A Veteran's Day Prayer

A quick post for Veteran's Day. Let's have fewer of them. Veterans, that is. Let's enter armed conflict as a last resort, not the first. The idea of projecting a military presence, in my opinion, should be for defensive purposes only. That would rule out our current adventures in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as other locales where the metastasis of radical Islam spreads.

This approach would have also ruled out our participation in Vietnam and Korea. In fact, the last justifiable use of military force was in Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11 and, before that, World War II.

Yes, it's true that generals need wars to fight and the defense industry needs markets for its bombs and fighter jets, but there are far better ways to spend tax dollars than feeding the maw of national defense and fighting wars that never end and that have little to do with national security.

Let's celebrate Veteran's Day by honoring those who fought and by encouraging our government to pursue policies that make this day less and less necessary.

Don't Bother with the 2016 Election Yet

One of several things that makes Canada more appealing than the U.S. these days, in addition to single-payer health care and a tendency to avoid fighting endless wars in the Middle East, is their national elections.

There was outrage among our northern neighbors when their recent election that brought liberals crashing into office that the campaign lasted an elongated nine months--an obscene length of time! What a waste of national resources and attention--don't people have better things to do with their time?

This is written, of course, with tongue in cheek, since we live in a land where the next presidential election race starts a few hours after the previous one ends. If a candidate doesn't announce at least 18 months before the general election, he/she doesn't stand a chance.

Elections in Canada, and most other civilized countries, are federally funded. Ours, of course, are funded by influence-seeking tycoons, corporations, and special interest groups who lard up our system with enough cash that could wire all of Africa with fiber optic cable or maybe even address the decrepit infrastructure here in the good 'ole U.S.

And what have we seen so far in the current contest? One party is reduced to the lunatic fringe that wants to cut taxes for rich people; take away health insurance from poor, middle class, and old people; send more folks over to fight dumb wars in the Middle East, prevent women from making important choices regarding their health; and build walls across our southern and northern border to keep out people who really don't want to come here.

The other party wants to expand social programs, health insurance, and infrastructure repairs by raising taxes that the majority opposition party will never approve in a million years.

In other words, nobody is talking seriously yet. Maybe when the final candidates emerge and they stop dissing each other long enough to, just maybe, seriously address some of today's important issues, our ears should prick up and even take an interest.

That hasn't happened yet. I say you should enjoy the football season and have a merry holiday season and just ignore politics for a while. The New Hampshire primary isn't until February.

A Half-Hearted Endorsment of Long Distance Running

Last weekend I completed the Mohawk Hudson Marathon in and around Albany, New York, and, as usual, around Mile 18 I was wondering "What is the point?" It was a glorious cool autumn day, a flat and relatively unchallenging course, but, as always I was feeling the creeping intimations of death at that point.

I was plagued with various cramps and side stitches for most of the second half of the race and by the time the last few miles rolled around my the legs were going, the feet were sore, and the rest of me was just plain sorry tired. Of course this happens whenever I run a marathon because a marathon is a very very long distance.

Very long.

But Mr. Stupid has run 11 of them over the past 10 years and he keeps doing them knowing what they do to him. Why is that? Is it because at my advanced age fun sports like basketball, baseball, hockey and football are just too dangerous and running and swimming are about all that's left? But even people of advanced age like myself finally gain some sense and start doing fewer marathons and focus on shorter races, or just stop running altogether. 

The field for this marathon was very fast and competitive, but you could see the drop-off in participation even at this elite level. There were only 28 people in my age group (60-64) out of 1,200 runners. The next age group (60-65) there were only 5--and zero women. Does one gain a measure of essential wisdom at age 65 and stop doing these things?

So, what's the point for me? Running after a certain number of miles stops being fun--and that point for me is way before 26.2 miles! I chalk the whole thing up to a personal philosophy. Modern life is pretty easy. We have elevators, cars with automatic transmission, and chairs that adjust themselves at a push of a button. We don't have to do too many hard things from a physical standpoint.

I happen to believe that's it's good to do something hard every once in a while. Maybe once or twice a year. Running 26.2 miles is hard, but it's possible and there is a certain euphoria upon completion. 

But of course that's usually followed by three or four days of very achy quads.

Et Tu Toys R Us?

As seen here, Toys R Us has hopped on the bandwagon as a nefarious abuser of HB1 visas by displacing fully functional American workers with far cheaper Asian workers. 

I especially liked a comment from one of the article's readers:

"You would think it would make more sense to ship all of those executive jobs overseas. Sure, sending accounting and IT jobs overseas saves some money, but think how much money you could save hiring an Indian CEO for 1% of what an American CEO would make! Tremendous value could be returned to the shareholders. Not to mention if you fired all the overpaid, lazy American shareholders and hired Chinese shareholders in their place, who would be too afraid of losing their stock to agitate for higher dividends. Then you could just stack up all the money the company has saved, toss it up in the air, and yell, "I'm rich, I'm rich!" like Scrooge McDuck!"

I guess this outfit joins Disney as suitable to boycott!

It's a Two-Way Street--Comments Welcome

My total lack of sophistication when it comes to digital expression and social media cannot be understated. For example, I just got my first smart phone about two weeks ago, which has introduced untold anxiety and confusion in my life.

But about this blog. I guess when I set it up, I did it all wrong. It seems I made it almost impossible for readers to post comments. It would've provided me great joy to receive comments and spark conversations and I was wondering why I wasn't getting any after 100-plus posts. It's possible that these posts are so unbearably boring that readers are left dumbfounded afterwards. But, nah, a bunch of you seem to like them and I'm sure you have stuff to contribute--if only you could.

So I did some research and juggled the settings the other day and, shazzam! now you can comment. But still, Blogger doesn't make it easy. In order to comment, you must:

1. Click on "No Comment" link at the end of the post (Poor choice of words IMO)
2. A text box pops up in which you enter your pearls of wisdom
3. Under "Comment as", click on the drop down menu and choose "Anonymous" (I don't know why! As Google.)
4. Hit "Publish"

As a test, I urge you all to give this a shot, even if you don't have anything special to say--maybe give me a weather update in your part of the world to make sure the comment link is working. Please make me not feel like I'm baying at a cold and indifferent moon.

More Housekeeping

While we're taking care of some household items, let me remind you that if you like what you're reading here, there's more of that here in my highly rated novel that's become too much of a secret. Yes, I'm shilling for my book, but that's what you do when you're a one-man writin' and promotin' operation.

I also have this one and it's free!!! (and well worth the price.)

Statistics That Could Restore My Faith in Mankind

Time, experience, and temperament cause me to conclude that some of our species are rude, wasteful, tasteless, and dumb. You see evidence all around you in the news, on the streets, in overheard conversations, and, most pervasively, on the Internet.

That is not to say that I am necessarily a pessimist or a misanthrope. In fact, I hope most of my observations and conclusions are based on hard evidence, even though hard evidence is often hard to come by. Many abide by the saying "One bad apple doesn't spoil the whole bunch (girl)". And I hope they're right. But give me the data, please. I would love to see statistical evidence that shows the following to be the thoughts and work of a very small minority of miscreants. In other words, show me the:

• Percentage of smokers who toss their consumed butts out the window of moving vehicles.
• Percentage of car occupants who dispose of their used candy wrappers, hamburger holders, super-sized drink cups, and other trash out the window of moving vehicles.
• Percentage of gym patrons who leave their wet towels on the floor and benches in locker rooms.
• Percentage of people who shout into cell phones on commuter trains.
• Percentage of people who miss the trash can and don't pick bother picking it up.
• Percentage of people who tip less than 10% in restaurants.
• Percentage of people who truly care about anything Kardashian.
• Percentage of people who actually believe if everyone carried loaded guns there would be fewer shooting deaths.
• Percentage of guys who actually like wearing ties to work.
• Percentage of women who actually like wearing dresses and pantyhose to work.
• Percentage of restaurant patrons who don't mind waiters who do not divulge the prices of today's specials.
• Percentage of people who leave their trash on the table at self-serve restaurants.
• Percentage of people who go to the movies so that they can text in the dark.
• Percentage of people who actually like the taste of Bud Light.
• Percentage of slow runners who start races at the front and make faster runners go around them.
• Percentage of dog owners who don't scoop Fido's poop.
• Percentage of dog owners who let their mutts run free and then reassure people who are cornered by the beast that "Fido's really friendly."
• Percentage of weekend bicyclists who wear spandex outfits with European logos who actually think they look cool.
• Percentage of congressmen who actually have a clue.
• Percentage of towns that don't allow right turn on red at any of their intersections.
• Percentage of of NJ shore towns that don't have any streets above 25 mph.
• Percentage of guys with shaved heads who think they actually look good.
• Percentage of people who ask "How are you?" and don't wait for an answer.
• Percentage of people who watch Fox News for, you know, the news.
• Percentage of females who talk like valley girls and don't think they sound stupid.
• Percentage of guys my age who actually listen to hip hop.
• Percentage of people who own SUVs and actually need a vehicle that large.
• Percentage of people who enjoy commercial air flight.
• Percentage of people in corporations who truly believe that anything productive comes out of brainstorming sessions.
• Percentage of executives who think team-building exercises have anything but the opposite effect.
• Percentage of consumers who prefer plain yogurt.

This is my short list. Feel free to add your own thoughts.

Wine: I Just Don't Get It

I just had a very good glass of wine--always a good idea prior to writing fiction or a blog post. (Not so good an idea before doing taxes.) It was a white wine from the Bordeaux region and very reasonably priced at around $15. 

The thing is, I'm not really sure why I liked it. I never really know why I like a particular wine. It was a little fruity--but I don't know if the fruit was raspberry, currant, citrus or celery. It had a nice after-taste, what is known as "finish," but I don't know if the finish was mineral, tannic, or oak. 

I also don't know if the wine was supposed be drunk now or several years in the future.  I never know. And I don't know if the wine would taste better with a savory veal dish or a simple pan-fried snapper. 

All I know is that I liked the wine. I'm pretty good a telling whether a wine costs $5 or $50, but not so good about $30 vs. $100. Words are my vocation, but words fail me when it comes to describing wine, a topic in which experts never seem to run out of words to describe. Usually I'm left with--"really tasty," or "disgusting swill."

This is weird and frustrating. When it comes to food, I'm pretty good at deconstructing ingredients, flavors and textures and can readily tell the difference between excellence in the kitchen and what you usually get.

So as a semi-serious cook, I'll just have to live with the fact that I will never be a critical judge of wines, but at least I'll always know what I like.

Dirty Cup Part II

Seems like I'm not the only one who believes in crusty tea cups. Julian, a follower of this blog, says disgusting habits like mine are traditional in Asia--and here reprinted with his permission is his own "dirty cup" story: 

About your "dirty" cup: it happens that the tea residue on teapots is traditional in Asia, and supposedly adds to the flavor. So, once upon a time, in my rolling stone years, I carried with me a little green porcelain teapot that I stole from my mother and that I never washed. It got nice and brown on the inside. I brewed tea very strong and drank a lot and had my little rituals. 

When I left England to start a new job at Oakland University, my little pot, broken and mended several times, but still nicely brown on the inside, made its second trans-Atlantic voyage and sat on my new office's bookshelf. And then I came in to work one day and the sweet mid-Western woman who was the department secretary had taken pity on the new twenty-something male instructor with the beard and odd habits, and scrubbed his filthy teapot!! It's never been the same since. In fact, I disposed of it a few years ago after yet another break. It never acquired the same patina. 

As for the secretary, we became good friends. She was about 10 years older than I. The former department head, who had hired me en passant, so to speak, as he left, had been a bit irascible and she missed him. So when I started writing very biting letters to various people, she really enjoyed typing them up. Then we would keep them for a day, and write something a bit more more subtle (and polite). She was the one I miss most there when I left. I even forgave the clean teapot, although for the rest of my life, I have never had one as good. 

This cup hasn't been washed in 8 years

Every afternoon at work I have a cup of green tea after lunch to help avert a mid-day stupor. This is the cup I have been using for nearly the past decade. It has never been washed!

I got the inspiration for not washing this cup from an old Ironside TV show in the late 1960s starring Raymond Burr (aka Perry Mason) as the crippled Chief of Detectives Robert T. Ironside. Though a brilliant crime-solver, he had a nasty temperament and very strong opinions about most things. He was notorious for making his coffee in a beat-up tin pot and insisting that the pot never be rinsed or washed between makings.

Of course this grossed out his fellow detectives and became a running joke thoughout the series and you could count on Ironside's explosive temper getting the better of him if anyone came near the pot with soap and water.

Yes, my cup has gotten the stink eye from several co-workers and some suggeset that it could be harboring all kinds of nasty microbes. I counter with the fact that I seldom get sick, which may be attributable to the resistance I've built up against nasty microbes in general based on drinking from a filthy cup.

But here's the news. I have retired the cup. Recently my group moved to a new building--a brand new building in Newark. A spanking clean, pristine high rise with ultra modern conveniences and state-of-the-art amenities. As the most veteran member of my department, I'm not sure that his dog quite fits in at our new digs. But I do know that my cup doesn't.

I guess its time to make changes. I have a new cup for my daily tea, and I'm not sure if I'll wash this one either. If I don't, it might be a little charming to have a grungy little fixture in my current antiseptic environment. Or maybe I should get on the stick and make it as sparkling clean as everything else around me.

I'm torn.

As for the old cup, I was thinking of a ritual smashing. But it has served me well and it still doesn't leak. At this point it is unclean-able. Maybe I should plant something in it. A mini tea-tree?

My new cup

Our Kids are Being Left Behind

As made clear in this article in the NY Times, the millennial generation, those between the ages of 18 and 34, are on track to endure less prosperity and more insecurity in their lives than preceding generations.

As the writer points out, despite being better educated, more socially connected, and just as energetic as previous generations, millennials have lower earnings, higher debt, higher unemployment, and fewer career opportunities.

As the article states, this generation is "faced with a slow economy, high unemployment, stagnant wages and student loans that constrict their ability both to maintain a reasonable lifestyle and save for the future." The days of paying for college with part-time jobs and summer work that many in my baby boomer population were able to depend on are long over. Also, jobs out of college pay less on an inflation-adjusted basis compared to prior generations.

So what can be done? First, the economy needs real growth, which isn't happening now. There must be more investment--in infrastructure, education, and research--all of which could lead to jobs, and higher paying jobs--especially for this generation. And with interest rates as low as they are, there's never been a better time to spend.

What the article gets wrong is its focus on the national debt "problem," which is not really a problem. The solutions mentioned above will help grow the economy and will pay for themselves through a broadened tax base, especially from better-employed millennials.

But taxes will have to go up (mostly on the wealthy) given the level of government participation needed to jumpstart the economy. As it is, Americans pay much less per capita than other first world countries, despite what the Grover Norquists of the world say, and much less than what we paid during the glory years of President Reagan.

And, once again, there is no need to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare, which are on reasonably sound financial footing (except for SSI disability) and require only minor tweaks over the next 15 years to remain so for the next 50 years. The article's author, of course, is a Wall Street guy and Wall Street guys just hate so-called entitlement programs--especially those like Social Security and Medicare, which are self-funding.

I have two kids in the millennial generation, and like any dad, I want to see my kids to better than me, at least from a financial standpoint. The situation they face today is unfair and not of their doing. But there are clear-cut answers at hand.

The Mystery of FIOS

I'm one of the millions of disgruntled Comcast customers who are sick and tired of erratic Internet performance, over-priced TV packages, balky reception, interminable waits for telephone assistance, and constant price creep in my monthly bills whenever they find a "mistake" and incorrect charges that always seem to be in Comcast's favor.

I am also located in a part of town that provides zero competition for my business--unless you call satellite dishes and Verizon DSL "competition." So imagine our joy when my wife went on the Verizon website and discovered that FIOS was finally available in our ZIP code. We spontaneously broke out in the dance of joy at the news! Everyone I know who has FIOS expressed maximum bliss over FIOS service, speed and reliability.

But when I dug a little deeper, I was crestfallen to discover that my particular block was not yet wired for FIOS, even though neighborhoods in my ZIP code have had FIOS for years.

So what gives? I called Verizon, and over the course of being passed around by a half dozen different drones in the call center over the course of about an hour I found no one who could give me a straight answer as to why my town has FIOS but my street does not--or whether FIOS would ever come to my street.

So I called City Hall, trying to find the party responsible for CATV negotiations. The gentleman who administers such things said FIOS is contracted to provide services in my town, but it's up to Verizon to decide when and where to string the blessed fiber optic cables that are behind the magic.

"Did you try calling Verizon?" he suggested. I thanked him and hung up.

The whole FIOS thing is a mystery and I know what you're thinking. Just unplug the cable, buy a digital antenna and get local HD for free and stream NetFlicks, Hulu, Amazon or whatever. Yes, but I'm a sports fan and it's impossible to stream YES to get the Yankees and Nets or MSG for the Knicks. And my wife likes a bunch of cable channels that currently don't stream, so we're stuck.

As we're slowly bled by the Comcast cartel, I'm left to wonder what exactly are the benefits to consumers when industries consolidate to the point of virtual monopolies like Comcast and Verizon? And don't get me started on the airlines industry!

Perhaps one day we'll wake up and FIOS will have magically made its way into our neighborhood. One can dream.

Gone Girls

As of June 21, 2015, my wife and I became empty-nesters. We married off the last of our two daughters to a very nice guy, which followed by nearly five years the evacuation of her older sister to the joys of marriage, again to a very nice guy.

The literature indicates that many parents facing this milestone in life find it unendurable and search out the nearest bridge from which to make a flying leap. So far, the adjustment for us has not been quite that intense, though we did moon about for the first week or so. My wife took it pretty hard and even I was less stoic than I had expected.

We both know that there will be certain traditions and rhythms that will change by not having the kids around as much. I imagine there will be fewer Chipotle Fridays and evenings of riotous dinner banter. But we'll adjust.

My wife, a wise person, has sensibly made it a point to establish some new traditions. We will go out to eat at least once a week, spend more time with friends, try to make new friends (a thought that makes me cringe), and be more open to last minute spontaneous activities. Things like that should help fill the void of fewer Erica and Natalie encounters.

Of course I had big plans. Two vacant bedrooms to work with. My vision was a music studio in one and a writing room in the other. Unfortunately, those bedrooms remain fully occupied by our kids' stuff for the indefinite future, so that means that neither my wife nor I can repurpose those spaces more effectively.

In the end, I guess we are all better off. Erica and Natalie are off to a great start in the more permanent parts of their lives, and Micky and I can return to the days of pre-kid bliss that we enjoyed for a decade before becoming model parents.

Still, the eerie silence of our Gone Girls will probably still be an issue every now and then. In which case, maybe the best move is to turn up the music a little louder and make the martinis a little colder.

Weighing in on Chris Christie: Presidential Candidate

(Sorry for the somewhat insensitive title--but the governor himself often makes light of his heavy!)

So let's see, New Jersey still has among the highest property taxes in the country, which Christie promised to fix six years ago; our infrastructure and highways are crumbling from total neglect and the governor's refusal to raise the the NJ gas tax--the nation's lowest--to pay for repairs. Three years after Superstorm Sandy people are still trying to get federal money to fix their homes; Christie cancelled the tunnel project to Manhattan in the teeth of the recession, which cost thousands of jobs plus an easer commute to NYC; lost millions in federal education aid because his people didn't file the correct forms on time; and illegally refuses to fund the state pension obligations after promising to fix that situation in his first term.

And... his administration paid $6 million to a contractor buddy from out of state to chop down a bunch of trees along the Garden State Parkway because he owed him a favor. He's also presided over an unprecedented nine state credit rating reductions and the highest foreclosure rate in the country (in Atlantic County). Not to mention the fact that he hasn't brought in much in the way of new business to NJ, which is still well behind most other states in terms of economic recovery and employment. And let's not even get started on the Geo. Washington Bridge lane closure fiasco perpetrated by his lackeys to punish a small-town mayor for refusing to support the governor's reelection.

So Christie's answer to all this? Run for president! I'm thinking he's doing it because he just may want to get out of Dodge!

Sure, he's a horrible candidate and doesn't stand a chance, even among an extremely weak slate of Republican candidates--most Republicans hate him anyway. But what really interests me is how some people have mastered the art of failing upwards. Christie was no better in his first term than he's been in his second, yet NJ voters reelected him in a landslide. The same could be said about Bush II, who trashed the economy and got us mired in an endless war in Iraq in his first term, but still got reelected. 

I wish I could be rewarded for such poor performance.

The same thing happens in business. You've probably worked with people who seemed to always get promoted even though they were clueless about the business or incapable of producing anything of value. It happens at all levels. Carly Fiorina messed up at Lucent, only to be handed the CEO job at Hewlett Packard, which she proceeded to run into the ground, which got her fired. So what does Carly do? Runs for president. If she's good at anything, it's her ability to fail upwards.

The same thing happens in sports: lousy baseball managers, football coaches, and NBA head coaches fail repeatedly but are constantly recycled to different teams a year, or even months, later. These people fail upwards and laterally and get rewarded. How do they do it? It's a mystery to me. Who hires these people? Who votes for these people. What is in their brains? Haven't they heard that overworked Einstein quote in which he said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?"

There's a lot of insanity going around. For today, let's mark Chris Christie as Exhibit A.

Boycott Disney--The Story Continues

Seems like the NY Times story on the tech worker layoffs hit a nerve with millions of workers and a vindictive Disney corporation is forced with dealing with a PR nightmare. Read this highly enjoyable follow-up story and marvel how highly successful U.S. corporations are raking in the profits at the expense of its workers. Maybe the the U.S. should institute an H1B program to replace the greedy expletive CEOs that run things in this country.

Incidentally, my wife and I were planning a Disney trip next year; however, companies that follow such heinous employment practices are now dead to us and will not benefit from our tourist dollars.

Let's Make the Next Election Interesting

It takes no special insight to notice the extreme polarization in the U.S. political landscape. Congress is expressly comprised of the extreme right and the somewhat extreme left with nary a moderate in sight. But then we have Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush leading the pack for the 2016 presidential race.

I find that disheartening. Neither candidate truly represents today's divided America--Jeb is warmed-over Mitt Romney and is only a few notches to the right of center. Hillary is a couple of clicks to the left and hardly a liberal in most senses of the word.

The conventional wisdom says that by running moderate, non-extreme candidates, your team has a better chance of winning the crossover vote and the undecideds. I disagree. I don't really believe there's much crossover in the U.S. today and no one is undecided--those who say they are just want attention paid to them by pollsters.

And, that philosophy doesn't work in practice. Obama, a perceived liberal (though he's not!) beat so-called moderates in John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, a staunch conservative beat a relatively moderate Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton, a perceived liberal (though he really wasn't!), beat a moderate G.W. Bush. 

Plus, it seems that America responds to those who truly take a stand, whether it's on the Tea Party right or tree-hugger left. If that's the case, the Republicans may have a better chance of winning if they ignore the crossovers and go with a more radical approach, such as a Rubio or Cruz rather than sticking with a milquetoast Bush.

By the same token, who really needs another triangulating Clinton on the Democratic ticket? Democrats should wear their liberal, progressive badge with pride and go with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

That would finally give America a real choice, scare the partisans on both sides into voting, and inject our electoral politics with some needed adrenalin.

The One Thing That Could Fix The American Economy

The U.S. recession officially ended in 2009. How are liking the recovery so far? Me neither! The recovery has been sluggish to say the least. Many remain unemployed or under-employed and most people I know don't have two nickels to rub together and many haven't had a raise in years.

The problem is most of the policies that pulled the economy out of the recession were too limited and benefited a small sliver of the population--mainly the very wealthy and large corporations. The long-term problem has not been addressed--the lack of consumer demand.

Businesses Are unable to sell as much as they can because no one except the rich have the money to buy everything they need--and much of their wealth goes to savings anyway. Besides, there aren't enough rich people to create enough of a demand spike to fuel a more powerful economy. But there is a fix for that.

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour.

Maybe not all at once; but do it! The nation is awash with jobs paying sub-subsistence wages, so just from a humanitarian standpoint, it makes sense to essentially double the current federal minimum wage. The economic benefits would be enormous.

People would finally have money in their pocket to go out and buy the things they need, which would boost overall demand. Businesses large and small would start growing again since there will be more money in motion from more people. Raising the minimum wage also raises the floor on other wages, providing an income lift the economy hasn't seen since the mid 90s. 

Of course there are objections. Many say that raising the minimum wage will cause businesses to fire workers because they can no longer afford to pay them the higher rate. That seems to make sense, but it's just not true according to the research. As this set of studies shows, areas in the country that have raised their minimums have prospered more than adjacent areas that kept the same low rate. Maybe it's because business picked up so much in the higher rate areas that they could easily afford to pay their current workers more and even hire additional staff to address burgeoning demand.

Raising the minimum wage would also wean companies like Wal-Mart off the public dole. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the low wages paid by retailers and other minimum-wage businesses through the federal food stamp and Medicaid programs. What if these businesses had to pay workers enough that they could support themselves and no longer qualify for safety net benefits? Wouldn't that be a nice way to shrink government spending a little?

In a society where the spoils of our economic system are tilted disproportionately to the well-off, why not pass a measure that will benefit millions of people who really need it while igniting the type of recovery this nation really needs?

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15!

Boycott Disney

As this article reports, the U.S. doesn't lack for skilled professionals to fill tech positions in the IT industry--they just don't want to pay them. Guys like Bill Gates and the NY Times own Tom Friedman and David Brooks decry the lack of software professionals turned out by the U.S. university system and urge the increased granting of temporary work visas to poorly paid foreign IT workers, especially India.

While this article focuses on how company bean counters at Disney are laying off high performing American professionals because they make too much money, this process is also being followed by other highly profitable companies, including AT&T, Bell South, California Electric and Gas, and IBM (who did it to my wife 7 years ago).

The irony is that in many cases, the so-called talent brought in from Asia have performed so poorly that they had to be replaced by American workers, resulting in a net loss of revenue and customer good will. But we live in a cutthroat world where price is everything, so I don't expect the kind of short-term thinking indulged by corporate monsters like Disney to change anytime soon.

So, in the meantime: BOYCOTT DISNEY!

Postscript--the Times article has created quite a stir. 

40th Wedding Anniversary--No Big Deal

Yesterday was my wife's and my 40th wedding anniversary, and as the title of this post indicates, it was no big deal. It was a big round number, sure, and many people are amazed that a relationship--any relationship-- can last so long.

But for Micky and me, we've never really celebrated our wedding anniversary. Sure, we tend go out to dinner because we use our anniversary as an excuse to splurge on a fantastic dinner at our favorite restaurant--but we'll go to Restaurant Nicholas for any reason anyway because it's just about the finest place on earth.

Our philosophy when it comes to our anniversary is if we have to celebrate it as though it were some kind of difficult to attain milestone, then there's probably something wrong with our relationship. It seems that we've always been a highly compatible couple. We've always enjoyed sharing each other's company, we love being together and in so many ways we are our respective yin and yang.

And it's been this way for about 45 years, when we met in our sophomore year in high school. I knew by the end of my junior year that I was going to spend my life with Micky. And that's what happened. I think most people desire the kind of enduring relationship with a special individual that Micky and I have had with each other and all I can really say to them is you have to be lucky. And we've been lucky.

I met the ideal person, married the ideal person, and it has worked out for us. I don't take credit for this, however. We have no magical formula for a successful marriage--you just have to find the right person at an early age when making right decisions are pretty much hit or miss. Having seen so many promising relationships hit the rocks makes me appreciate that it is truly rare for the stars to align as they have for us. So I've been lucky to have found the right woman and vice versa, just as I noted in an earlier post that we are lucky to have raised a couple of kids who turned out okay.

While there have been disappointments along the way in terms of our respective careers, financial trajectories, and my inability to find a wise publisher for my books, in the important things--we've  been lucky, which plays no small role on how one's life unfolds.

Sure, we'll go to to a plush hotel and a fancy restaurant for our 40th anniversary. But not because we need to celebrate an arbitrary milestone in our relationship, but because we have a perfect excuse to eat a great meal and sleep in fancy linens.

I think everyone deserves to get lucky in love--it's made all the difference in the life of this cynic!

Tom Brady--Go Sit in the Corner!

Tom Brady

The big news today is that superstar quarterback and All American golden boy Tom Brady was suspended for four games by the National Football League for allegedly ordering his staff to prepare under-inflated footballs during the AFC Conference Finals.

The penalty is also costing his team, the New England Patriots, their 2016 #1 draft pick and a fourth round pick the following year, plus $1 million. The hue and cry in the press and social media world has been crazy. People are screaming that Brady got off easy while others are complaining that he's being picked on because he's so perfect and everyone is jealous of his beauty and success.

Since it seems that everyone's unhappy with the NFL's action, my guess is the penalty was just right. Besides, once the Brady penalty is appealed, an impartial arbitrator will probably cut the suspension in half (my guess).

So everyone has an opinion, I figure I'll offer mine. First, Brady's team has a history of cheating--see Spygate 2007, when New England got caught taping videos of opponents' practices, and many thought the Patriots go off easy in the penalty phase.

New England is also known for craftily stretching various rules, especially when designating eligible receivers on passing downs. Plus there's New England owner Robert Craft's cozy relationship with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. So many view Deflategate, as it has become known, as a test to see if the NFL is willing to bring the hammer down on the Patriots.

Apologists for Tom Brady insist that he's just being picked on because of who he is and the team he plays for. And it is true that once the balls in Deflategate were inflated to their proper psi in the second half of the AFC Championship, Brady managed to throw four touchdown passes as New Englande trounced Indianapolis. 

It seems to me that the suspension is sound, not only because it appears that Brady cheated and probably in some minor way sought an unfair advantage. But more important, his true offense, in my opinion, was his lack of cooperation with the NFL investigation, including his refusal to turn over emails and texts related to the incident.

I think Brady should have voluntarily submitted this information and the fact that he didn't indicates a superstar's arrogance and tacit admission of guilt. Sure, he had a legal right to limit his cooperation, but the NFL also has the right to suspend players if the evidence suggests serious rule violations. That's why, in this case, I think the NFL ruled appropriately.

Volatility and the Plague of Inconsistency

The concept of volatility has always fascinated me. Volatility from the angle that people constantly change their minds, alter their strategies, reverse their convictions. In the investment industry, volatility is actually a proxy for risk. The more an investment fluctuates, such as movements in stock prices, the riskier the investment is considered.

I am not a particularly volatile person. I do change my mind, but usually after careful consideration or from a desire to be less dull than usual and to inject a little drama into my life. I seldom make last minute changes when the waiter comes to take my dinner order, whereas certain people I know will ask a zillion questions, make a decision and then change it three times before the waiter is allowed to commit it to writing. I see no particular benefit in being so indecisive since these people make as many ordering mistakes as I do, but expend far more energy doing so.

Thus the fluctuations of the stock market interest me. The other day the Dow Jones went down a couple of hundred points--a big sell-off due to concerns caused when the Federal Reserve chief commented that she thought stock prices to "be a bit on the high side" and a temporary concern about growth prospects in the economy. All the worry warts rushed to sell off their stocks to buy relatively safer bonds. But they'll be back in the stock market in the next week or so when their fear subsides and their greed increases.

Financial markets often go haywire over short periods of time, but history shows that frequent traders who respond to every herk and jerk of the Dow almost always lose in the long run. Most of them know that market timing doesn't work but they do it anyway. Action based on volatility is almost always counterproductive unless you are the rare individual who functions best in a crisis. Most of us do not and thus slow, steady, decisive, and boring is usually the most profitable route. And to certain people who are not me and are excitable by nature, I say save your excitement for theme parks, casinos, and computer games. Investment markets reward boring behavior.

(But do note: There is some academic truth to the Wall Street adage of "Sell in May and go away." Markets usually do poorly in May through September and recover in the final quarter. Why? How should I know?)

Jammin' with Roger McGuinn and the 10,000 Hour Rule

Roger McGuinn

Last week I had the opportunity to play guitar with the legendary front man of the Byrds, Roger McGuinn (Mr. Tambourine Man, Turn Turn Turn, Eight Miles High, Knockin' on Heaven's Door, etc.). It was part of a workshop that my new buddy Roger led that began with a PowerPoint chronicling his career and ending with him leading a guitar circle with me and about 40 other guys.

Of course it was great fun to play with a rock immortal, but we did get a chance to ask him how he got so good at guitar. His answer: "I started practicing 8 hours a day from the age of 15."

Funny that: it was the exact same answer I got when I asked another brilliant local guitarist by the name of Doug Mikula who said: "I practiced about eight hours a day from the age of 12."

This reminded me of a theory espoused by Malcolm Gladwell that essentially says that it takes about 10,000 hours to master anything that requires a high level of skill, whether it involves learning a musical instrument, a foreign language, or even brain surgery.

So, if Roger McGuinn practiced 8 hours a day from the age of 15, that would make him a guitar virtuoso in approximately 3.5 years. What's interesting is that Mr. McGuinn signed his first professional contract at the age of 17, but he had pretty much mastered an original style on banjo and guitar by the age of 19.

I think the moral of the story is one of commitment. Doing anything as difficult as learning an instrument, cutting and suturing human tissue, or hitting a baseball takes a level of discipline and patience that few can muster.

It also explains why I will never be a great guitarist. I picked up the guitar again about 10 years ago after letting my gorgeous Martin D-19 sit in a closet for 30 years. I play at most an hour a day--usually less, because I get frustrated by fingers' lack of obedience to what my brain tells them to do. I don't have the patience to practice 8 hours a day--it would drive me insane.

By that reckoning, I've practiced about 3,000 hours over the last 10 years. At that rate, it will take me another 24 years to become a virtuoso guitarist. By that time I will be in my 80s and my fingers will probably have become gnarly arthritic stumps.

However, if you believe in the 10,000-hour rule, it can give you hope that you can accomplish anything if you love it enough to put in the time. Writing is about the only thing that I've done for more than 10,000 hours, and it's worked out okay for me.

The Downside of Adulthood

Many things diminish as you grow out of childhood. Childhood is the unfiltered you. The pure wants, the joys, the sorrows, the selfishness, and aggression are clean and expressed 100 percent. The rest of your life (I'll use "your" in this context to refer to "all of us"), is a matter of herding and wrangling and controlling the primitive surge of emotions and desires.

Wasn't it cool when we could just grab the crayon out of little sister's hand when our project required yellow? Wasn't it satisfying at the age of 4 to yell out to your mom "I hate you!" and get away with it? To sing out loud, to punch your friend Nick in the face, to violently disagree with Daddy when it was time to go to bed to eat your corn to tie your shoes to shut...your...mouth?

Adulthood is about self-control--not to say what is on your mind to your boss or your spouse, not to sock the guy in front of you who is making a left turn without signaling, not to argue with the umpire who calls you out even though you beat the throw by a foot, not to call your neighbor a moron when he or she is behaving like one. 

Is adulthood nothing more or less an ever-tightening noose of repression?

There are mitigating circumstances--you do tend to get wiser and more adept with age, and driving cool cars and drinking cold martinis are decent benefits. But they hardly compensate for the lost freedom of childhood, which excuses behaviors that are innately human yet must be effectively stifled to maintain a civilized coexistence.

By now, however, I've kinda forgotten what real freedom is like, locked into behaviors and mindsets that make me a responsible adult. It's tragic and unfulfilling in many ways. But then, at age 61, could I truly handle the intensity of a renewed childhood?

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush

So the greatest democracy in the world and the best it can come up with are...Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush? How did we get to that place--where both presumed candidates for the highest office in the land are legacies from days gone by? Should we replace inaugurations with coronations? Do we face a future in which Chelsea Clinton will face off against Jenna Bush?

Is the candidate pool that thin. Yes it is. 

In an age in which Congress can't get out of its own way to, you know, actually make laws and the Supreme Court is politicized to the point of ineffectuality, the presidency faces its own crisis.

But that's the state of American politics. It's a game of money and connections, and having a built-in brand like the Clintons and Bushes makes it easier to raise the billions of dollars it takes to run a national campaign. Thus the uninspired choices that likely face U.S. voters 19 months from now.

The radical Republicans who have announced so far will undoubtedly be overwhelmed by the Bush juggernaut once it gets cranking and it's unlikely that Hillary will face any serious opposition--both parties have weak farm systems and America can't seem to escape the stranglehold of a two-party system. Of course Ralph Nader will probably run again...

This is not to say that Hillary and Jeb are unworthy of the presidency. But wouldn't it be nice if some relative unknown with blazingly amazing credentials rose up to challenge the Establishment? The fact that Obama  was able to come out of nowhere eight years ago seems beyond extraordinary today.

Well, Marco Rubio?

(Sigh, it's going to be a long, dull campaign.)

Oldest Guy in the Room

It doesn't seem that long ago that I was usually among the youngest people in my department or company. Everyone else seemed so much older--grayer, paunchier, more mature, set in their ways. Kids, grandkids, and so forth. I generally deferred to their 20 or 30 years of experience, assuming that they learned things along the way that would help me do my job better and faster.

And now, suddenly, I am that guy. I am the oldest person in my department of about 30 workers. I'm the guy with 30 years of experience and, one would think, the person with the accrued wisdom of having been there and done that millions of times.

Today, a couple of the people in my department are as young as my oldest daughter. My boss and department head are at least 10 years my junior. For the most part, my team looks like a bunch of kids. How did that happen? When did it happen?

I look young for my age and keep myself in shape, so people are shocked when I tell them how long I've worked for the company. But one thing I've noticed is how disinterested they are when it comes to seeking advice.

My 20-, 30-, and 40-year-old coworkers seldom come to me for ideas and suggestions, as though my experience is useless to them. I'm fairly good at my job and would be able to offer some tips to help others work more effectively and efficiently. But for some reason, my coworkers are not inclined that way.

This doesn't bother me in the least, since my experience enables me to master and complete  my work in a fraction of the time it would take others. My experience also enables me to coast through my days as I watch others struggle and suffer with their projects.

While I've often suggested ways to potentially achieve better results, those in charge insist on doing things their way--often to a fault.  I'm curious why experience is undervalued in my workplace. Maybe it takes experience to appreciate experience.

If You Have a Boy Child...Teach Him Baseball!

I have been blessed with two wonderful girls who have blossomed into quite delightful and accomplished young women.

But it would've been kinda nice to have had a boy as well. Among other pleasures, it would have enabled me to exercise some theories when it comes to properly introducing my son to the art and science of baseball. Besides the inherent joy of playing this wonderful game, if my son had the requisite natural talent and proper coaching to aspire to the game's highest levels, it would make for quite a career.

Some quick research indicates that the average major league salary today is about $3.2 million a year. Since the average major league career lasts 5.6 years, a person would have a nice nest egg by his early 30s. Of course NBA players average over $5 million a year for careers lasting an average of 5 years, but since my genes would never produce a giant, that route would seem impractical. Plus there are fewer NBA spots open than in the MLB, and the international competition is brutal

And football is out of the question, since it pays a measly $1.9 million a year for an average career of just 3 years. Plus, you're a basket case and a physical wreck by the time the NFL has used you up.

So back to baseball. So learning based on the coaching and nurturing mistakes made during my nascent baseball upbringing in the late 60s and early 70s, here's how I'd get my son started:

• Get a bat in his hands by the age of 3 and teach him to hit from both sides of the plate. Never let him learn his natural hitting side. My baseball career was on the ropes the first time I faced a good lefty curve ball (I batted left handed). A switch hitter never has to face a pitcher with a curve ball that breaks away and it gives the coach more flexibility when putting together a line-up, resulting in more playing time for switch hitters.
• If right-handed, teach him to play every position, including catcher. At the very least, hit him a million ground balls at shortstop and second base and a million fly balls to center field. Players who can play the middle positions (catcher, SS, 2nd base) are more valuable for their gloves and lessens the need to become power hitters, which is a rare gift as opposed to something that can be taught. 
• If left-handed, teach him to play first base and the outfield. Also teach him to pitch. Every team needs lefty pitchers because they are a rare breed. Even if he doesn't have a blinding fastball, teaching him a variety of breaking pitches and changing speeds will enable him to get even the best hitters out.
• Teach him to hit line drives to all fields using a short, quick and even stroke. Pull hitters are worthless unless they can hit with power. Line drive hitters hit for high average, drive in a lot of runs and, once their mechanics are fully developed and they start filling out physically, they can add power to their repertoire down the road. Think Don Mattingly and Mike Trout.
• Have him play all sports. I don't believe in club teams and travel teams since it focuses on and wears down specific muscle groups. Your son will develop better overall athletic skills if he plays baseball only during baseball season and plays basketball, tennis, cross country, hockey, etc. during the appropriate seasons. I would recommend against football, given the risks to life and limb. Once out of high school and the potential is there, then maybe baseball becomes a year-round vocation.
• Finally, practice, practice, practice. One positive thing I did growing up was throwing a golf ball against a concrete wall and fielding the crazy ricochets blasting back at me. It made my reflexes lightning quick and enabled me to handle any hot smashes coming my way at first base. Also, the best batting practice in the world is hitting off a tee. It's more difficult than you think. The only way to make solid contact is with a perfectly level swing, which is the key to good hitting merchanics.

This piece is running long, but I have a lot more. Let me know if you're interested.

Guns in America--No, Not Those Guns!

I'm referring to biceps, those relatively large muscles on the top of your upper arms that for some reason are nicknamed "guns" by the weightlifting set. As a runner, I force myself to spend time in the gym doing resistance work, mainly on my upper body so I don't shrivel into one of those scrawny old-man runners who can cover great distances but look like plucked chickens with collapsed chests and boney shoulders because they don't exercise any other parts of their body.

So to distract myself from my miserable reps, I end up observing serious weightlifters and their routines. And I've never seen a weightlifter not do millions of arm curls to build up excessive mass in their guns. Many have skinny legs, under-developed hips and narrow forearms--but they all have great guns!

Of course they also do a lot of work on their chests, belly and shoulders, but the overall effect is a mismatch of bloated arms and torso and broomstick legs.

But about guns--what good are they? How often do you really use over-developed biceps, unless you move a lot of furniture. Maybe it's the influence of the old Popeye cartoons in which he'd pop open a can of spinach and down it in a gulp, resulting in the appearance of battleships on his guns firing away and propelling our hero into the latest demolition of Bluto, his Nemesis.

Do you need great guns to get through your daily activities? I don't. But still I find myself doing several reps of bicep curls with 30-lb weights, just like everyone else. It's what guys in weight rooms do.

So do I have great guns? No, not really, I'd put them in the water pistol category. But maybe they'll help me type better, or run a little faster.

Why It's Called Climate Change

So we're getting another six inches of snow as I'm writing this and then tonight another arctic freeze will be swooping in, further blackening my mood.

Another winter of record cold and drifting snow in the East. We haven't hit the so-called average normal high for this time of year in weeks. Same as last year. Is this proof that global warming isn't happening? Unfortunately for this warm-blooded guy who despises winter cold, it is not.

While planet-wide 2014 was the warmest on record, that was not really the point. The point is change. While many parts of the U.S. were cooler than usual, many other parts were and are hotter and drier than usual. Extremes are becoming more extreme. Rains have come harder, snow falls are deeper, and droughts are lasting longer.

Some may protest that what we're experiencing is just a cycle in nature and not an outcome of man-made causes. But whatever the case, it seems pretty clear that weather patterns are changing--and not for the better.

Why Must We Age?

I have a hard time figuring out the logic of aging and how the aesthetics can be so cruel. How beautiful young and middle-aged people become shriveled grotesques as they achieve the far reaches of mortality.

It's especially striking for those in which photographic evidence exists of the vast changes superannuation incur. Old photos of Bridget Bardot contrasted with how the 70-year-old-plus former actress looks now; similar transformations for so many others.

Former starlets of outrageous delectability devolving before our eyes unto haggard monstrosities. (Same with guys of course, but they tend to die earlier and the deterioration does not make it as far.)

What is the point, why such decay? The scariest of all are the especially thin ones (myself?!) who in their 80s wander the countryside as animated corpses.

While I do not believe that we are on this earth for any particular reason or that some "God" has a purpose and plan, I do believe that most biological functions serve an evolutionary role. Pretty girls attract pretty men to make pretty babies. Aviary plumage is nothing but a carnal display as well. Makes sense. But what is the point of the ravaged faces and bodies of the aged--to what purpose is nature served?

Is it to remove the temptation to seek impregnation of  an impossible womb? That seems outlandish to me. How can we passively accept the concept of "natural aging?" Why should it be natural? By making the formerly beautiful physically repugnant, are we also devaluing them in other ways? 

Most still have robust minds, active imaginations, and physical vigor, yet their appearance betrays them. What is behind the optics of old people and the aging process...what is the evolutionary rationale? 

Stop Hating on Obamacare

In today's NY Time, guest columnist Steven Rattner, a Wall Street exec. and occasional government troubleshooter who was instrumental in the GM rescue presents a scorecard of sorts for the first two years of Obamacare. In a nutshell, despite its many imperfections, the ACA has sucessfully met its three prime goals:

1. Created insurance exchanges that has led to a larger-than-expected drop in uninsured Americans.
2. Prevented insurance companies from capping benefits or denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.
3. Has helped reduce the increase in cost of health care in the U.S.

Get the full story here with some compelling graphics.

Of course all these positives could go by the board if the Supreme Court rules against premium subsidies for states with only Federal exchanges. Such a decision would pretty much destroy the viability of Obamacare and we'd be back to the bad old days. 

I for one wouldn't put it past the present SCOTUS.

How the State Should Execute People

First off, I do not believe in state-sanctioned killing. I think the death penalty is medieval, immoral, and a non-deterrent. Basically, the death penalty is all about punishment and vengeance by the state, which to me is a bit too fascistic for my taste. Plus, from an economic standpoint, it costs far more to society in terms of court and legal costs to litigate a death sentence through the appeal process than warehousing a killer for life.

However, the main reason I don't believe in the death penalty is because I don't have the stomach as a citizen to condemn another human being to death. Since I'm not convinced of the existence of an afterlife, I couldn't be the one to usher another person into the eternal void, no matter the heinous nature of his or her offense. So if I can't accept that responsibility, then I have no right to expect others to; hence, my opposition.

With that said, capital punishment is still legal in many states and many states are having a hard time finding merciful ways of murdering criminals. We've seen stories of strapped-down convicts writhing in agony for minutes on end because the executioners couldn't get the drugs quite right. Or how about Mr. Sparky and the tendency in some past executions not to get the voltages right, resulting in badly scorched, though not quite dead, electric chair occupants.

And there is also the problem of gaining cooperation from the medical community and drug companies to provide expertise and reliably effective materials for killing purposes.

Even with those concerns, my sympathy doesn't lie with the perps so much, but with the poor souls who are tasked with administering the coup de grace. Would you want to be the one responsible for injecting the deadly dose, throwing the switch, turning on the gas? I know it would cause me some sleepless nights.

So what I propose is a blameless procedure that is nearly foolproof and merciful. It's called the firing squad. Five professional marksmen, four bullets and one blank. In that way, each shooter has plausible deniability that he didn't commit murder. And, the likelihood that anyone could survive four professionally delivered rounds to the head is extremely remote.

Sure, it could get a little messy, even if the guy is wearing a dark hood, but why shouldn't it be messy? Even when carried out by the state.

It's a ME ME ME ME World!

In the end, we really are all about ourselves. And the ugly truth about social media is that now we can publicly demonstrate that obsession to the world. It's not like we're more narcissistic than past generations, it's just more in our face given the 24/7 me me me outlets of Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, Instagram, etc.

Are we really so interesting that every utterance, thought, idea, and activity must be somehow cataloged and validated in multiple social media outlets? I most certainly am not! 

How many likes, followers, and friends must we have to salve our egos and nurture our self-worth? Are selfies ever appropriate?

The overall effect is just so much noise. So many people screaming at the top of their social media lungs to be noticed and loved by strangers, no matter how fleeting the moment. Outshouting each other until attention spans become a joke and communication is nothing more than frazzled fragments of headlines and images whose impact vanish in seconds.

Go ahead, call me a hypocrite. I have this blog and a Facebook account, but not because I am just another ego-driven shouter. My excuse is I'm just promoting my books, and social media is a necessary evil required of today's self-published indies.

In my defense I'll say it did take years of careful writing and editing to execute my literary efforts and, based on feedback and reviews, many think they're worthy of some fleeting attention from the teeming masses.

Otherwise, I'd wrap myself in the comforting cloak of invisibility. While everyone's manically bouncing like pogo sticks for more attention, nothing would suit me more than to be unseen, unheard, and unnoticed.

Except for my books, of course!

Please, Don't Inflict Your Religion on Others!

A comment from this article from today's NY Times.

"This [article] is why "conscience laws" about abortion and birth control were always a terrible idea--they set the precedent that you can use your religion to avoid doing your job and to discriminate against people. Hey, look, it was a bad idea!

If you don't want to dispense legally prescribed medicine, don't be a pharmacist. If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be an OBGYN or a doctor in an ER. If you don't want to marry gay people, don't be an official who hands out marriage licenses. If your religion is going to get in the way of DOING YOUR JOB, then find another job. It is not society's place to accommodate your bigotry."

Couldn't have said it better myself. Check your religion at the door!