Anybody opposing health care reform because he likes his employer-supplied plan and feels reform is a threat to it might want to read and digest this blog. Employer-supplied health care has been disappearing from the economy for years, slowly and gradually. The fact is, that if you take out public employees of one kind or another, significantly less than half of all employees get their health insurance from their employers. And those who do, that insurance has been getting more expensive and less comprehensive every year. Employers are passing on more costs, and purchasing inferior plans. This trend will continue regardless of the outcome of reform (well, except for a single-payer system, but then who would care? We'd all have health care anyway).
Have a good read.
And you know another thing? The majority of doctors, and their primary national association (the AMA, ever heard of it?) SUPPORT single-payer.
Medicare for all.
Doctors want it.
Patients want it.
It will never pass Congress.
Because the insurance lobby has the most money.
Hmmmmmm.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Correction
I do need to make one correction from last night's post. Where I said "corporation" I should have said "limited liability entity." Any entity that is a limited liability entity created by law should have to issue 10% of its equity stake to the government.
Also, such entities should not have constitutional rights. End the legal fiction of a corporation being a "person." Treat them as what they are: tools of wealth creation. Not persons.
Also, such entities should not have constitutional rights. End the legal fiction of a corporation being a "person." Treat them as what they are: tools of wealth creation. Not persons.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
An Introduction to the Need for Socialism, And One Proposal
When I was in college back in the late 80s, I wrote a paper on the coming robotics revolution and its potential social impact. My conclusion was that the revolution would require changes in how our society distributes the rewards of production. Robotics enthusiasts and classical capitalist economists all enthused that robotics would bring productivity boosts like prior technological revolutions in the means of production. But my contention was that unlike those earlier technological revolutions, the robotics revolution (and the high-tech information revolution along with it) would not just make workers more productive, it would replace workers. What would those workers do instead?
We are seeing these results. Peter Huber over at Forbes (it was the only decent choice in the waiting room of the ER when Kylie was seen there) wrote a little piece recently that whimsically illustrates the phenomenon. He talks about all the things his new domestic robots do, and how these robots have caused a drastic reduction in the utilization of human housekeeping labor. First, robots replaced factory workers. Instead of having a few thousand workers manning machines to kick out a car, four guys sitting in a control room oversee a factory full of robots. Now robots are moving into our homes, like in the Jetsons. What are the workers to do instead?
But at the end of his piece, he hits the nub. "Washington's choice now is between a jobless recovery and no U.S. recovery at all." Now, this jobless recovery is fine for Peter Huber. He is writing for corporate hotshots and rich guys. What do they fucking care if the recovery produces no new jobs? Good for them! If economic activity goes up, and wages can stay where they were at the depth of the recession, their profits go even higher, and they get richer. So yeah, a jobless recovery is fine for the Peter Hubers of the world -- just as the jobless boom was. That's the secret: the US economy was not creating jobs during the boom, either.
The answer is always glib: education and retraining. OK, but there are millions of people who are simply not able to learn what it takes to perform high tech jobs. There are brain people and muscle people. In every preceding age of human history, society needed muscle people every bit as much as it needed brain people. But in the new age, that is no longer the case. The muscle jobs are being replaced. What are the muscle people to do? Heck, even police and army robots are being developed!
I keep asking this question, and nobody gives me an answer.
I now turn to corporations. The corporate form was a great invention for producing wealth. By externalizing the risks of capital ventures, the corporation allows guys with money to invest that money with little fear of ruin. The consequences of their risks are not borne by their personal assets, they are borne by the people who did business willingly or unwillingly with the corporation. In the beginning, corporations were required to return some benefit to society, because the lawmakers recognized what they were doing. Down the years, however, the requirements on corporations have gradually been shed, to the point now where they are able to move their offices and capital around the globe in such a way as to not have to return even taxes to the society. And an army of talking heads has produced an ideology that society has bought into that says a corporation's ONLY duty is to maximize the income of its shareholders.
Do we see how robotics and corporations interact with each other? What is the inevitable result? It is what we are seeing: an ever-increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth and income. Fewer and fewer people own more and more of the wealth, and monopolize more and more of the income. Women entering the labor force (drove down wages) and easy credit masked the effects for thirty years. Household income remained pretty much the same, but now two people were producing that income instead of one. Borrowing allowed people to continue to increase consumption even though wages were stagnating.
All that crashed down on a lot of people. But now the recovery is here. But it is widely recognized as a "jobless recovery." And nobody in policy-making positions seems to care. Those who own corporations will see their incomes and wealth recover. Those who relied on a paycheck will not. They are still fucked. Those who can turn to an intellectual pursuit, or something needed by rich people, will be able to regain an income. Probably most of them will see a lower income than they had before. But people who have to rely on their muscles because they either did not or could not get a (real) higher education are well and truly fucked. The Roomba has seen to that.
So what do we do? I'm not really sure, but I have one idea, and it involves socialism. Let's call it partial socialism. Every corporation that does business in America is required to issue the US government 10% of its stock. Every class. Every type. Voting and non-voting. In that way, corporations will benefit society by benefiting their shareholders. They can maintain their "maximize return to the shareholders" ethic and thereby serve society. The US government is then required by law to put its dividend payments into a social welfare fund. I prefer that every U.S. citizen get a dividend payment every year. Pro rata, divvy them up and send every CITIZEN a check. Those who are under 18, their checks go into trust. Adults can do whatever they damn well please with their checks.
So that's my big socialist idea.
We are seeing these results. Peter Huber over at Forbes (it was the only decent choice in the waiting room of the ER when Kylie was seen there) wrote a little piece recently that whimsically illustrates the phenomenon. He talks about all the things his new domestic robots do, and how these robots have caused a drastic reduction in the utilization of human housekeeping labor. First, robots replaced factory workers. Instead of having a few thousand workers manning machines to kick out a car, four guys sitting in a control room oversee a factory full of robots. Now robots are moving into our homes, like in the Jetsons. What are the workers to do instead?
But at the end of his piece, he hits the nub. "Washington's choice now is between a jobless recovery and no U.S. recovery at all." Now, this jobless recovery is fine for Peter Huber. He is writing for corporate hotshots and rich guys. What do they fucking care if the recovery produces no new jobs? Good for them! If economic activity goes up, and wages can stay where they were at the depth of the recession, their profits go even higher, and they get richer. So yeah, a jobless recovery is fine for the Peter Hubers of the world -- just as the jobless boom was. That's the secret: the US economy was not creating jobs during the boom, either.
The answer is always glib: education and retraining. OK, but there are millions of people who are simply not able to learn what it takes to perform high tech jobs. There are brain people and muscle people. In every preceding age of human history, society needed muscle people every bit as much as it needed brain people. But in the new age, that is no longer the case. The muscle jobs are being replaced. What are the muscle people to do? Heck, even police and army robots are being developed!
I keep asking this question, and nobody gives me an answer.
I now turn to corporations. The corporate form was a great invention for producing wealth. By externalizing the risks of capital ventures, the corporation allows guys with money to invest that money with little fear of ruin. The consequences of their risks are not borne by their personal assets, they are borne by the people who did business willingly or unwillingly with the corporation. In the beginning, corporations were required to return some benefit to society, because the lawmakers recognized what they were doing. Down the years, however, the requirements on corporations have gradually been shed, to the point now where they are able to move their offices and capital around the globe in such a way as to not have to return even taxes to the society. And an army of talking heads has produced an ideology that society has bought into that says a corporation's ONLY duty is to maximize the income of its shareholders.
Do we see how robotics and corporations interact with each other? What is the inevitable result? It is what we are seeing: an ever-increasing inequality in the distribution of wealth and income. Fewer and fewer people own more and more of the wealth, and monopolize more and more of the income. Women entering the labor force (drove down wages) and easy credit masked the effects for thirty years. Household income remained pretty much the same, but now two people were producing that income instead of one. Borrowing allowed people to continue to increase consumption even though wages were stagnating.
All that crashed down on a lot of people. But now the recovery is here. But it is widely recognized as a "jobless recovery." And nobody in policy-making positions seems to care. Those who own corporations will see their incomes and wealth recover. Those who relied on a paycheck will not. They are still fucked. Those who can turn to an intellectual pursuit, or something needed by rich people, will be able to regain an income. Probably most of them will see a lower income than they had before. But people who have to rely on their muscles because they either did not or could not get a (real) higher education are well and truly fucked. The Roomba has seen to that.
So what do we do? I'm not really sure, but I have one idea, and it involves socialism. Let's call it partial socialism. Every corporation that does business in America is required to issue the US government 10% of its stock. Every class. Every type. Voting and non-voting. In that way, corporations will benefit society by benefiting their shareholders. They can maintain their "maximize return to the shareholders" ethic and thereby serve society. The US government is then required by law to put its dividend payments into a social welfare fund. I prefer that every U.S. citizen get a dividend payment every year. Pro rata, divvy them up and send every CITIZEN a check. Those who are under 18, their checks go into trust. Adults can do whatever they damn well please with their checks.
So that's my big socialist idea.
News Sources
It used to be well-accepted that to gain good understanding of a subject -- any subject -- you need to consult multiple sources. Even moreso in political matters where point-of-view is so important. Yet, all of our news comes from pretty much one source. The corporate media, which is pretty much a mouthpiece of the corporate elite.
We the people need alternate sources of news and commentary. I've already linked AlterNet.org and believe it to be an important source for us. Now I have found another source I will be consulting regularly: IPS.
Check it out. It gives an avowed Southern Hemisphere perspective on international news. It is supported by a number of governments and international organizations, with the notable exception of the United States.
We the people need alternate sources of news and commentary. I've already linked AlterNet.org and believe it to be an important source for us. Now I have found another source I will be consulting regularly: IPS.
Check it out. It gives an avowed Southern Hemisphere perspective on international news. It is supported by a number of governments and international organizations, with the notable exception of the United States.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
AlterNet.org
I stumbled across this site the other day, and it has become my main source for news. It is openly progressive, even revolutionary. But that is called for today. The mainstream media will not cover what matters to us. It is obsessed with right wing nutjobs and telling us that the recession is over and the recovery is underway.
AlterNet.org
Read it.
AlterNet.org
Read it.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
This Is Not Capitalism
The next time someone tells you how capitalism is the best system and our system is capitalism, that capitalism won the great dogma fight, or some right wing wingnut tells you the market will solve everything, think of this:
It just boggles my mind that so many people who call themselves Christians can so passionately fight for a system that is so antithetical to the core message of Christ, and reject so thoroughly ideas that descend directly from his central teachings. It shows the power of indoctrination. I mean, why is everyone ok with 1% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth? Why are we ok with that 1% raking in over half the national income? It's obscene. You know, many of the rich lost half or more of their fortunes in the recent Crash -- and they still have millions or billions. You lose half your wealth (the value of your home), you're fucked. Well and truly fucked. What did you have to do with the Crash? Very little. How much did you gain from the boom of the last fifteen years? Before the Crash, were you much wealthier than you were before the boom? I don't know.
All I know is Wall Street and the huge corporations get a trillion dollar bailout and you and I get a dictat to purchase health insurance -- as if we wouldn't if we could afford it!
I will never again -- EVER -- trust or vote for a politician from one of the two parties. EVER. Both parties and every candidate from them who can get on the ballot are controlled by the corporate elite. I was a fool to believe Obama would be any different. But his personal ambition came to dominate his beliefs. He's just another neocon at heart.
In capitalism as envisioned by its leading lights, including Adam Smith and Alfred Marshall, you need a moral foundation in order for free markets to work. And when a company fails, it fails. It doesn't get bailed out using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money. What we have right now is Corporatism. It's welfare for the rich. It's the government picking winners and losers. It's Wall Street having their taxpayer-funded cake and eating it too. It's socialized gains and privatized losses.That's from the linked article off AlterNet. I am going to see Michael Moore's new movie. I have not been tempted by his earlier ones, but this one might hit it. I just feel like we are approaching a crisis stage, where ordinary people have to rise up once and for all before the elites take away our ability to do so with the ultimate coercive technologies they are developing.
It just boggles my mind that so many people who call themselves Christians can so passionately fight for a system that is so antithetical to the core message of Christ, and reject so thoroughly ideas that descend directly from his central teachings. It shows the power of indoctrination. I mean, why is everyone ok with 1% of the population controlling 95% of the wealth? Why are we ok with that 1% raking in over half the national income? It's obscene. You know, many of the rich lost half or more of their fortunes in the recent Crash -- and they still have millions or billions. You lose half your wealth (the value of your home), you're fucked. Well and truly fucked. What did you have to do with the Crash? Very little. How much did you gain from the boom of the last fifteen years? Before the Crash, were you much wealthier than you were before the boom? I don't know.
All I know is Wall Street and the huge corporations get a trillion dollar bailout and you and I get a dictat to purchase health insurance -- as if we wouldn't if we could afford it!
I will never again -- EVER -- trust or vote for a politician from one of the two parties. EVER. Both parties and every candidate from them who can get on the ballot are controlled by the corporate elite. I was a fool to believe Obama would be any different. But his personal ambition came to dominate his beliefs. He's just another neocon at heart.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Conservative Radicals
From Alternet:
BILL MOYERS: There's long been a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this coalition that we call "conservative." I mean, you had the Edmund Burke kind of conservatism that yearns for a sacred, ordered society, bound by tradition, that protects both rich and poor, against what one of my friends calls the "Libertarian, robber baron, capitalist, cowboy America." I mean, that marriage was doomed to fail, right?
SAM TANENHAUS: It was. First of all, this is absolutely right, in the terms of a classical conservatism. And here is the figure I emphasize in my book is Benjamin Disraeli. What he feared-- the revolution of his time, this is the French Revolution that concerned Edmund Burke-- half a century later what concerned Disraeli and other conservatives was the Industrial Revolution. That Dickens wrote his novels about-- that children, the very poor becoming virtual slaves in work houses, that the search for money, for capital, for capital accumulation, seemed to drown out all other values. That's what modern conservatism is partly anchored in. So, how do we get this contradiction?
BILL MOYERS: Why isn't it standing up against turbo-capitalism?
SAM TANENHAUS: Well, one reason is that America very early on in its history reached a kind of pact, in the Jacksonian era, between the government on the one hand and private capital on the other. That the government would actually subsidize capitalism in America. That's what the Right doesn't often acknowledge. A lot of what we think of as the unleashed, unfettered market is, in fact, a government supported market. Some will remember the famous debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, and Dick Cheney said that his company, Halliburton, had made millions of dollars without any help from the government. It all came from the government! They were defense contracts! So, what's happened is the American ethos, which is a different thing from our political order-- that's the rugged individualism, the cowboy, the frontiersman, the robber baron, the great explorer, the conqueror of the continent. For that aspect of our myth, the market has been the engine of it. So, what brought them together, is what we've seen in the right is what I call a politics of organized cultural enmity.
BILL MOYERS: There's long been a fundamental contradiction at the heart of this coalition that we call "conservative." I mean, you had the Edmund Burke kind of conservatism that yearns for a sacred, ordered society, bound by tradition, that protects both rich and poor, against what one of my friends calls the "Libertarian, robber baron, capitalist, cowboy America." I mean, that marriage was doomed to fail, right?
SAM TANENHAUS: It was. First of all, this is absolutely right, in the terms of a classical conservatism. And here is the figure I emphasize in my book is Benjamin Disraeli. What he feared-- the revolution of his time, this is the French Revolution that concerned Edmund Burke-- half a century later what concerned Disraeli and other conservatives was the Industrial Revolution. That Dickens wrote his novels about-- that children, the very poor becoming virtual slaves in work houses, that the search for money, for capital, for capital accumulation, seemed to drown out all other values. That's what modern conservatism is partly anchored in. So, how do we get this contradiction?
BILL MOYERS: Why isn't it standing up against turbo-capitalism?
SAM TANENHAUS: Well, one reason is that America very early on in its history reached a kind of pact, in the Jacksonian era, between the government on the one hand and private capital on the other. That the government would actually subsidize capitalism in America. That's what the Right doesn't often acknowledge. A lot of what we think of as the unleashed, unfettered market is, in fact, a government supported market. Some will remember the famous debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, and Dick Cheney said that his company, Halliburton, had made millions of dollars without any help from the government. It all came from the government! They were defense contracts! So, what's happened is the American ethos, which is a different thing from our political order-- that's the rugged individualism, the cowboy, the frontiersman, the robber baron, the great explorer, the conqueror of the continent. For that aspect of our myth, the market has been the engine of it. So, what brought them together, is what we've seen in the right is what I call a politics of organized cultural enmity.
Dallas Cowboys Stadium and Go-Go Lounge
The new $1.2 billion Dallas Cowboys Stadium actually features raised platforms for dancers. They are elevated above the crowd like "cage dancers" at a go-go lounge. Check out the link.
A Star Is Born?
OK, everybody needs to know that I am a lifelong Giants fan. It's not so much an entertainment choice as it is a terminal disease. A genetic disease, like the kind you see telethons for. You get it from your parent and you cannot shake it. It controls your life, limits your choices, and without a proper mental attitude, it will stunt and distort your life into torturous shapes.
Last night, the Giants played the Cowboys in the first game in the new Dallas stadium. Amazingly, the Giants won. I had the Cowboys winning by two TDs because I did not think the Giants would be able to handle the Dallas passing game, and thought the Giants would not be able to score touchdowns. Well, the Giants won because Dallas QB Tony Homo really sucked and Eli Manning played very well. And because a Giants WR stepped up.
Meet Mario Manningham, new Giants WR star! Manningham is a great story for the Giants. He was a great receiver for the University of Michigan for three years. He was a human highlights reel, making big play after big play. He scored a ton of touchdowns, made scads of big catches, and showed great RAC (that would be Run After Catch for you non-football fans) ability. He was one of the most productive and explosive WRs in U of M history. They've had a lot of them.
However, Mario also had a taste for the ganja at U of M and did not exactly make the best decisions in his life. He tested positive for pot just before the NFL draft, and scored a 6 on the Wonderlic test, which is some kinda IQ test given to NFL prospects. So, he looks pretty much like a dumbass. Because of the pot thing, he fell to the third round of the draft, where the Giants picked him up. Based on talent and college productivity, it was a great pick for the Gmen. A steal! Given the pot history and Wonderlic score, it had to be considered a gamble. Would he be smart enough to learn the playbook and be able to make the on-the-fly route adjustments required to be a successful WR in the Giants' system? Would he have the work ethic and wisdom to be a successful pro? Or was this kid a knucklehead?
As a rookie last year, the kid did nothing. Not to worry. Rookies rarely contribute as WRs for the Giants or in the NFL. There is a lot to learn. NFL defenses are so much more talented and complex than college that it can be overwhelming for a rookie WR. But this summer, he started to make noise. It became clear: Mario would be in the regular rotation.
Nobody knew what the Giants really had at WR coming into this season. The best WR in team history (Plaxico Burress) and the most productive WR in team history (Amani Toomer) were gone. The guys coming back had either proven nothing or been role players. Certainly, Steve Smith was a good third WR for them and a big part of their success his first two seasons. But could he do the same as a starter? Giants fans knew there was a lot of potential, but we all know how often potential fails to become production. We all loved Smith. Domenik Hixon had shown a lot. Manningham had the great college career behind him. And the two rookie draft picks (Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden) looked extremely promising. In the preseason, Smith, Nicks and Manningham all showed flashes.
Manningham had a good game against the Redskins. Three catches for 58 yards and a touchdown. The TD was vintage Manningham. He caught a slip screen, made a tackler miss, and ran in for the score. It was a good start for him and the Giants WR corps. Smith was good, and Nicks was good, although Nicks got hurt and will miss a couple games.
But last night, Mario and the Giants stepped onto the big stage. National television. The first game in the Dallas Cowboys' new billion dollar stadium. Millions watching on TV and 105,000 in the stands. Giants-Cowboys. Everything. And Mario became Super Mario! He was brilliant, glittering, dazzling. He caught 10 passes, including another slip screen, a deep bomb, cuts across the middle, a TD showing great concentration after letting the ball bounce off his hands. "Manning to Manningham! Touchdown!" It is destined to be a cliche.
Manningham wasn't the only WR to have a monster game for the Giants. Smith also caught 10 balls. He also had a big TD catch, as well as his trademark third down magic. The third year man from USC and the second year man from Michigan put on their own personal Rose Bowl.
Manningham and Smith show a drafting philosophy in action. Nicks and Ramses Barden continue that philosophy: players who were super productive in college. Smith, Manningham and Nicks were all super productive at big time programs. All three sparkled in bowl games. All three excel at catching the ball. They are not track stars; they are Receivers. Barden was also super productive, but at a small school. He is an example of a variation of the philosophy: players who dominated at a lower level of competition. Kevin Boss is another example of that variation. Boss and Barden both dominated on the small school level, and both have exceptional size. So far the philosophy appears to be working. There have been no more Sinorice Moss boondoggles.
I'm concerned about things from the game. The inability to score in the red zone in two straight games now is worrying. The Cowboys shredding the defense for 250 yards on the ground is scary. The injuries bode poorly. But the play of the WR corps has been very encouraging. I cannot wait to see Nicks get back. I think he is going to be a star, as is Manningham. We all knew the young guys had a lot of talent, and that they had produced at a high level in college. Now they are showing that they can do it in the NFL. The Giants could have an embarrassment of riches at wide receiver. The season should be a fun ride.
Manning to Manningham! Touchdown!
Oh, and on the subject of going deep to score.....
Last night, the Giants played the Cowboys in the first game in the new Dallas stadium. Amazingly, the Giants won. I had the Cowboys winning by two TDs because I did not think the Giants would be able to handle the Dallas passing game, and thought the Giants would not be able to score touchdowns. Well, the Giants won because Dallas QB Tony Homo really sucked and Eli Manning played very well. And because a Giants WR stepped up.
However, Mario also had a taste for the ganja at U of M and did not exactly make the best decisions in his life. He tested positive for pot just before the NFL draft, and scored a 6 on the Wonderlic test, which is some kinda IQ test given to NFL prospects. So, he looks pretty much like a dumbass. Because of the pot thing, he fell to the third round of the draft, where the Giants picked him up. Based on talent and college productivity, it was a great pick for the Gmen. A steal! Given the pot history and Wonderlic score, it had to be considered a gamble. Would he be smart enough to learn the playbook and be able to make the on-the-fly route adjustments required to be a successful WR in the Giants' system? Would he have the work ethic and wisdom to be a successful pro? Or was this kid a knucklehead?
As a rookie last year, the kid did nothing. Not to worry. Rookies rarely contribute as WRs for the Giants or in the NFL. There is a lot to learn. NFL defenses are so much more talented and complex than college that it can be overwhelming for a rookie WR. But this summer, he started to make noise. It became clear: Mario would be in the regular rotation.
Nobody knew what the Giants really had at WR coming into this season. The best WR in team history (Plaxico Burress) and the most productive WR in team history (Amani Toomer) were gone. The guys coming back had either proven nothing or been role players. Certainly, Steve Smith was a good third WR for them and a big part of their success his first two seasons. But could he do the same as a starter? Giants fans knew there was a lot of potential, but we all know how often potential fails to become production. We all loved Smith. Domenik Hixon had shown a lot. Manningham had the great college career behind him. And the two rookie draft picks (Hakeem Nicks and Ramses Barden) looked extremely promising. In the preseason, Smith, Nicks and Manningham all showed flashes.
Manningham had a good game against the Redskins. Three catches for 58 yards and a touchdown. The TD was vintage Manningham. He caught a slip screen, made a tackler miss, and ran in for the score. It was a good start for him and the Giants WR corps. Smith was good, and Nicks was good, although Nicks got hurt and will miss a couple games.
But last night, Mario and the Giants stepped onto the big stage. National television. The first game in the Dallas Cowboys' new billion dollar stadium. Millions watching on TV and 105,000 in the stands. Giants-Cowboys. Everything. And Mario became Super Mario! He was brilliant, glittering, dazzling. He caught 10 passes, including another slip screen, a deep bomb, cuts across the middle, a TD showing great concentration after letting the ball bounce off his hands. "Manning to Manningham! Touchdown!" It is destined to be a cliche.
Manningham wasn't the only WR to have a monster game for the Giants. Smith also caught 10 balls. He also had a big TD catch, as well as his trademark third down magic. The third year man from USC and the second year man from Michigan put on their own personal Rose Bowl.
Manningham and Smith show a drafting philosophy in action. Nicks and Ramses Barden continue that philosophy: players who were super productive in college. Smith, Manningham and Nicks were all super productive at big time programs. All three sparkled in bowl games. All three excel at catching the ball. They are not track stars; they are Receivers. Barden was also super productive, but at a small school. He is an example of a variation of the philosophy: players who dominated at a lower level of competition. Kevin Boss is another example of that variation. Boss and Barden both dominated on the small school level, and both have exceptional size. So far the philosophy appears to be working. There have been no more Sinorice Moss boondoggles.
I'm concerned about things from the game. The inability to score in the red zone in two straight games now is worrying. The Cowboys shredding the defense for 250 yards on the ground is scary. The injuries bode poorly. But the play of the WR corps has been very encouraging. I cannot wait to see Nicks get back. I think he is going to be a star, as is Manningham. We all knew the young guys had a lot of talent, and that they had produced at a high level in college. Now they are showing that they can do it in the NFL. The Giants could have an embarrassment of riches at wide receiver. The season should be a fun ride.
Manning to Manningham! Touchdown!
Oh, and on the subject of going deep to score.....
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Health and Caring
Health care is a huge issue today. I'm just about done with addressing the political issue, because the die has been cast and what I predicted back in June is about to happen. No, my interest in health issues is personal. Health and women. Kylie has been sick for two weeks now. She's been to student health twice and the ER once. She finally was prescribed anti-biotics at the ER. She has bronchitis and ear infections. She does not seem to be getting better. I am out of ideas as to what to do. I don't understand why she's not getting any better. It is screwing our life. She hasn't had any exercise for two weeks. We have to freaking drive everywhere. She is missing classes, lacking energy for school work, and just had to give up her shifts at work this weekend. There's a loss of $100 we cannot afford. It's also a black cloud pressing down on her mood -- understandably. It's just one more thing to deal with.
Finances. The car payment is coming due in 10 days and we still haven't paid last month's. The electric bill just arrived and we still haven't paid last month's. We paid the August bill a week or so ago, just before the cutoff notice expired. And the state is paying me for my legal work in droplets of money too small to matter. I need thousands, and they are sending me a couple hundred here and there. We are in danger of losing everything. It has been this way since late July. We ran out of money around July 15 and have been slowly going under ever since. I thought it would be better now. "It will be better in September," I said. Well, $900 of my August work got continued to October and could not be billed. So that's money not coming this month. And all my August billings were in the second half of the month. The state is not paying me two weeks out like they were earlier in the year. No, it's at least a month out. That means pretty much nothing has come in over the last two weeks.
At least Kylie got financial aid. School is paid for.
At least I know that I have work for 2010. I already have 10 duty days for Richmond and 7 or 8 for Chesterfield. I will get four or so for New Kent/Charles City when they do theirs. I have an income for 2010. Just not enough. And the frigging economy is even hurting referees. Fewer teams are signing up for soccer tournaments, which means fewer games to ref. Because there are no jobs for teenagers, high school and college students are signing up in droves to be referees. And because nobody has money, fewer referees are quitting. So there are more of us competing for fewer games.
Just my luck. I graduate law school during the worst employment market for law school graduates in 40 years. It rebounds a few years later, but too late for me. I enter teaching school to switch careers just as the wave of people switching into teaching happens because we all have been hearing about the teacher shortage for years. Teacher glut -- especially high school social studies, which is all I can get certified for. So everywhere I apply for work, the principal has a thick file of applications, many from experienced teachers. Now that I am a referee, the economy goes bust and the normal acute referee shortage turns into a referee glut.
All of this is placing great strain on us, and on our relationship. We are both weighed down by the financial issues. She feels like crap. I am worried about her. She is scared of failing in school. I am weary from constantly having to be supportive. And then there's my daughter.
My ex-wife is apparently dying. Not officially "dying" as in told she has a terminal illness and has only so much time to live, but physically falling apart and on lots of medication. Let's just say she's blowing up the actuarial tables for her health insurance group. She had a brain tumor on her pituitary gland for two or three years. It spread into her nasal cavity. It was making her blind. She was almost completely blind, and was driving my daughter around, and never told me until the surgery was imminent. The surgery removed the golf ball pressing down on the gland, but they have to use chemo or radiation on the nasal strands. Apparently, while her eyesight is back, her health is failing all over the place. She's very sick and very scared, and the brain tumor will probably come back. From my research, most do, especially when they were big or aggressive.
Next year my daughter goes to middle school. My son goes into the Army in December, although I have my suspicions that he is going to back out of that. If he goes to the Army, who will take care of his mother? Who will take care of his sister under her auspices so that her father can't get her? I suspect that a combination of the need to take care of his mother combined with his native fears and laziness will cause him to drop out of TCC and sabotage the Army enlistment. And his mother will let him. Kylie and I think my daughter should live with us next year. And that prospect scares Kylie shitless. I understand. A step-mother at 21, being the acting mommy for an adolescent while her mother withers away. Scares me.
So yeah, life is a chore right now. Those are only some of the stressors we are under. Probably the biggest, but I'm sure there are a couple big ones not coming to mind at the moment. That's all right -- I don't need to think about all of them at the same time.
I have a book idea I think has merit. I am going to try to follow through on this one. It contains an old idea. It will be an epic (do I write anything else?). It will be set 25 years in the future. It will have three strands: in one strand a huge female celebrity (her celebrity is huge, not she) and a regular guy fall in love. This strand will explore social-cultural issues such as narcissism, gender issues, personal success and failure, loneliness and attachment, depression and happiness. In the second strand, a group of friends form a political movement that turns into a popular revolution. It is an electoral revolution with mass movement, violence and chaos occurs, and these four friends wind up running the executive branch and putting their program into action. In the third strand, a young mystic ignites a new religious movement through his earnest re-examinations. All of this is narrated by a 110-year-old man who brings a historical perspective to the story. The narrator will tie together parts of the story told through different "media." I want to combine a sweet romance with an exploration of cultural, social and political issues, inside of a philosophical quest. And I want it done in three years.
Refereeing today, then driving my daughter home. Nice four hour drive for me. Kylie would probably come, but I want her to stay home and rest.
Check out the slideshow. It's all our work.
Finances. The car payment is coming due in 10 days and we still haven't paid last month's. The electric bill just arrived and we still haven't paid last month's. We paid the August bill a week or so ago, just before the cutoff notice expired. And the state is paying me for my legal work in droplets of money too small to matter. I need thousands, and they are sending me a couple hundred here and there. We are in danger of losing everything. It has been this way since late July. We ran out of money around July 15 and have been slowly going under ever since. I thought it would be better now. "It will be better in September," I said. Well, $900 of my August work got continued to October and could not be billed. So that's money not coming this month. And all my August billings were in the second half of the month. The state is not paying me two weeks out like they were earlier in the year. No, it's at least a month out. That means pretty much nothing has come in over the last two weeks.
At least Kylie got financial aid. School is paid for.
At least I know that I have work for 2010. I already have 10 duty days for Richmond and 7 or 8 for Chesterfield. I will get four or so for New Kent/Charles City when they do theirs. I have an income for 2010. Just not enough. And the frigging economy is even hurting referees. Fewer teams are signing up for soccer tournaments, which means fewer games to ref. Because there are no jobs for teenagers, high school and college students are signing up in droves to be referees. And because nobody has money, fewer referees are quitting. So there are more of us competing for fewer games.
Just my luck. I graduate law school during the worst employment market for law school graduates in 40 years. It rebounds a few years later, but too late for me. I enter teaching school to switch careers just as the wave of people switching into teaching happens because we all have been hearing about the teacher shortage for years. Teacher glut -- especially high school social studies, which is all I can get certified for. So everywhere I apply for work, the principal has a thick file of applications, many from experienced teachers. Now that I am a referee, the economy goes bust and the normal acute referee shortage turns into a referee glut.
All of this is placing great strain on us, and on our relationship. We are both weighed down by the financial issues. She feels like crap. I am worried about her. She is scared of failing in school. I am weary from constantly having to be supportive. And then there's my daughter.
My ex-wife is apparently dying. Not officially "dying" as in told she has a terminal illness and has only so much time to live, but physically falling apart and on lots of medication. Let's just say she's blowing up the actuarial tables for her health insurance group. She had a brain tumor on her pituitary gland for two or three years. It spread into her nasal cavity. It was making her blind. She was almost completely blind, and was driving my daughter around, and never told me until the surgery was imminent. The surgery removed the golf ball pressing down on the gland, but they have to use chemo or radiation on the nasal strands. Apparently, while her eyesight is back, her health is failing all over the place. She's very sick and very scared, and the brain tumor will probably come back. From my research, most do, especially when they were big or aggressive.
Next year my daughter goes to middle school. My son goes into the Army in December, although I have my suspicions that he is going to back out of that. If he goes to the Army, who will take care of his mother? Who will take care of his sister under her auspices so that her father can't get her? I suspect that a combination of the need to take care of his mother combined with his native fears and laziness will cause him to drop out of TCC and sabotage the Army enlistment. And his mother will let him. Kylie and I think my daughter should live with us next year. And that prospect scares Kylie shitless. I understand. A step-mother at 21, being the acting mommy for an adolescent while her mother withers away. Scares me.
So yeah, life is a chore right now. Those are only some of the stressors we are under. Probably the biggest, but I'm sure there are a couple big ones not coming to mind at the moment. That's all right -- I don't need to think about all of them at the same time.
I have a book idea I think has merit. I am going to try to follow through on this one. It contains an old idea. It will be an epic (do I write anything else?). It will be set 25 years in the future. It will have three strands: in one strand a huge female celebrity (her celebrity is huge, not she) and a regular guy fall in love. This strand will explore social-cultural issues such as narcissism, gender issues, personal success and failure, loneliness and attachment, depression and happiness. In the second strand, a group of friends form a political movement that turns into a popular revolution. It is an electoral revolution with mass movement, violence and chaos occurs, and these four friends wind up running the executive branch and putting their program into action. In the third strand, a young mystic ignites a new religious movement through his earnest re-examinations. All of this is narrated by a 110-year-old man who brings a historical perspective to the story. The narrator will tie together parts of the story told through different "media." I want to combine a sweet romance with an exploration of cultural, social and political issues, inside of a philosophical quest. And I want it done in three years.
Refereeing today, then driving my daughter home. Nice four hour drive for me. Kylie would probably come, but I want her to stay home and rest.
Check out the slideshow. It's all our work.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
I'm Back
My flirtation with that hussy over at WordPress is over. The limitations of WP are worse than the limitations of this place. Google has created a new editor, and maybe it works better than the old one. If so, it handles my biggest problem with Blogger. I have been able to tweak my appearance quite a bit today, and I like that. I like the way it looks. Hopefully, I can now be stable here.
For the posts I made on WordPress, follow this link:
Wandering Muse on WordPress
Some of them are worth reading. At least I think they are.
For the posts I made on WordPress, follow this link:
Wandering Muse on WordPress
Some of them are worth reading. At least I think they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
