Been a while, but ...

... the nonsense has finally pushed me over the edge.

Took a lot, didn't it?

I don't think things are perfect. Great, even. This country, and this world, have a LOT of major issues. No need to go into them here as we all know what they are, right? That isn't what pushed me to jot down a little rant.

Heck, I even 'get' that people are upset and need to vent. I get why they tossed all the Republicans out 2 years ago, and tossed the Democrats from control of the House last month. Things are not as good as they were 10 years ago ... or 20, or 30. We have seen great prosperity under Reagan and Clinton and even did well under Bush, comparatively to how we are doing now. Again, I don't wish to go into what I think the causes are, or who is to blame, or even how this all could be / should be fixed. That isn't what made me sit to write this out.

What I am sick and tired of is the whining. The complaining with no solution offered. Those who feel free to write down anything and everything to make it appear as if we, the US, are in such a drastic state of decline that we cannot recover. That our lives are terrible now, and we were so much better off before. How we, as a generation, ruined it all as it was so perfect when our parents were growing up.

That is a load of horsecrap.

What prompted this need to vent? Another OpEd piece by Fox about how the Democrats have ruined this country? No. An editorial by CNN about how horrible the Republicans are? Nope. A stupid email. Trite little sayings strung together on a Powerpoint presentation (with pictures of modern day Hong Kong, for a great non-sequitor). I've received the same email in different forms for over 10 years. Attributed to comedian Steven Wright, then George Carlin, a Columbine HS student, Robin Williams, ... any number of name changes for the sender to think it would have more impact. It was used against Clinton, Bush, and now Obama. For those who do not think, it substitutes for modern day philosophy. Spoon fed and bite size single servings of bumper sticker philosophy that should be laughed at, yet not only doesn't it go away it was actually used to try to make a point today. By a friend who I admire and is very intelligent, even if prone to outrage for its own sake. Here is the foolish fluff (titled Paradox Of Our Time) which you probably all have received at some point wrapped up as if it is news, or deep philosophy:

The paradox of our time in history is that we have taller buildings, but shorter tempers; wider freeways, but narrower viewpoints; we spend more, but have less; we buy more, but enjoy it less.

We have bigger houses and smaller families; more conveniences, but less time; we have more degrees, but less sense; more knowledge, but less judgment; more experts, but more problems; more medicine, but less wellness.

We drink too much, smoke too much, spend too recklessly, laugh too little, drive too fast, get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom.

We have multiplied our possessions, but reduced our values. We talk too much, love too seldom, and hate too often. We've learned how to make a living, but not a life; we've added years to life, not life to years.

We've been all the way to the moon and back, but have trouble crossing the street to meet the new neighbor. We've conquered outer space, but not inner space; we've done larger things, but not better things.

We've cleaned up the air, but polluted the soul; we've split the atom, but not our prejudice.

We write more, but learn less; we plan more, but accomplish less. We've learned to rush, but not to wait; we have higher incomes, but lower morals; we have more food, but less appeasement; we build more computers to hold more information to produce more copies than ever, but have less communication; we've become long on quantity, but short on quality.

These are the times of fast foods and slow digestion; tall men, and short character; steep profits, and shallow relationships. These are the times of world peace, but domestic warfare; more leisure, but less fun; more kinds of food, but less nutrition.

These are days of two incomes, but more divorce; of fancier houses, but broken homes. These are days of quick trips, disposable diapers, throw away morality, one-night stands, overweight bodies, and pills that do everything from cheer to quiet to kill.

It is a time when there is much in the show window and nothing in the stockroom; a time when technology has brought this letter to you, and a time when you can choose either to make a difference, or to just hit delete...

It was actually written by Dr. Moorehead, a pastor in Seattle, back in the early 90s. A side note? 17 members of the church claimed the pastor sexually assaulted them, but I suppose the man's character has little to do with what he wrote anyway, right?

The problem is that while unemployment is up, it is not as high as it was in the 80s, let alone in the 30s. Real estate values, stock portfolios, 401ks, retirement accounts, etc.? Not what they were during the DotCom boom and, yes, a lot of people lost a lot of money. But are we really saying people haven't made / aren't making more in RE and the Market than any other time in history? Sure we had to deal with 9-11, have terrorism and wars in the Middle East, have a mountain of debt, etc. but are we losing sight of what we have dealt with in the past? We had planes being hijacked and people killed on them, the Olympics stormed by terrorists, gangsters shooting up cities in turf wars, Pearl Harbor attacked, and have had many more serious wars in our history than those in the Middle East now. We have fought against Communism and extremists many times.

I hear, on one hand, about how my father's generation had it better and easier ...and did things 'right'. I hear how we have ruined it all. Really? Really? They were a great generation and bore a lot on their shoulders. They had it TOUGH. My father was an infant during the Depresssion where Americans lost homes, families, and wandered through the country as beggars. He saw Europe and Asia kill millions and millions of Chinese, Russians, and Jews. He saw a world at war, families wiped out, neighbors lose every make child in a household. We have it tough?!

"...more conveniences, but less time; ..."

Really? Less time? I spend MUCH more time with my kids than my dad did, and so do all my friends and acquaintances. My dad was ALWAYS working.

"...we have more degrees, but less sense; "

Less sense than Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot? Less sense to build safer buildings, toys, and cars? Less sense to not let your kids play in the street or to lock up your gun collection? As a group, there have ALWAYS been those with no common sense. We are not worse now, certainly.

"...more knowledge, but less judgment; ..."

Judging by what my own father had to go through, I'm not guessing judgement was in such high quantities then, either.

"... more medicine, but less wellness."

Really? People live far longer, far healthier lives now. We take care of ourselves better and have much higher quality of life in our senior years.

"We drink too much,..."

Yup, but less than we did.

" smoke too much, ..."

Yup, but less than we did.

"...spend too recklessly,..."

Okay, that one is true. ;-)

"... laugh too little, ..."

" I'm not sure the hard working generation prior or the ones before that that had to work long and hard all day, every day laughed a whole lot more. Saying it doesn't make it true.

"...drive too fast,"

Well, I do. But is it worse in general? As soon as cars were invented people started to race them. It is in our nature to 'push'.

"...get angry too quickly, stay up too late, get up too tired, ..."

Tell that to all those who worked long hours every day... basically everyone prior to the 60s.

"...read too seldom, watch TV too much, and pray too seldom."

Maybe. But are we reading, collectively, less than they did 50 years ago? 100 years ago? We should read more and watch less TV, but comparatively we are doing better than ever before and have more leisure time to pursue than ever before.

I'll stop going through it line by line as I hope you get my point. People read this fodder and believe it because 'if I read it, it must be true'. Its BS. A very flawed man's opinion who was preaching to his Christian flock about how they need to be better. Now we get it emailed around by every person trying to make a political statement about how bad things are now.

And some of you reading this fall for it.

Our times have challenges and troubles. We need to work at them and look for solutions, and - while we do so - some areas will get worse. But minorities and women have it FAR better than they did in the past. We work less than our dads, spend more time with our families. Education is better, access is better. We have more time to use imaginations, create art, and less time spent doing drudgery. We have safety nets for those who try and fail, and have higher expectations for our children than ever on this planet. We are healthier, wealthier, and more savvy than ever. Basically we have too much free time to feel sorry for ourselves and examine how tough we have it relevant to how easy we want it to be.

So just stop. Think. Stop reading OpEd pieces on news channels and thinking they are news. They aren't. They are opinions. Stop getting your opinions fed to you. Think with your own brain. If you aren't interested in politics, fine. Not everyone is. Its okay to not have an opinion and leave some things to others who research issues. It sounds condescending but isn't meant to be. Why do we feel we have to have opinions on everything, even things we know little about? Please don't spend 15 minutes to hear what some columnist thinks and absorb it as your own. Maybe that columnist truly studied it and believe deeply in what they wrote. It still wouldn't make it a fact or correct. And maybe they are trying to sell a show or magazine or book or newspaper by either being controversial or pandering to their fans.

We all have worries but we always have had them. Ours are minuscule compared to that which our parents grew up with, let alone those before that. Be grateful. Appreciate what you have as you strive to make things better.

But enough with all the whining, okay?

Day: 17, Calories: 0

Log Entry

Daily Note: Okay, two weeks of 'prep' and this week I'm well into the P90X... Still had trouble getting through an entire Plyometrics 'Jump Training' routine yesterday, but maybe next week. Back to Resistance Traing today for Shoulders and Arms...

Newport JazzFest?

Thinking about Jazz in Newport. I can't call it the Newport Jazzfest, eve though that is what it is, as the name is copywritten and the group that bought it seems to have gone bankrupt or dropped the ball in putting the festival together. George Wein (the original producer/promoter) has stepped back in to make sure we don't go without a festival (as NY did), but its creatig a bit of confusion....

Anyway, here is the deal:

We used to go down early Sat., hit Jazzfest, stay over, hit the festival on Sunday and then head home after. It got so big though that a lot of hotels have a two night minimum stay now, so the last 3 or 4 years the family has been going down on Friday... we spend the day there, hit the pool, etc. Then dinner Friday eve, then go to JazzFest on Sat. for the day. Dinner that night, then JazzFest on Sunday and roll home afterward. We don't have our rooms yet, but I'll try to book them in the next few days. Its pricey (trying not to, but we've paid $450 a night, 2 night minimum before) to stay close by.

Your other options (in addition to doing what we do and biting the bullet expense-wise) are heading down for just one day (either Sat or Sun) and driving home afterward, or staying over but doing so in a hotel / motel a bit further away. You'd get a better price, maybe only a one night stay, and still be able to go to the festival both days if you are interested.

More details:

Get there early (starts around 11, full by noon) if you want a decent view and don't want to be in the weeds.

Bring a blanket and/or folding chairs.

They sell beer there (which I don't drink) but I have heard of people who smuggle in rum or vodka in water bottles...

Food is good and plentiful. Lots of options and usually very tasty.

In the past, there have been three stages, continuous acts on each. I'm not sure they'll do that this year (see below for reason). If you are thinking of a day trip, check out: George Wein's CareFusion Jazz Festival 55 | Newport, RI I think I personally will like Saturday a bit more as its more for the jazz lover. Sunday will be busier though as Tony Bennett will be there, as well as Dave Brubeck (Take 5, you'd know it).

Ticket costs are down as there was some confusion this past year about who would put it together and promote it... The gentleman who did it for years stepped back in late and put it together, but ticket prices have dropped from $50-$75 to $15-$30. I'm guessing that means fewer acts.

That's all I can think of for now, but write and comment if you have any questions...

- E

Stimulus...

A lot of us have heard the figures... If the Gov. gave the billions they sent to the banks and auto companies (to say nothing of the billions given to local and state govs. as 'stimulus' and to businesses) all American taxpayers would receive upwards of $250,000 each. That started me thinking...

If what the gov. wanted to do was to make sure the banks did not fail do to bad RE investments, that RE values stabilized, the public slide into bankruptcies were halted, and that banks were paid off for the loans then why not simply give the bailout cash to the public under the condition that it pay off outstanding loans and mortgages? The end result would have been for people to have less debt and therefor be more willing to buy goods, the banks would have the bad investments paid off (as well as some of the good ones) and would have healthier balance sheets and not be saddled with either property or bad mortgages. They would be willing to lend (under new tighter restrictions to keep this from happening again) out monies they had (and hadn't lost), and small businesses would benefit as capital to them would not be tied up... No one would lose and everyone and every sector would gain.

The car companies? Rather than bail them out with loans and cash of $9 Billion, why doesn't the federal government buy 450,000 cars at $20,000 each? The government could sell them to the public for pennies on the dollar, or gift them to worthy poor people, or heck, have a lottery... Or just put in a program funded by the monies they would have given in gift payments to the car manufacturers whereby the public could get grants for 50% off an American car, etc. Whatever. There are many ways of passing the money out to make sure both the public benefits (it is our money, right?) and the car companies still are helped. The car companies would have a huge increase in sales which could help them become profitable, the public would get new cars, the environment would benefit from all the older cars being taken off the road, etc. Another win/win situation instead of our current plan which has citizens still paying their money for questionable quality American cars made by companies that may not be around to service them while their tax dollars go into the companies with the same failed management strategies that got them into the trouble in the first place.

This approach, providing stimulus to companies and institutions that need assistance by providing assistance to the public, would work far better than passing out checks to managers (in business or gov. agencies) that have already shown they cannot distribute funds well or manage a department profitably. It can be done everywhere and in every sector, too, including disaster relief. Billions poured into New Orleans after Katrina yet the city is a shell of its former glory, residents have no way of moving back and have to start over, crime is up... How about giving anyone who lost their home $200k towards a new one, plus $30k per person to replace possessions lost (to renters and homeowners alike). Strings attached, of course. Would there be abuses and those who spent the money on drugs by selling their vouchers to others? Sure. No system is foolproof. But not only would retail places see a boom, but contractors would as well. Want to help rebuild its standing and bring back some measure of 'normalcy' to the region? The gov. could pay 50% of travel costs and / or hotel costs for people willing to vacation there. It would bring people back to spend money in an area that lived off tourist dollars, people that currently won't / can't go back to spend money there. The economy would thrive. People would move in to provide the services to a community flush with cash. Those who lost everything could rebuild. Heck, those who helped by paying taxes could get a cheaper vacation! Everyone would benefit. Sure, the gov. would still have to rebuild schools, the levees, etc. but even with those expenditures the costs would be lower than the billions that are poured into the area, most of which have either not been handed out or have disappeared with so much of the city and so many of the former inhabitants still in a terrible position.

While not a fan of huge government, I am all for stimulating the economy at times like these rather than letting the current economy snowball as it runs downhill... This is why we have a government: NOT for when times are good and the economy is growing and threats abroad are minimal, but for when we need a push, a prod, or some protection. To be there to right wrongs that we alone cannot correct, not to run our lives all the time and make people dependent upon the government. But while I agree the government should be helping certain people and sectors, and I do not think handing out cash to people 'willy nilly' is the answer, I do think a controlled program of spending with strings and controls would be FAR better than our current way of 'helping' by handing out cash and 'loans' which barely help the public who's taxes are paying for the loans and who's children will bear much of the burden for paying them.

There is a better way and we have to start looking for it and demanding it.

Stimulus Plan Necessary But Not Enough

E - As I said long ago, this economy is worse than even the White House is projecting or has been reported... Even with the Stimulus Plan (thank goodness) we are in for a few long years. High unemployment, inflation, reduced availability of credit, dropping RE values for 2 or 3 more years, etc. The money put into the economy by the gov. will help, but it will not be enough to stop this economy. Its the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to admit is there, but we are already in a free fall and there is no true end in sight. Not to be too doom and gloom guys, but the last year they have propped things up to look better than they were and the Obama Admin. is still doing its best to put a positive spin on things to restore consumer confidence... Things are much worse than some report...

The fortunes of the American economy have grown so alarming and the pace of the decline so swift that economists are now straining to describe where events are headed, dusting off a word that has not been invoked since the 1940s: depression.

Economists are not making comparisons with the Great Depression of the 1930s, when the unemployment rate reached 25 percent. Current conditions are not even as poor as during the twin recessions of the 1980s, when unemployment exceeded 10 percent, though many experts assert this downturn is on track to be significantly worse.

Rather, economists are using the word depression — a subjective term with no academic definition — to describe a condition of broad and extreme economic distress that remains stubbornly in place for much longer than a typical downturn.

This is more than a matter of semantics. As the government determines its spending plans, readying another infusion of cash for troubled banks while contemplating an additional bailout for the auto industry, the magnitude of those needs will hinge on the extent of the damage.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, now places the odds of “a mild depression” at 25 percent, up from 15 percent three months ago. In that view, the unemployment rate would reach 10.5 percent by the end of 2011 — up from 7.6 percent at the end of January — average home prices would fall 20 percent on top of the 27 percent they have plunged already, and losses in the financial system would more than triple, to $3.7 trillion.

Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics, sees a 20 percent chance of “a depressionlike possibility,” up from 15 percent a week ago.

“In the housing market, the financial system and the stock market, we’re already there,” Mr. Sinai said. “It is a depression.”

Yet, in drawing up the budget, the White House assumed the economy would expand by a robust 3.2 percent in 2010, with growth accelerating to 4 percent over the next three years.

“It’s a hope, a wing and a prayer,” Mr. Sinai said. “It’s a return to a sanguine view of the economy that is simply not justified.”

If, as is widely anticipated, the economy grows more slowly than the White House assumes, revenue will be lower, forcing the government to cut spending, raise taxes or run larger deficits.

Economists also criticized as unrealistically hopeful the assumptions by the Federal Reserve as it began so-called stress tests to gauge the health of the nation’s largest banks. In testimony, Ben S. Bernanke, the Fed chairman, said that the nation’s unemployment rate would most likely reach 8.8 percent next year.

“That forecast just doesn’t seem realistic,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, “and I don’t think it helps the Fed’s credibility to make these sorts of forecasts right now.”

As federal regulators estimate potential losses at banks, the harshest assumptions they are testing entails the unemployment rate topping out at 10.3 percent — the highest level since 1983, but hardly the worst case.

By Mr. Baker’s reckoning, the unemployment rate may exceed 12 percent — the highest level since tracking began in 1948.

“We continue to see across-the-board numbers coming in worse than we expected,” Mr. Baker said.

By Mr. Zandi’s estimation, in the most likely case, the unemployment rate will reach 9.3 percent next year. The distress in the financial system, the job market and real estate have become inextricably intertwined.

As troubled banks remain hesitant to lend, even healthy companies are laying off workers. As more Americans lose jobs, they are cutting spending, depriving businesses of revenue, and falling behind on house, car and credit card payments, multiplying losses in the financial system. As more homes land in foreclosure and would-be buyers fail to secure mortgages, housing prices fall further, adding to the losses of the banks — a downward spiral.

Many economists expect that the labor data to be released next Friday will show that as many as 700,000 jobs disappeared in February, lifting the unemployment rate near 8 percent and pushing total job losses to more than four million since the recession began in December 2007.

Given the brutal forces at play, some experts question the administration’s decision to publicize the bank stress tests, as opposed to conducting them quietly.

“It invited the interpretation that this was the beginning of triage for the banks, that we were going to start lining them up and shooting them,” said Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve and a professor at Princeton. “There are some things in the bank supervisor role that you just keep secret.”

Others argue that the tests could sow needed assurance. “The stress test could create transparency,” said Alan D. Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price in Baltimore.

As the gruesome data accumulates, this much is already clear: Transparency is not for the squeamish.

Mr. Levenson noted that the weakening economy was destroying demand for goods and services even faster than the $787 billion stimulus program could replace it.

E - The time to put aside the partisan bull is here... without the additional gov. spending and projects to keep millions employed, spending, paying taxes, and off the unemployment rolls pulling money from the system, the upcoming years would be worse than anything we have seen in our lifetime. It still may be.

QRW's Best $12 And Under California Wines

Cabernet Sauvignon

2003 Coastal Ridge, California - $7

2005 Fat Cat, California - $10

2004 Forest Glen, California - $11

2004 ForestVille, California - $6

2003 Harlow Ridge, Lodi - $10

2006 Napa Ridge, Napa Valley - $12

2006 Red Truck, Central Coast - $12

2006 Redwood Creek, California - $8

2005 Round Hill, California - $9

Merlot

2005 Forest Glen, California - $11

2004 Napa Ridge, Napa Valley - $12

2006 Redwood Creek, California - $8

2005 Round Hill, California - $8

Zinfandel / Shiraz

2005 Bonny Doon Vineyard Syrah, Le Pousseur, Central Coast - $10

2005 ForestVille Zinfandel, California - $6

2005 Harlow Ridge Shiraz, Lodi - $10

2003 Napa Ridge Syrah, Napa Valley - $12

Red Blends

2006 Red Truck Petite Sirah, California - $10

2005 Grand Pacific Starliner Red - $12

Whites - Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Blends

2006 Fat Cat Chardonnay, California - $10

2005 Gallo of Sonoma Reserve Chardonnay, Sonoma - $12

2005 Grand Pacific Steamliner White - $12

2005 Mont Pellier Chardonnay, California - $7

2005 Napa Ridge, Napa Valley - $12

2006 Round Hill Chardonnay, California - $9

2006 White Knight Sauvignon Blanc, Lodi - $12

2005 White Knight Viognier, Clarksburg - $12

For details or the article, you'll have to get the Quarterly Review Of Wines, Summer 2008 edition...  Besides, this gives you a jumping off point.  You have recommendations to start, right?  Isn't experimenting and trying them to see what YOU like the pint, anyway?

Grape Varietals In France

   Do any of you find French wines to be exceptionally confusing? 
   Well - they can be!  Unlike most wines from the US, New Zealand, Australia, etc., the French wine labels do not usually name the grape varietals. Instead, they list the country of origin, the region, the vintage, the estate, or "maker", the winery and/or vineyard, and occasionally the shipper or négotiant.
   This (very generalized!) list outlines the primary varietals found in a few important regions: 
Burgundy:
Reds: Pinot Noir
White: Chardonnay 
Bordeaux:
Reds: Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot, Cabernet Franc, Malbec
Whites: Sauvignon Blanc, Semillion, Muscadelle
Loire:
Reds: Cabernet Franc, Gamay, Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauvignon
Whites: Chenin Blanc,  Melon De Burgogne, Sauvignon Blanc
Alsace:
Whites: Gewuztraminer, Muscat, Pinot Blanc, Pinot Gris, Riesling
Rhone:
Reds: Grenache, Syrah, Mouvedre, Cinsault
Whites: Grenache Blanc, Clairette, Bourboulenc, Roussanne, Picpoul