Given the looming economy and talks of the trillion dollars of deficit spending that we have been inundated with recently, I thought it might be of good use to turn our attention away from politics and the economy and focus on the advent of baseball season.
It was approximately a week ago (depending on when this gets published) when Sports Illustrated leaked the results of the "anonymous" steroid tests that were conducted in 2003. The name that was leaked that fateful Saturday was that of Alex Rodriguez. This so disheartening in the eyes of baseball fans because A-Rod stood to be the most viable opportunity to take back the home run record from Barry Bonds.
Now, I’m no Yankees fan, but to be honest, I was at least hoping that someone would have legitimized the record. That being said, "A-Roid" has dashed the hopes of many. He has been stripped of the title, "Baseball’s Savior", since his record is too tarnished by performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
We have yet to hear all the names that are on the Sports Illustrated report of big-name major leaguers that tested positive in the "anonymous" 2003 steroids tests, but I don’t think the results will be that pretty. The use of PEDs in baseball has been widespread. How many records in the books can we be sure are even true records made by those people who adhered strictly to the rules of the game? The list seems endless; Andy Pettitte, Garry Sheffield, Roger Clemens, Jason Giambi (wow, I’m noticing a lot of Yankees are making this list), Barry Bonds, Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Eric Gagne, and many others.
Commissioner Bud Selig has even talked about reinstating records that were knowingly obtained without the use of PEDs. This sounds like a good idea to me. We need these records to remain in the hands of those players that worked hard to achieve such great feats and didn’t cut corners to get a competitive advantage. For me, part of the appeal of the game is that these players are good at what they do and got where they are because of hard work, dedication, and a genuine talent; not because they have the best drugs.
We need to keep the integrity of the record book in tact and remove the "records" of PED users. Anything less would probably make Ted Williams’ head spin in it’s cryogenic cooler.
Either way, there is something to prove this coming season. Baseball is jaded by the Mitchell Report and who knows what will come of the Sports Illustrated report when it is released. Baseball desperately needs a savior and to see some good this season in order to rejuvenate the faith fans have in the game. I personally hope it comes soon, and that it does not comes from someone that plays for the black and white pinstripes (Yes, I’m talking about you Jeter).
Scott Boras certainly won’t help bring salvation to baseball, rather he might aid in it’s destruction. Every contract he negotiates is like the Midas touch; worth a lot of gold, but when it comes down to it, the money’s not worth the trouble. His contracts get his clients the most money (breaking the banks of these franchises), but often these players are the ones that offer the least to their teams. I mean, really, Barry Zito? Get that big contract and you end up getting benched? Manny Ramirez still wants more money from the Dodgers and played there for what, 3 weeks? Fantastic. Maybe Scott Boras should be cryogenically frozen?
Thank goodness there is still hope; the hope that the Devil Rays (sorry... Tampa Bay Rays) gave us last year by making it to the World Series with a bunch of players the other big-budget teams didn’t want (and that really pains me to say considering I despise the Rays). The same hope that the Phillies can win it all. The same hope that the Yankees won’t make the post-season again. (Just goes to show you that the old saying are true; cheaters never prosper.)
Dear Baseball, I hope this season you bring back some class and leave the scandals at home. I don’t care if A-Roid left his wife for Madonna (and has recently been seen getting "friendly" with 19 year-olds). I don’t care that Roberto Alomar and his wife are going through a nasty divorce proceeding (where his wife accuses him of giving her AIDS). I don’t care about it all. I just care about the game. Please, keep the game in tact. Please, keep the game honorable. For goodness sakes, give me something to look forward to come March. Sincerely, Patrick.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Generation Facebook Opinion Piece
In today’s age, the internet is becoming a vital part in how we communicate with each other and receive our information. The internet has also revolutionized the way that we obtain information. With all the advances that have been made with the internet and how the internet has been increasingly incorporated into our daily lives, it only makes sense that eventually a website would be created where people could socially interact without socially interacting.
Social networking sites, like facebook, allow people to add other people as their "friends" and essentially keep tabs on their daily lives. This is also the current trend with the internet today; it can increasingly be used to obtain information on people with a simple Google search. News organizations have done in depth reporting about the dangers of the internet and how there is an increasing amount of personal information available to anyone on the internet. That’s a scary thought.
There’s a lot of information on the web now. This can be both good and bad. For instance, thanks to the information available on the internet, my job is a lot easier. I can research facts and figures for my writing and even find contact information for people I need to get a hold of when I can’t find information I need online. I can also research mortgage rates on numerous websites and not have to rely on what a banker tells me. I have ways of gathering and corroborating information that 20 years ago people either couldn’t access or it would take way too long to obtain. The internet has made research incredibly easy to obtain.
The downside of the new age of information is that our government is not taking a responsible approach to regulating all the information that is available online. People are exploiting the wealth of information available on the internet to aid them in stalking their victims or identity theft. The internet is a very useful invention, but just like most other inventions, without any type of restraint or regulation from the government, it will be abused.
This leads me back to social networking sites. I have used facebook as a networking site for many years (well, since it was first available at my university). To be honest, facebook has made it increasingly easy for me to keep in contact with some of my closest friends and at the same time share in the joy of their lives when they post pictures of (1) new homes, (2) weddings, (3) their children, etc.
However, I think it’s important for parents to know about the social dangers of facebook (unless of course 20/20 beat me to it). Facebook, when it was first created, was intended only for the college-age crowd (to sign up you had to have a college/university email account). Eventually they expanded facebook for high school students and eventually adults. Pay special attention to that last sentence; they opened up facebook to both adults and high school students. Facebook opened its doors and let everyone in. Facebook’s selectivity was what made it, in my opinion, the superior networking site because it was unavailable to sex offenders (unless they had a valid email account). Some of you may have heard reports that facebook’s main competitor, Myspace, recently removed 90,000 sex offenders from membership. Can you imagine 90,000 sex offenders being able to access the profile, personal information, pictures of your teenage son or daughter? I certainly can’t.
For me, facebook was a great invention that allows me to stay in touch with my closest friends. But at the same time, this invention has been exploited by some at the detriment of others. I highly recommend that any parent out there that reads this column create their own facebook account and add their children so they can monitor their online activity (even the idea that a parent is online and can see their profile may be enough to keep your child from posting certain material). Talk with your children and inform them of the dangers of posting too much information in a public forum. Just watching MSNBC’s "To Catch a Predator" should be enough motivation for children to limit their online information and activity.
Lastly, this is just a small entry regarding the dangers of facebook and other social networking sites. I know that parents need to know more about facebook, but one column about the subject matter is not enough. I do not consider myself a facebook expect, but I do know a thing or two about the website and the history of social networking. I have previously tinkered around with the idea of writing a book and for that reason uploaded an extensive "chapter" about facebook on my blog found at http://patricklawson.blogspot.com/. I should warn you that the entry is relatively unedited and still rough. It can be found in the archives from November of 2008 under the same name as this column. This may give parents a little more insight into facebook and other social networking sites.
Social networking sites, like facebook, allow people to add other people as their "friends" and essentially keep tabs on their daily lives. This is also the current trend with the internet today; it can increasingly be used to obtain information on people with a simple Google search. News organizations have done in depth reporting about the dangers of the internet and how there is an increasing amount of personal information available to anyone on the internet. That’s a scary thought.
There’s a lot of information on the web now. This can be both good and bad. For instance, thanks to the information available on the internet, my job is a lot easier. I can research facts and figures for my writing and even find contact information for people I need to get a hold of when I can’t find information I need online. I can also research mortgage rates on numerous websites and not have to rely on what a banker tells me. I have ways of gathering and corroborating information that 20 years ago people either couldn’t access or it would take way too long to obtain. The internet has made research incredibly easy to obtain.
The downside of the new age of information is that our government is not taking a responsible approach to regulating all the information that is available online. People are exploiting the wealth of information available on the internet to aid them in stalking their victims or identity theft. The internet is a very useful invention, but just like most other inventions, without any type of restraint or regulation from the government, it will be abused.
This leads me back to social networking sites. I have used facebook as a networking site for many years (well, since it was first available at my university). To be honest, facebook has made it increasingly easy for me to keep in contact with some of my closest friends and at the same time share in the joy of their lives when they post pictures of (1) new homes, (2) weddings, (3) their children, etc.
However, I think it’s important for parents to know about the social dangers of facebook (unless of course 20/20 beat me to it). Facebook, when it was first created, was intended only for the college-age crowd (to sign up you had to have a college/university email account). Eventually they expanded facebook for high school students and eventually adults. Pay special attention to that last sentence; they opened up facebook to both adults and high school students. Facebook opened its doors and let everyone in. Facebook’s selectivity was what made it, in my opinion, the superior networking site because it was unavailable to sex offenders (unless they had a valid email account). Some of you may have heard reports that facebook’s main competitor, Myspace, recently removed 90,000 sex offenders from membership. Can you imagine 90,000 sex offenders being able to access the profile, personal information, pictures of your teenage son or daughter? I certainly can’t.
For me, facebook was a great invention that allows me to stay in touch with my closest friends. But at the same time, this invention has been exploited by some at the detriment of others. I highly recommend that any parent out there that reads this column create their own facebook account and add their children so they can monitor their online activity (even the idea that a parent is online and can see their profile may be enough to keep your child from posting certain material). Talk with your children and inform them of the dangers of posting too much information in a public forum. Just watching MSNBC’s "To Catch a Predator" should be enough motivation for children to limit their online information and activity.
Lastly, this is just a small entry regarding the dangers of facebook and other social networking sites. I know that parents need to know more about facebook, but one column about the subject matter is not enough. I do not consider myself a facebook expect, but I do know a thing or two about the website and the history of social networking. I have previously tinkered around with the idea of writing a book and for that reason uploaded an extensive "chapter" about facebook on my blog found at http://patricklawson.blogspot.com/. I should warn you that the entry is relatively unedited and still rough. It can be found in the archives from November of 2008 under the same name as this column. This may give parents a little more insight into facebook and other social networking sites.
My Near Death Experience
Bell County has been severely hit with a rash of fatal and near fatal car accidents, along with other forms of misfortune. I think it’s safe to say that there are a lot of people who have been touched by tragedy recently. My wife and I were almost the victims of another tragedy.
Not that our narrow escape from death is any more noteworthy than the other tragedies that have happened or even other stories of escape. Our event happened because a driver did not yield to a stop sign and almost directly hit our passenger side at a high rate of speed. Had it not been for my quick reaction with the brakes, I assure you that she would no longer be with us and that I may or may not have survived.
We were extremely lucky that day, whereas others may not have been as lucky. My wife and I discussed what happened and we both were in amazement at how fragile life is and how instantly one can just be plucked from this earth. Before the incident, we were talking about buying a house and our finances; we were planning out our life for the next year never realizing these are days that are not guaranteed.
But that day, those really important matters (buying a house, paying our bills) didn’t matter to us. We were thankful just to be alive and to have another day to look forward to.
And that’s the reason why I’m writing this column. I know I am victim to tunnel vision at times. I think we all are. We often forget our mortality until we are faced with a tragedy that reminds us that we are here for a short period of time. We forget to make the most out of every day because we get caught up in the complacency of existence. We do not live to our fullest potential because we love the familiar and never venture out to taste the sweet nectar of life.
How often do we say to ourselves that we need to get out and "do things" more often? How often do we go out and do the things that would bring us the most joy? How often do we accomplish all those things that we want to do before we die?
I tell you we don’t because, more often than not, we put those things on the back burner. We think we will have more time "later" but later is not a guarantee. We know we have things to do later, but we don’t know when, or if, that later comes.
If you’ve ever seen the movie, "The Bucket List", then the idea behind this column is familiar. In the movie, two individuals (Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson) are diagnosed with terminal cancer and begin to do all the things they ever wanted to do before they "kick the bucket" (hence the name of the movie). The difference between The Bucket List and what happened to my wife and I is that Freeman and Nicholson had a time frame of when they would die; my wife and I did not. We could have died right there and never had another day to make the most of.
The point is that we never really know when we will be taken away, and we often forget that fact. How often do we need reminders that act as the catalyst we need to live our life for today and not for tomorrow? There are only so many guaranteed tomorrows and unfortunately many people in Bell County are aware of that today. My prayers are with those who have felt tragedy either directly or indirectly.
Not that our narrow escape from death is any more noteworthy than the other tragedies that have happened or even other stories of escape. Our event happened because a driver did not yield to a stop sign and almost directly hit our passenger side at a high rate of speed. Had it not been for my quick reaction with the brakes, I assure you that she would no longer be with us and that I may or may not have survived.
We were extremely lucky that day, whereas others may not have been as lucky. My wife and I discussed what happened and we both were in amazement at how fragile life is and how instantly one can just be plucked from this earth. Before the incident, we were talking about buying a house and our finances; we were planning out our life for the next year never realizing these are days that are not guaranteed.
But that day, those really important matters (buying a house, paying our bills) didn’t matter to us. We were thankful just to be alive and to have another day to look forward to.
And that’s the reason why I’m writing this column. I know I am victim to tunnel vision at times. I think we all are. We often forget our mortality until we are faced with a tragedy that reminds us that we are here for a short period of time. We forget to make the most out of every day because we get caught up in the complacency of existence. We do not live to our fullest potential because we love the familiar and never venture out to taste the sweet nectar of life.
How often do we say to ourselves that we need to get out and "do things" more often? How often do we go out and do the things that would bring us the most joy? How often do we accomplish all those things that we want to do before we die?
I tell you we don’t because, more often than not, we put those things on the back burner. We think we will have more time "later" but later is not a guarantee. We know we have things to do later, but we don’t know when, or if, that later comes.
If you’ve ever seen the movie, "The Bucket List", then the idea behind this column is familiar. In the movie, two individuals (Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson) are diagnosed with terminal cancer and begin to do all the things they ever wanted to do before they "kick the bucket" (hence the name of the movie). The difference between The Bucket List and what happened to my wife and I is that Freeman and Nicholson had a time frame of when they would die; my wife and I did not. We could have died right there and never had another day to make the most of.
The point is that we never really know when we will be taken away, and we often forget that fact. How often do we need reminders that act as the catalyst we need to live our life for today and not for tomorrow? There are only so many guaranteed tomorrows and unfortunately many people in Bell County are aware of that today. My prayers are with those who have felt tragedy either directly or indirectly.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Buy Now, Pay Later.
I have always found it amazing that we are a nation that loves the idea of purchasing what we want and not what we need. I was reminded of this when I saw a Saturday Night Live sketch called, "Don’t Buy Things You Cannot Afford" with Steve Martin, Amy Poehler, and Chris Parnell. The premise behind the sketch is that Chris Parnell is marketing one of those "Get Out of Debt Quick" solutions which are incredibly popular today. What makes the whole sketch so funny is that Steve Martin and Amy Poehler are confused by the plan that Parnell is marketing which advises people, "don’t buy things if you don’t have the money".
But the sketch, although intended for humor, had some points I feel people either ignore or disregard when they are making purchasing decisions or calculating their finances.
To start, if you don’t have money, don’t buy things. This statement is fairly straight-forward and easy to understand, however, I can’t help but think about the people that make little to no money or receive state assistance and purchase non-necessity goods, often neglecting to purchase necessity goods for themselves or their families. Do you really need that pair of Nike sneakers or that brand new cell phone when Junior needs baby formula?
Another point that was discussed in the sketch was buying expensive things with saved money. I understand there are some things that just cannot be paid for with saved money (especially when the need for them is immediate and cannot be postponed). However, for that flat-screen television you’ve always wanted or the new Mac Book that’s on sale this week, one should postpone those purchases unless the money can come from saved money.
On the same note, I have noticed that people will often make investment decisions that don’t make sense to me. I have noticed there are a lot of houses in Middlesboro that look run down but the owners have other luxuries; above ground pools, basketball courts, brand new cars in the driveway, trampoline, a visible flat screen television, etc., etc. These luxuries are often nicer than the homes the owners live in. We all know at least a few houses like this. To me, I can’t imagine spending money on a nice car and a nice pool when I could use that money to instead have a nice house. Personally, I drive an older car so that I have more money available for the finer things in life. I will literally drive the wheels off of my car before I get a new one. Why stretch myself further just so I can have a luxury vehicle?
Isn’t the purpose of a car to help us commute and travel to places? Do we really have to have a luxury vehicle or even a new car every few years? I knew a family like this once; they replaced a car almost on a 3 year schedule. Why not just keep the car and pay it off rather than continue to make car payments for new cars? To avoid paying for repairs as necessary? If a car requires repairs, on the whole it costs less than making a cay payment every month.
Forgoing those luxuries now will free up more funding today to help purchase nicer things later. But we are a buy now, pay later society. Our purchases of the past are coming back to haunt us today because the bill came in the mail and the payment is due (with interest). And we wonder why there’s a credit crunch; we can’t make our minimum payments anymore! We have consistently asked for what we want now rather than wait until we can afford it. This only helps to explain why we have a national deficit that is greater than a trillion dollars.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t spend money. That’s not the case at all. In my column about stimulating the economy, I argued that people should be spending money today to capitalize on the buyer’s market (and lower prices) only if you have the money. The federal government wants to stimulate the economy, but we shouldn’t adopt their practices; deficit spending. In times of financial crisis, it’s only best to cut back a little to ensure you make it through the storm. Essentially, the solution is to buy now, pay now.
But the sketch, although intended for humor, had some points I feel people either ignore or disregard when they are making purchasing decisions or calculating their finances.
To start, if you don’t have money, don’t buy things. This statement is fairly straight-forward and easy to understand, however, I can’t help but think about the people that make little to no money or receive state assistance and purchase non-necessity goods, often neglecting to purchase necessity goods for themselves or their families. Do you really need that pair of Nike sneakers or that brand new cell phone when Junior needs baby formula?
Another point that was discussed in the sketch was buying expensive things with saved money. I understand there are some things that just cannot be paid for with saved money (especially when the need for them is immediate and cannot be postponed). However, for that flat-screen television you’ve always wanted or the new Mac Book that’s on sale this week, one should postpone those purchases unless the money can come from saved money.
On the same note, I have noticed that people will often make investment decisions that don’t make sense to me. I have noticed there are a lot of houses in Middlesboro that look run down but the owners have other luxuries; above ground pools, basketball courts, brand new cars in the driveway, trampoline, a visible flat screen television, etc., etc. These luxuries are often nicer than the homes the owners live in. We all know at least a few houses like this. To me, I can’t imagine spending money on a nice car and a nice pool when I could use that money to instead have a nice house. Personally, I drive an older car so that I have more money available for the finer things in life. I will literally drive the wheels off of my car before I get a new one. Why stretch myself further just so I can have a luxury vehicle?
Isn’t the purpose of a car to help us commute and travel to places? Do we really have to have a luxury vehicle or even a new car every few years? I knew a family like this once; they replaced a car almost on a 3 year schedule. Why not just keep the car and pay it off rather than continue to make car payments for new cars? To avoid paying for repairs as necessary? If a car requires repairs, on the whole it costs less than making a cay payment every month.
Forgoing those luxuries now will free up more funding today to help purchase nicer things later. But we are a buy now, pay later society. Our purchases of the past are coming back to haunt us today because the bill came in the mail and the payment is due (with interest). And we wonder why there’s a credit crunch; we can’t make our minimum payments anymore! We have consistently asked for what we want now rather than wait until we can afford it. This only helps to explain why we have a national deficit that is greater than a trillion dollars.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t spend money. That’s not the case at all. In my column about stimulating the economy, I argued that people should be spending money today to capitalize on the buyer’s market (and lower prices) only if you have the money. The federal government wants to stimulate the economy, but we shouldn’t adopt their practices; deficit spending. In times of financial crisis, it’s only best to cut back a little to ensure you make it through the storm. Essentially, the solution is to buy now, pay now.
Monday, January 26, 2009
My First Case of Writer’s Block
Writing opinion columns is not normally hard for me. It’s easy to have an opinion when you’re very opinionated (obviously). However, one of the hardest things to do is to pick a topic to write in depth about (intelligently).
Sure there are things that I have strong opinions about, but today I just seem hard pressed to write about them. It can sometimes be difficult to come up with enough information and premises to support an opinion.
So in the interests of being unable to formulate a single topic to write about in this column, I thought it might be appropriate to piecemeal a few opinions.
Honestly, who steals pure-bred dogs? I want to offer my sympathy for the victims of these crimes, but nothing says "senseless" quite like stealing someone’s pet. I mean seriously, aren’t there more lucrative strategies to get rich quick? Why not just try to take candy from a baby? I think the two crimes are comparable in terms of "classiness".
Billy Mays will sell you OxiClean, Mighty Mend It, Kaboom, OrangeGlow, MightyPuty, Gophers, Hercules Hooks, and now to add to his resume, he will sell you health benefits. That’s right folks, health benefits. The iCan Benefit Group, LLC (No kidding, that’s actually the name of the company. Please note it’s resemblance to the iPod) has officially contracted the "television salesman of the year" to help them sell health insurance. The insurance allegedly costs the insured a fraction of what private insurance costs today (but then again you get what you pay for). I wonder if Mays is seeking advice from Richard Scrushy, the founder of Health South? This may be the first product that Mays endorses that does not come with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. I bet Mays would sell you his beard if he could, or perhaps even his own Grandmother. Buyer beware on this one.
Grave robbers strike again in Middlesboro. This is truly shameful and distasteful. Karma being what it is, retribution is on it’s way.
President Obama’s inauguration was neither "green" or fiscally responsible. During a time of economic recession and high unemployment, I can completely see his logic in throwing a grand gala and a lavish parade for his coronation (pun intended). Why not, right? It’s not like he’s paying for it with all of his contributions from Hollywood and Oprah. I love that my taxes went to his celebration and not to the creation of jobs, or for that matter, anything to help weather the current economic storm. Let’s not even mention what he’s doing with the stimulus. On top of that, his inauguration totaled 100 tons of garbage. By comparison, New York City on New Year’s Eve only had 40 tons. That’s not even ironic given Obama’s campaign platform, that’s just downright hypocrisy.
There is a coalition forming that would like to restore voting rights to felons in Kentucky. They argue that felons who have paid their debt to society should have this right restored. In my opinion, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I don’t care if they ever have their vote restored again. Before you know it, groups like this will also try to restore former felon’s rights to own and possess firearms. Steps in the right direction, I assure you.
Current Illinois Governor Blagojevich informed the media recently that he thought about giving Oprah the Senate seat for Illinois. Well, at least that would put her show on hold for a while (which would be fantastic). However, do we really want to give more power and influence to this woman? I would suspect, if selected for the seat, she would vote however President Obama told her. Does it upset anyone else that Oprah (who already has a substantial influence on the public) has a strong friendship with the President, or is that just me? I can personally see Oprah lobbying the public for anything and everything that President Obama wants in order to sway public opinion to his benefit.
Some opinions are meant to be funny, others satirical but sincere. Please read with caution.
Sure there are things that I have strong opinions about, but today I just seem hard pressed to write about them. It can sometimes be difficult to come up with enough information and premises to support an opinion.
So in the interests of being unable to formulate a single topic to write about in this column, I thought it might be appropriate to piecemeal a few opinions.
Honestly, who steals pure-bred dogs? I want to offer my sympathy for the victims of these crimes, but nothing says "senseless" quite like stealing someone’s pet. I mean seriously, aren’t there more lucrative strategies to get rich quick? Why not just try to take candy from a baby? I think the two crimes are comparable in terms of "classiness".
Billy Mays will sell you OxiClean, Mighty Mend It, Kaboom, OrangeGlow, MightyPuty, Gophers, Hercules Hooks, and now to add to his resume, he will sell you health benefits. That’s right folks, health benefits. The iCan Benefit Group, LLC (No kidding, that’s actually the name of the company. Please note it’s resemblance to the iPod) has officially contracted the "television salesman of the year" to help them sell health insurance. The insurance allegedly costs the insured a fraction of what private insurance costs today (but then again you get what you pay for). I wonder if Mays is seeking advice from Richard Scrushy, the founder of Health South? This may be the first product that Mays endorses that does not come with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. I bet Mays would sell you his beard if he could, or perhaps even his own Grandmother. Buyer beware on this one.
Grave robbers strike again in Middlesboro. This is truly shameful and distasteful. Karma being what it is, retribution is on it’s way.
President Obama’s inauguration was neither "green" or fiscally responsible. During a time of economic recession and high unemployment, I can completely see his logic in throwing a grand gala and a lavish parade for his coronation (pun intended). Why not, right? It’s not like he’s paying for it with all of his contributions from Hollywood and Oprah. I love that my taxes went to his celebration and not to the creation of jobs, or for that matter, anything to help weather the current economic storm. Let’s not even mention what he’s doing with the stimulus. On top of that, his inauguration totaled 100 tons of garbage. By comparison, New York City on New Year’s Eve only had 40 tons. That’s not even ironic given Obama’s campaign platform, that’s just downright hypocrisy.
There is a coalition forming that would like to restore voting rights to felons in Kentucky. They argue that felons who have paid their debt to society should have this right restored. In my opinion, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. I don’t care if they ever have their vote restored again. Before you know it, groups like this will also try to restore former felon’s rights to own and possess firearms. Steps in the right direction, I assure you.
Current Illinois Governor Blagojevich informed the media recently that he thought about giving Oprah the Senate seat for Illinois. Well, at least that would put her show on hold for a while (which would be fantastic). However, do we really want to give more power and influence to this woman? I would suspect, if selected for the seat, she would vote however President Obama told her. Does it upset anyone else that Oprah (who already has a substantial influence on the public) has a strong friendship with the President, or is that just me? I can personally see Oprah lobbying the public for anything and everything that President Obama wants in order to sway public opinion to his benefit.
Some opinions are meant to be funny, others satirical but sincere. Please read with caution.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Economic Forecast calls for Gale Force Winds
As we draw closer to the inauguration of President-Elect Barack Obama, many Americans are looking for the change that is needed today. Not necessarily a policy change, or even a change in regime, but a change in the economic outlook. Things look abysmal. The national unemployment rate is expected to increase from the current 6-7% to approximately 12-13%. Today’s economic situation has been compared to the Great Depression. For all of us, we all need to hope that President-Elect Obama can deliver on his promise of change and take action to fix the economy.
However, it seems that people believe that Obama can just wave a magic wand a make things better as soon as he enters office on Tuesday. The "recession" is just not that simple to fix. President Bush has taken the right steps to put things in motion to correct themselves. He and Ben Bernake have used policy and interest rates to provide all the right incentives to stimulate the economy. So why hasn’t the economy been stimulated?
Well half the problem in my opinion is the media. There are constant reports of job loss, low consumer confidence, stock losses, and banks requiring bailouts that are negatively impacting consumer confidence. We all know that things are bad, but the more the media reports how bad things really are, the less likely consumers are to make any type of financial decision that may help to stimulate the economy. Who even knows what may happen with the tax return checks we will see this year! Some may hide the money under the mattress for the ensuing economic catastrophe. At least we haven’t experienced any bank runs yet.
The reports on the state of the economy are so alarmingly bad that otherwise"smart financial decisions" have been delayed or disbanded altogether. Interest rates are at an all-time low, the price of goods has declined sharply (most notably gasoline), and the housing market is a prime buyers market for once. My wife and I have been searching for homes and have found remarkable deals in the process. Yet people refuse to spend money, invest money, buy homes, or proceed with normal financial matters partially out of fear the media has instilled in us about the pending economic doom.
Honestly, the media just needs to stop reporting exactly how bad it is or at least not in such negative detail. This alone will help to increase consumer confidence and may result in the thawing of our pocketbooks. Note: I’m not saying spend money like you’ve won the lottery, but if you’ve got it, now is the time to use it to take advantage of some great deals.
Now for those of us who are worried about some of President-Elect Obama’s policies about raising taxes on the rich and the state of our welfare nation, take solace in this; there is no way President-Elect Obama can raise taxes now on anyone. As I have told others, if he were to raise taxes in his first year in office during this recession, it would spell the certain end of his presidency by 2012. With unemployment as high as it is, where does Obama plan on collecting these taxes from? There are fewer people working to pay taxes let alone pay higher ones. If he tries to increase the taxes on businesses it will almost certainly result in the loss of more American jobs and even less taxes to be collected.
I predict that President-Elect Obama will have no other option but to cut the federal budget, sit on his spending plan, and try to weather this economic crisis. Given the historic election, and the historic crisis this nation is facing, President Elect Obama may end up being either a historic American figure or a historic idiot by stubbornly pursuing the financial plan he discussed during the election. That’s the key difference between ideal and reality; Obama’s plan was rooted in a static, ideal environment where everyone benefitted and outside factors played no role. These same ideas, when met with reality, have no chance of success.
So to those of us who are currently hiding in the basement during hurricane "Main St. To Wall St.", it’s safe to come out. Things are bad, but it’s not the end. The four horsemen are not in sight. If we are to weather this financial crisis, consumer confidence has to start increasing. Spending more will increase sales and the need to bring back those jobs that were lost. Don’t go out and deficit spend, but as I said before; if you’ve got it, now is the time to use it. That’s the main way to weather this storm without anyone having to call FEMA.
However, it seems that people believe that Obama can just wave a magic wand a make things better as soon as he enters office on Tuesday. The "recession" is just not that simple to fix. President Bush has taken the right steps to put things in motion to correct themselves. He and Ben Bernake have used policy and interest rates to provide all the right incentives to stimulate the economy. So why hasn’t the economy been stimulated?
Well half the problem in my opinion is the media. There are constant reports of job loss, low consumer confidence, stock losses, and banks requiring bailouts that are negatively impacting consumer confidence. We all know that things are bad, but the more the media reports how bad things really are, the less likely consumers are to make any type of financial decision that may help to stimulate the economy. Who even knows what may happen with the tax return checks we will see this year! Some may hide the money under the mattress for the ensuing economic catastrophe. At least we haven’t experienced any bank runs yet.
The reports on the state of the economy are so alarmingly bad that otherwise"smart financial decisions" have been delayed or disbanded altogether. Interest rates are at an all-time low, the price of goods has declined sharply (most notably gasoline), and the housing market is a prime buyers market for once. My wife and I have been searching for homes and have found remarkable deals in the process. Yet people refuse to spend money, invest money, buy homes, or proceed with normal financial matters partially out of fear the media has instilled in us about the pending economic doom.
Honestly, the media just needs to stop reporting exactly how bad it is or at least not in such negative detail. This alone will help to increase consumer confidence and may result in the thawing of our pocketbooks. Note: I’m not saying spend money like you’ve won the lottery, but if you’ve got it, now is the time to use it to take advantage of some great deals.
Now for those of us who are worried about some of President-Elect Obama’s policies about raising taxes on the rich and the state of our welfare nation, take solace in this; there is no way President-Elect Obama can raise taxes now on anyone. As I have told others, if he were to raise taxes in his first year in office during this recession, it would spell the certain end of his presidency by 2012. With unemployment as high as it is, where does Obama plan on collecting these taxes from? There are fewer people working to pay taxes let alone pay higher ones. If he tries to increase the taxes on businesses it will almost certainly result in the loss of more American jobs and even less taxes to be collected.
I predict that President-Elect Obama will have no other option but to cut the federal budget, sit on his spending plan, and try to weather this economic crisis. Given the historic election, and the historic crisis this nation is facing, President Elect Obama may end up being either a historic American figure or a historic idiot by stubbornly pursuing the financial plan he discussed during the election. That’s the key difference between ideal and reality; Obama’s plan was rooted in a static, ideal environment where everyone benefitted and outside factors played no role. These same ideas, when met with reality, have no chance of success.
So to those of us who are currently hiding in the basement during hurricane "Main St. To Wall St.", it’s safe to come out. Things are bad, but it’s not the end. The four horsemen are not in sight. If we are to weather this financial crisis, consumer confidence has to start increasing. Spending more will increase sales and the need to bring back those jobs that were lost. Don’t go out and deficit spend, but as I said before; if you’ve got it, now is the time to use it. That’s the main way to weather this storm without anyone having to call FEMA.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Economics of Smoking
Smoking has long been a concern of mine. For me and for others smoking has more drawbacks than benefits. To start off, I am not advocated a total smoking ban. We have rights to make certain decisions regarding our bodies, no matter how self-destructive they may be. This is why we have the right to live our life as we choose, provided that we only impact ourselves and not others. This is the essence behind out laws; they are not designed to impede the freedoms and liberties of the people, but to protect the freedom and liberties of those who are affected by the decisions of others.
Think about drinking and then operating a motor vehicle. This is illegal because you place the lives of others at risk by doing so. The same holds true for smoking. Smoking presents what is called a negative externality in that your actions can negatively impact others (unintentionally). By smoking in confined places, you are impacting the living condition of others and impacting their decision on whether or not they would like to smoke. True, they have the ability to leave the area in which you are smoking, but non-smokers have as much right to be there as a smoker.
The only difference between a non-smoker’s right and a smoker’s right is that a smoker’s decision to smoke not only affects the smoker, but all others around. Restaurants previously either banned smoking in their facilities altogether or had designated smoking areas. Cities today are banning smoking in public places for the same reason. A person’s right to breathe fresh air is impeded upon by a smoker’s right to smoke. Smokers can choose either to smoke or not to smoke at no harm to themselves, however a non-smoker, when around other smokers, is at the mercy of the smoker’s decision. Since a majority of Americans do not smoke, it further only makes sense to rule in favor of the majority.
Smoking bans do not impede on the rights of smokers. These bans make smoking allowable in certain places much like other currently existing laws. For instance, alcohol cannot be consumed in public except during certain exceptions (like a tailgate party). Try drinking a cold-one in public and you might end up with a public intoxication charge. Smoking is moving towards the same standard; get caught smoking in public where it’s banned and receive a citation.
Now onto the economic side. Why do people choose to smoke and continue to do so? Because quitting for most is an impossible feat. So they continue to pay to feed their addiction, not only to purchase their smokes but for any ensuing medical costs from smoking-related illnesses. Calculating the costs of smoking should not only be contained to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, but should also include (1) the costs of any additional health care and (2) any loss of productivity an individual may experience from smoking related diseases. I would also like to note the costs associated with the loss of life but this cost is both difficult and too subjective to determine.
Smokers with low income who suffer from smoking related diseases are more likely to have the costs of their medical expenditures paid by Medicaid, a program financed by tax-payer dollars. Essentially, those individuals who smoke and have low income are affecting the pocketbook of both smoking and non-smoking Americans alike. Smokers who have private insurance will also have higher medical costs which translate into higher insurance premium costs across the board for smokers and non-smokers alike. Smoking not only affects the health of non-smokers through second-hand smoke, but also results in less disposable income for all.
Now what about any benefits? Smokers obviously experience some benefits from smoking or else they would never start. The benefits they experience would be difficult to assess against any negatives a non-smoker may experience from second-hand smoke. So we’ll leave it at that it is noted nonetheless. Smoking generates a source of revenue for states from an established per unit tax rate. This revenue normally goes towards public programs that the state government has dedicated the tax revenue for (ironically, some states utilize these tax funds for smoking cessation programs). Sometimes the funds are used to help defray the costs of medical expenses related to smoking. This way at least those who are smoking are paying for some of their medical treatment. Additionally, any tax burden imposed by states is going to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes and make it increasingly less affordable for people to smoke. Higher prices for cigarettes will at least provide incentive for people to stop smoking in order to save money.
So given the inherent costs and benefits of smoking, in my purely economic opinion, smoking should be banned as a cost saving measure, for smokers and non-smoker alike. However, my legal opinion of the issue varies to the extent that smokers have a right to smoke, but this right should not infringe on those of non-smokers. Given both the legal and economic reasons presented here, I hope that this article garnishes a good discussion about the fate of a statewide smoking ban, or even a national smoking ban.
Think about drinking and then operating a motor vehicle. This is illegal because you place the lives of others at risk by doing so. The same holds true for smoking. Smoking presents what is called a negative externality in that your actions can negatively impact others (unintentionally). By smoking in confined places, you are impacting the living condition of others and impacting their decision on whether or not they would like to smoke. True, they have the ability to leave the area in which you are smoking, but non-smokers have as much right to be there as a smoker.
The only difference between a non-smoker’s right and a smoker’s right is that a smoker’s decision to smoke not only affects the smoker, but all others around. Restaurants previously either banned smoking in their facilities altogether or had designated smoking areas. Cities today are banning smoking in public places for the same reason. A person’s right to breathe fresh air is impeded upon by a smoker’s right to smoke. Smokers can choose either to smoke or not to smoke at no harm to themselves, however a non-smoker, when around other smokers, is at the mercy of the smoker’s decision. Since a majority of Americans do not smoke, it further only makes sense to rule in favor of the majority.
Smoking bans do not impede on the rights of smokers. These bans make smoking allowable in certain places much like other currently existing laws. For instance, alcohol cannot be consumed in public except during certain exceptions (like a tailgate party). Try drinking a cold-one in public and you might end up with a public intoxication charge. Smoking is moving towards the same standard; get caught smoking in public where it’s banned and receive a citation.
Now onto the economic side. Why do people choose to smoke and continue to do so? Because quitting for most is an impossible feat. So they continue to pay to feed their addiction, not only to purchase their smokes but for any ensuing medical costs from smoking-related illnesses. Calculating the costs of smoking should not only be contained to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, but should also include (1) the costs of any additional health care and (2) any loss of productivity an individual may experience from smoking related diseases. I would also like to note the costs associated with the loss of life but this cost is both difficult and too subjective to determine.
Smokers with low income who suffer from smoking related diseases are more likely to have the costs of their medical expenditures paid by Medicaid, a program financed by tax-payer dollars. Essentially, those individuals who smoke and have low income are affecting the pocketbook of both smoking and non-smoking Americans alike. Smokers who have private insurance will also have higher medical costs which translate into higher insurance premium costs across the board for smokers and non-smokers alike. Smoking not only affects the health of non-smokers through second-hand smoke, but also results in less disposable income for all.
Now what about any benefits? Smokers obviously experience some benefits from smoking or else they would never start. The benefits they experience would be difficult to assess against any negatives a non-smoker may experience from second-hand smoke. So we’ll leave it at that it is noted nonetheless. Smoking generates a source of revenue for states from an established per unit tax rate. This revenue normally goes towards public programs that the state government has dedicated the tax revenue for (ironically, some states utilize these tax funds for smoking cessation programs). Sometimes the funds are used to help defray the costs of medical expenses related to smoking. This way at least those who are smoking are paying for some of their medical treatment. Additionally, any tax burden imposed by states is going to raise the price of a pack of cigarettes and make it increasingly less affordable for people to smoke. Higher prices for cigarettes will at least provide incentive for people to stop smoking in order to save money.
So given the inherent costs and benefits of smoking, in my purely economic opinion, smoking should be banned as a cost saving measure, for smokers and non-smoker alike. However, my legal opinion of the issue varies to the extent that smokers have a right to smoke, but this right should not infringe on those of non-smokers. Given both the legal and economic reasons presented here, I hope that this article garnishes a good discussion about the fate of a statewide smoking ban, or even a national smoking ban.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
