be bored
b)you must have a lot of time on your hands
In fact, that opposite appears to be true. The less time you have, the more time there is to blog. That seems counterintuitive, but as the horrid expression goes: "It is what it is." When you have no time, you think of something and you write it. There's no time to get wishy washy and worry whether it's worth writing.
As far as being bored? The more bored you are the less there is to write about. My very exciting day of cleaning up cheerios and changing diapers and playing with my baby and talking on the phone and doing errands and making dinner may be fine for me, but it doesn't make for very scintillating blog reading.
There's another element to this venture that cannot be discounted. The Rule Of Supply and Demand. We seem to be in a surplus right now, since the polls were not voted on, and the comments are few and far between. So, as all good businesses know, hold on to your supply and demand will increase.
We'll see.
Many people who heard that MBB and I had started a blog had the same reactions: Either
a)You must be bored
b)you must have a lot of time on your hands
In fact, that opposite appears to be true. The less time you have, the more time there is to blog. That seems counterintuitive, but as the horrid expression goes: "It is what it is." When you have no time, you think of something and you write it. There's no time to get wishy washy and worry whether it's worth writing.
As far as being bored? The more bored you are the less there is to write about. My very exciting day of cleaning up cheerios and changing diapers and playing with my baby and talking on the phone and doing errands and making dinner may be fine for me, but it doesn't make for very scintillating blog reading.
There's another element to this venture that cannot be discounted. The Rule Of Supply and Demand. We seem to be in a surplus right now, since the polls were not voted on, and the comments are few and far between. So, as all good businesses know, hold on to your supply and demand will increase.
We'll see.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
That Was Fun!
So it seems a woman's work is never done. As I sit here in my sister's house, she is complaining that there's nothing new on the blog. So it seems I am not as compelling as a conversationalist as I am as a blogger. Hmmm. That does wonders for the self esteem.
It's so nice to get a slice of someone else's life. When I come here with my kids, it's not normal life here either (extra people, everyone home from school, etc), so when I come alone I really get the feel for her life. Obviously, my being here changes things automatically. But , still, it's nice when you live far away from someone to become, even briefly, a part of their daily routine. As Verizon can attest, we try to stay connected, though you can't compare being here with being on the phone.
A number of people asked me what we would do when I got here, and I responded "nothing really." Honestly, that's what we like to do. Just be. Life shared with those we're closest to feels so full. So, though we did nothing, we also went bowling, to Dunkin Donuts, shopping, and to a great little store here that's fun to browse. The funny thing about bowling was I did OK the first game, she did ok the second, but our COMBINED score on the second game was less than the loser of the trio next to us. I'd love to learn how to get the ball to curve, it's so coool. If I were to go bowling and wanted to learn, this would be the place. Including 2 pairs of shoes and a total of four games we paid a whopping: $13. That's just crazy!
I'm going home soon, and will wait 'til we can get together again. I hope it's soon.
It's so nice to get a slice of someone else's life. When I come here with my kids, it's not normal life here either (extra people, everyone home from school, etc), so when I come alone I really get the feel for her life. Obviously, my being here changes things automatically. But , still, it's nice when you live far away from someone to become, even briefly, a part of their daily routine. As Verizon can attest, we try to stay connected, though you can't compare being here with being on the phone.
A number of people asked me what we would do when I got here, and I responded "nothing really." Honestly, that's what we like to do. Just be. Life shared with those we're closest to feels so full. So, though we did nothing, we also went bowling, to Dunkin Donuts, shopping, and to a great little store here that's fun to browse. The funny thing about bowling was I did OK the first game, she did ok the second, but our COMBINED score on the second game was less than the loser of the trio next to us. I'd love to learn how to get the ball to curve, it's so coool. If I were to go bowling and wanted to learn, this would be the place. Including 2 pairs of shoes and a total of four games we paid a whopping: $13. That's just crazy!
I'm going home soon, and will wait 'til we can get together again. I hope it's soon.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Kitchen Sink
Hello all from cold Michigan. I took advantage of Spirit's give away fares and went to visit my sister for less money than it would cost to do just about anything. Though to be honest, that's before you factor in the doughnuts, which of course was our first stop. Even before we got to the house. The hard part will be spending less at Dunkin Donuts then it cost me to fly 600 miles each way.
Having recently flown Jet Blue to Florida, after checking Spirit first and seeing Jet Blue was cheaper, I can honestly say I don't kow that the adage "you get what you pay for" holds true for this airline. First of all, you don't always pay very cheap on Spirit, but your still stuck in those dinky seats that I, Miss Shorty Von Short Short felt comletly squooshed in. Jet Blue had so much leg and arm room AND direct TVs. Spirit cramps you into the seat, supposedly offers snacks and drinks for sale (though to be honest I had a headset on, and they may have come around and I just didn't hear them), and practically charges you to use the air conditioning.
That said, both Spirit and other airlines have instituted a fee for check luggage. Now before this happened, there were a few souls who did not want to wait for their luggage or chance it getting lost, so they brought it aboard. Now, everyone does, and there is no one checking size and weight. It's almost like that old college trick of how many people can we get in the phone booth. Now, it's "Let's see how big of a suitcase and how much of my stuff can I get away with as carry-on." This tends not to be a problem for me, since I either spring for the extra few bucks, fly an airline that gives you one free bag, or I pack small enough that I can stick under the seat in front of me (the whole short thing again). There needs to be a point at which people say "you know, we're headed to visit the kids for two weeks, maybe we shouldn't try to bring these two overstuffed medium sized suitcases on board." Though, on the other hand, no one will stop you (if they do at all)until you actually try to get on the plane or are on the plane trying to stick it on top of row three even though your seat is in row 26, so you can probably ge check it for free, avoid the baggage and overweight charges. Brilliant.
It does however make for frustrating travel when everyone is rushing to get on the plane so there's room for all their extra -large-no-way-in-heck-is this-hand-luggage to fit on top. Then you wait to get on as other passengers are trying to find an empty space for their bags, cramming up the aisles while you wait in the freezing cold jetway getting nauseous from the outside plane and truck fumes cuz you haven't taken your dramamine yet since you don't want to risk taking it to early, and even when you get to your seat you're taking a chance since you never know when you're actually going to take off.
Off to do shopping, and probably get more doughnuts!
Having recently flown Jet Blue to Florida, after checking Spirit first and seeing Jet Blue was cheaper, I can honestly say I don't kow that the adage "you get what you pay for" holds true for this airline. First of all, you don't always pay very cheap on Spirit, but your still stuck in those dinky seats that I, Miss Shorty Von Short Short felt comletly squooshed in. Jet Blue had so much leg and arm room AND direct TVs. Spirit cramps you into the seat, supposedly offers snacks and drinks for sale (though to be honest I had a headset on, and they may have come around and I just didn't hear them), and practically charges you to use the air conditioning.
That said, both Spirit and other airlines have instituted a fee for check luggage. Now before this happened, there were a few souls who did not want to wait for their luggage or chance it getting lost, so they brought it aboard. Now, everyone does, and there is no one checking size and weight. It's almost like that old college trick of how many people can we get in the phone booth. Now, it's "Let's see how big of a suitcase and how much of my stuff can I get away with as carry-on." This tends not to be a problem for me, since I either spring for the extra few bucks, fly an airline that gives you one free bag, or I pack small enough that I can stick under the seat in front of me (the whole short thing again). There needs to be a point at which people say "you know, we're headed to visit the kids for two weeks, maybe we shouldn't try to bring these two overstuffed medium sized suitcases on board." Though, on the other hand, no one will stop you (if they do at all)until you actually try to get on the plane or are on the plane trying to stick it on top of row three even though your seat is in row 26, so you can probably ge check it for free, avoid the baggage and overweight charges. Brilliant.
It does however make for frustrating travel when everyone is rushing to get on the plane so there's room for all their extra -large-no-way-in-heck-is this-hand-luggage to fit on top. Then you wait to get on as other passengers are trying to find an empty space for their bags, cramming up the aisles while you wait in the freezing cold jetway getting nauseous from the outside plane and truck fumes cuz you haven't taken your dramamine yet since you don't want to risk taking it to early, and even when you get to your seat you're taking a chance since you never know when you're actually going to take off.
Off to do shopping, and probably get more doughnuts!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Purple Progress
Lest anyone accuse me of only posting about my favorite football team when I've got something to complain about, I need to congratulate the Minnesota Vikings on their fine performance last night. The Vikings beat the Chicago Bears, 34-14, and they now lead the NFC North, sporting a 7-5 record with four games to go in the regular season.
The game turned on an incredible five-play sequence in the second quarter. After the Bears, then holding a 7-3 lead, reached the Vikings' 2 yard line, the Vikings' defense held for four straight plays, stuffing three consecutive running attempts. After the last one, the Vikings took over on downs, holding the Bears without any points, but were backed up at their one yard line.On their first offensive play, quarterback Gus Frerotte dropped back into his own end zone and heaved the ball deep down the left sideline, where he hit a wide-open Bernard Berrian in full stride. Berrian caught the ball at the Vikings' 45 yard line, then sprinted the rest of the way for a 99-yard, game-changing score. The Vikings had gone from potentially being on the short end of a 14-3 score to leading 10-7, in the span of about a minute. They never looked back from that point.
With the victory, the Vikings lead the NFC North division with a 7-5 record. The Bears are 6-6, while the Green Bay Packers are 5-7. However, there's still plenty of football left to be played, so anything could happen.
While the Vikings have played well since my last post, two weeks ago, there are still some trouble spots. For one thing, the play-calling remains suspect. The coaching staff seems determined to run the ball, even when the defense is clearly playing to stop the run. It seems as though the Vikings only pass the ball on 3rd down. I think that they need to pass more often on first down. For one thing, it will keep the defense honest, thereby opening things up for the running game. Secondly, with defenses attempting to stack things against the run on first and second down, that's when the Vikings will find it easier to find some receivers open down the field. In general, Gus Frerotte remains inconsistent; at this stage, he could just as easily lose a game for you as he can win it for you.
So, while the special teams coverage, the pass rush and the offensive line play have shown improvement, this is still a rather flawed team.
It should be an interesting December.
The game turned on an incredible five-play sequence in the second quarter. After the Bears, then holding a 7-3 lead, reached the Vikings' 2 yard line, the Vikings' defense held for four straight plays, stuffing three consecutive running attempts. After the last one, the Vikings took over on downs, holding the Bears without any points, but were backed up at their one yard line.On their first offensive play, quarterback Gus Frerotte dropped back into his own end zone and heaved the ball deep down the left sideline, where he hit a wide-open Bernard Berrian in full stride. Berrian caught the ball at the Vikings' 45 yard line, then sprinted the rest of the way for a 99-yard, game-changing score. The Vikings had gone from potentially being on the short end of a 14-3 score to leading 10-7, in the span of about a minute. They never looked back from that point.
With the victory, the Vikings lead the NFC North division with a 7-5 record. The Bears are 6-6, while the Green Bay Packers are 5-7. However, there's still plenty of football left to be played, so anything could happen.
While the Vikings have played well since my last post, two weeks ago, there are still some trouble spots. For one thing, the play-calling remains suspect. The coaching staff seems determined to run the ball, even when the defense is clearly playing to stop the run. It seems as though the Vikings only pass the ball on 3rd down. I think that they need to pass more often on first down. For one thing, it will keep the defense honest, thereby opening things up for the running game. Secondly, with defenses attempting to stack things against the run on first and second down, that's when the Vikings will find it easier to find some receivers open down the field. In general, Gus Frerotte remains inconsistent; at this stage, he could just as easily lose a game for you as he can win it for you.
So, while the special teams coverage, the pass rush and the offensive line play have shown improvement, this is still a rather flawed team.
It should be an interesting December.
A Space Oddity
Yesterday, the space shuttle Endeavour (Why do we need to use the British spelling for our space shuttles? Does this give them more gravitas? Are they telling us that the $1.7 billion price tag is not sufficient to make it seem important?) completed its 22nd mission, returning to Earth after a 16-day trip. The mission went rather smoothly, with the exception of one minor glitch at the end. Due to stormy weather in Florida, the shuttle had to land in California, at Edwards Air Force Base.
I've never been a fan of the space program, and have always considered it to be a colossal waste of money. Whenever I point this out to anyone, the argument is always the same. Think of all the scientific and technological advances that have been derived from the space program. My counter-argument is that I still don't believe that these "advances" represent a good return on our investment (ROI). It's pretty interesting, when you think about it. NASA probably employs some of the greatest mathematical minds in this -- or any -- country. Yet, no one in the place seems to be able to put together an ROI calculation. Simply put, the space program is not worth it.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing we've ever accomplished through the space program occurred almost 40 years ago, when we put a man on the moon. That was an accomplishment, but not for any scientific reason. Rather, it allows people like me to properly express their frustration over any kind of technological or mechanical failing by invoking the lunar landing. As in, "This is ridiculous. We can put a man on the moon, but I can't get decent water pressure in my shower?!"
To some, space exploration remains important, as it can help us learn about the potential existence of intelligent life on other planets. I think that we still need to find more intelligent life on this planet.
Speaking of life on other planets, there are some people who live in great fear of alien visitors. They worry that they will be abducted by aliens, and subjected to all sorts of unfortunate things, including the infamous, highly-invasive "probe." I, however, do not worry about being abducted by aliens, for two reasons:
(1) Based upon the stories I've heard of alleged alien abductions, I'm pretty certain that I don't meet the demographic criteria for potential victims. The aliens appear to have focused their abduction efforts south of the Mason-Dixon line. Specifically, they're interested in redneck guys named Earl, who hang around "back of the mini-mart," spitting tobacco juice and generally minding their own business. I'm not sure why, but this seems pretty consistent. Who knows, perhaps on some other planet, far, far, away, some frustrated being is saying "I don't get it. We can destroy all six moons of Zarkon 9 using only light-emitting weapons, and we can't make a probe that doesn't require a Budweiser catalyst?!"
(2) If aliens ever did abduct me, I'm certain that before long, they'd make me their leader. Hopefully before they got around to the probe. That's not a pleasant experience on any planet.
Rest assured, if this ever did occur, I would not let my new status get to my head. Depending upon the conditions of the planet in question, my reign would be characterized by a benevolent-yet-authoritative style. As to my title, I must say, I've never felt comfortable with names like "king" or "emperor." "His Excellency?" Way over the top. Rather, I think that I would go with a ruling-class nomenclature based upon the 7-11 beverage size hierarchy. For example, members of Congress would be known as "Gulps," members of my cabinet would be referred to as "Big Gulps," and I, as the highest-ranking official, would be known as "Super Gulp." (I am fully aware of the fact that there is an even higher level, that of Double Gulp. However, to give someone the title of "Double Gulp" is just plain silly).
Anyway, I was glad to hear that the latest shuttle mission went off without any problems. Then again, the change in landing spot was possibly quite an inconvenience. I imagine that the following conversation took place on the shuttle, as its crew prepared for re-entry.
Spaceman Bob (on the headset, speaking to Ground Control): What's that? Weather's rough in Florida? You want us to land in California? At Andrews? Okay.
Spaceman Bill: What's up?
Spaceman Bob: That was the Chinese space station. They said that the delivery pod was malfunctioning, so they can't deliver our take-out order. No, I'm just kidding. Actually, it was Ground Control. They said we're going to have to land in California. There's bad weather in Florida.
Spaceman Bill: Oh, okay.
Spaceman Joe (from the back of the shuttle): What? California? You have got to be kidding me!
Spaceman Bob: Yeah, they said the weather's bad in Florida.
Spaceman Joe: Great. Just great.
Spaceman Bill: Dude, what's the big deal? It's easy enough to land this thing at Andrews.
Spaceman Joe: I'll tell you what the big deal is. I parked my car at the long-term lot at the spaceport in Florida. Now, how am I going to get home? (muttering): Stupid NASA.
Yes, readers, our space program. Expensive, inefficient, and at times, incredibly inconvenient.
I've never been a fan of the space program, and have always considered it to be a colossal waste of money. Whenever I point this out to anyone, the argument is always the same. Think of all the scientific and technological advances that have been derived from the space program. My counter-argument is that I still don't believe that these "advances" represent a good return on our investment (ROI). It's pretty interesting, when you think about it. NASA probably employs some of the greatest mathematical minds in this -- or any -- country. Yet, no one in the place seems to be able to put together an ROI calculation. Simply put, the space program is not worth it.
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing we've ever accomplished through the space program occurred almost 40 years ago, when we put a man on the moon. That was an accomplishment, but not for any scientific reason. Rather, it allows people like me to properly express their frustration over any kind of technological or mechanical failing by invoking the lunar landing. As in, "This is ridiculous. We can put a man on the moon, but I can't get decent water pressure in my shower?!"
To some, space exploration remains important, as it can help us learn about the potential existence of intelligent life on other planets. I think that we still need to find more intelligent life on this planet.
Speaking of life on other planets, there are some people who live in great fear of alien visitors. They worry that they will be abducted by aliens, and subjected to all sorts of unfortunate things, including the infamous, highly-invasive "probe." I, however, do not worry about being abducted by aliens, for two reasons:
(1) Based upon the stories I've heard of alleged alien abductions, I'm pretty certain that I don't meet the demographic criteria for potential victims. The aliens appear to have focused their abduction efforts south of the Mason-Dixon line. Specifically, they're interested in redneck guys named Earl, who hang around "back of the mini-mart," spitting tobacco juice and generally minding their own business. I'm not sure why, but this seems pretty consistent. Who knows, perhaps on some other planet, far, far, away, some frustrated being is saying "I don't get it. We can destroy all six moons of Zarkon 9 using only light-emitting weapons, and we can't make a probe that doesn't require a Budweiser catalyst?!"
(2) If aliens ever did abduct me, I'm certain that before long, they'd make me their leader. Hopefully before they got around to the probe. That's not a pleasant experience on any planet.
Rest assured, if this ever did occur, I would not let my new status get to my head. Depending upon the conditions of the planet in question, my reign would be characterized by a benevolent-yet-authoritative style. As to my title, I must say, I've never felt comfortable with names like "king" or "emperor." "His Excellency?" Way over the top. Rather, I think that I would go with a ruling-class nomenclature based upon the 7-11 beverage size hierarchy. For example, members of Congress would be known as "Gulps," members of my cabinet would be referred to as "Big Gulps," and I, as the highest-ranking official, would be known as "Super Gulp." (I am fully aware of the fact that there is an even higher level, that of Double Gulp. However, to give someone the title of "Double Gulp" is just plain silly).
Anyway, I was glad to hear that the latest shuttle mission went off without any problems. Then again, the change in landing spot was possibly quite an inconvenience. I imagine that the following conversation took place on the shuttle, as its crew prepared for re-entry.
Spaceman Bob (on the headset, speaking to Ground Control): What's that? Weather's rough in Florida? You want us to land in California? At Andrews? Okay.
Spaceman Bill: What's up?
Spaceman Bob: That was the Chinese space station. They said that the delivery pod was malfunctioning, so they can't deliver our take-out order. No, I'm just kidding. Actually, it was Ground Control. They said we're going to have to land in California. There's bad weather in Florida.
Spaceman Bill: Oh, okay.
Spaceman Joe (from the back of the shuttle): What? California? You have got to be kidding me!
Spaceman Bob: Yeah, they said the weather's bad in Florida.
Spaceman Joe: Great. Just great.
Spaceman Bill: Dude, what's the big deal? It's easy enough to land this thing at Andrews.
Spaceman Joe: I'll tell you what the big deal is. I parked my car at the long-term lot at the spaceport in Florida. Now, how am I going to get home? (muttering): Stupid NASA.
Yes, readers, our space program. Expensive, inefficient, and at times, incredibly inconvenient.
Field of Broken Dreams
With the government stepping in last week to bailout Citigroup, pledging tens of billions of dollars to prop up the teetering banking behemoth, the question on everyone's mind is, "Who is to blame for this mess?" Vikram Pandit? Chuck Prince? Sandy Weill?
Well, IcebergCarwash is here to provide answers, and we've got the answer to this vexing question as well.
Come to think of it, we have the answers to most any question, relating to topics ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. With the exception of one question, that is.
"How many jelly beans are in this jar?"
I've got to admit, I've never come close to answering this question accurately. Whether it's jelly beans, coffee beans, rubber bands, you name it, I've probably never been within 20% of the correct answer. Heck, if you spread out ten chocolate chip cookies on a nine inch plate, and offered an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish to the first person to guess correctly how many cookies were on the plate, I'd blow that one too. I've just got a mental block when it comes to these things. I'm no Rain Man.
I guess you've just got to have a knack for it. Like that guy a few years ago who walked into my local 7-11 store, took one look at the jar of coffee beans, and said "35,271." The store manager said, "Close. It's 35,270. You win," and handed him a certificate for a free lifetime supply of Slurpees. He grinned, and then walked out of the store triumphantly, whereupon he spent the next 25 minutes trying to figure out where he parked his car.
So, if you come across one of those contests, don't call me. You're on your own.
Where was I? Ah, yes. We were attempting to assign blame for Citigroup's downfall. The answer is simple.
The Mets.
As in The New York Metropolitans Baseball Club.
In the spirit of full disclosure (which is a real staple here at IcebergCarwash), I am a New York Yankees fan. As a fan of the most successful sports franchise in the history of mankind (as measured by the number of championships won), I very rarely pay any attention to New York's other team. To a Yankees fan, the Mets resemble a mosquito bite on one's backside. Rarely considered, somewhat unsightly and every once in a while, annoying. Unlike Mets fans, who seem obsessed with the Yankees, rooting against them with almost the same fervor with which they pull for their own squad, Yankees fans don't pay much attention to the Mets. They don't really register on our radar screens.
The reality is that the Mets are losers, as evidenced by their annual, epic September collapses, and the fact that they've only won two World Series in their 47 years of existence. Nor are the franchise's failings confined to the field of play. The Mets turn everything they associate with into losers as well. (Interestingly, I know many Mets fans who are not losers. Their ability to defy the odds and remain untainted by their association with the team is remarkable, and is truly one of the great inspirational stories of our time).
In the case of Citigroup, the connection here is too obvious to overlook. On November 13, 2006, the Mets announced that Citigroup had bought the naming rights to the Mets' new stadium, which would hereafter be referred to as "Citi Field," for a whopping $400 million over 20 years. I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of the Mets building a new stadium, nor the fact that Citigroup has said that it remains committed to this sponsorship deal, even as it begs the government for funds. At issue here is the effect arising from an affiliation with the Mets. Citigroup's stock peaked within a few weeks of the announcement of the sponsorship. Since the day of the announcement, Citigroup's shares are down more than 85%, and its very viability as a going concern has been questioned.
Clearly, the Mets have brought down one of our banking giants, and perhaps the rest of the global financial system with it. It's just too bad that no one thought of harnessing this incredible power for a good use. For example, had John McCain spent every dollar he raised in his campaign on naming the new stadium "Barack Obama Field," he'd probably be the President-elect today. If the U.S. Government, which is already throwing around taxpayer dollars like confetti, would buy the naming rights to the place, and name it "Al Qaeda Park," we'd soon be able to breeze through airport security with as much as four ounces of liquid in our carry-on bags.
In retrospect, I find it amazing that Citigroup was not aware of this before it agreed to the sponsorship. I guess they've now learned the hard way. I wonder how much money the Mets would charge Citigroup to agree to remove the Citi name?
Well, IcebergCarwash is here to provide answers, and we've got the answer to this vexing question as well.
Come to think of it, we have the answers to most any question, relating to topics ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. With the exception of one question, that is.
"How many jelly beans are in this jar?"
I've got to admit, I've never come close to answering this question accurately. Whether it's jelly beans, coffee beans, rubber bands, you name it, I've probably never been within 20% of the correct answer. Heck, if you spread out ten chocolate chip cookies on a nine inch plate, and offered an Aston Martin V12 Vanquish to the first person to guess correctly how many cookies were on the plate, I'd blow that one too. I've just got a mental block when it comes to these things. I'm no Rain Man.
I guess you've just got to have a knack for it. Like that guy a few years ago who walked into my local 7-11 store, took one look at the jar of coffee beans, and said "35,271." The store manager said, "Close. It's 35,270. You win," and handed him a certificate for a free lifetime supply of Slurpees. He grinned, and then walked out of the store triumphantly, whereupon he spent the next 25 minutes trying to figure out where he parked his car.
So, if you come across one of those contests, don't call me. You're on your own.
Where was I? Ah, yes. We were attempting to assign blame for Citigroup's downfall. The answer is simple.
The Mets.
As in The New York Metropolitans Baseball Club.
In the spirit of full disclosure (which is a real staple here at IcebergCarwash), I am a New York Yankees fan. As a fan of the most successful sports franchise in the history of mankind (as measured by the number of championships won), I very rarely pay any attention to New York's other team. To a Yankees fan, the Mets resemble a mosquito bite on one's backside. Rarely considered, somewhat unsightly and every once in a while, annoying. Unlike Mets fans, who seem obsessed with the Yankees, rooting against them with almost the same fervor with which they pull for their own squad, Yankees fans don't pay much attention to the Mets. They don't really register on our radar screens.
The reality is that the Mets are losers, as evidenced by their annual, epic September collapses, and the fact that they've only won two World Series in their 47 years of existence. Nor are the franchise's failings confined to the field of play. The Mets turn everything they associate with into losers as well. (Interestingly, I know many Mets fans who are not losers. Their ability to defy the odds and remain untainted by their association with the team is remarkable, and is truly one of the great inspirational stories of our time).
In the case of Citigroup, the connection here is too obvious to overlook. On November 13, 2006, the Mets announced that Citigroup had bought the naming rights to the Mets' new stadium, which would hereafter be referred to as "Citi Field," for a whopping $400 million over 20 years. I'm not going to discuss the pros and cons of the Mets building a new stadium, nor the fact that Citigroup has said that it remains committed to this sponsorship deal, even as it begs the government for funds. At issue here is the effect arising from an affiliation with the Mets. Citigroup's stock peaked within a few weeks of the announcement of the sponsorship. Since the day of the announcement, Citigroup's shares are down more than 85%, and its very viability as a going concern has been questioned.
Clearly, the Mets have brought down one of our banking giants, and perhaps the rest of the global financial system with it. It's just too bad that no one thought of harnessing this incredible power for a good use. For example, had John McCain spent every dollar he raised in his campaign on naming the new stadium "Barack Obama Field," he'd probably be the President-elect today. If the U.S. Government, which is already throwing around taxpayer dollars like confetti, would buy the naming rights to the place, and name it "Al Qaeda Park," we'd soon be able to breeze through airport security with as much as four ounces of liquid in our carry-on bags.
In retrospect, I find it amazing that Citigroup was not aware of this before it agreed to the sponsorship. I guess they've now learned the hard way. I wonder how much money the Mets would charge Citigroup to agree to remove the Citi name?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)