Anyone over 40 who gives a damn about music will remember the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens. He made a lot of popular acoustic music in the late sixties and early seventies, including songs like, 'Oh Very Young' and, 'Wild World'. Like a lot of singers those days, his music was as much about the words as the melody. He had something to say.
After a religious conversion in 1977, he changed his name to Yusaf Islam and left the recording industry behind for more than two decades. He's since returned to write and perform music to communicate a message of political and religious tolerance.
This blog entry showcases the lyrics from the 1971 hit, 'Peace Train'. (I always thought Obama could have used this as an election theme song in 2008, had the artist not been somewhat controversial.)
Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun
Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
Get your bags together,
go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer,
it soon will be with you
Now come and join the living,
it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer,
soon it will all be true
Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
When Preschool = Free Daycare
In the Spring of 2007, I had a couple of letters to the editor published in The Des Moines Register. The letters decried a bill in the Democrat-controlled Iowa legislature that would create a statewide, taxpayer-funded preschool program. The bill was paassed and signed into law by our goofball governor at the time, at a then-estimated first year cost to taxpayers of $15 million. (Actual cost since then: $156 million.)
I was reminded of this again this week, as the now-Republican controlled legislature attempts to end this program along with many others, to cut spending. Actually, it wouldn't be eliminated, but replaced by a voucher system with income/means testing. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, the tax-and-spenders don't think so. Nor do the parents who want to use the preschool program. They want us to believe that the tax money is worth it, that we're getting better-prepared kids out of this deal. They have better 'social skills' you know. And they can really fingerpaint up a storm.
The thing is, there's no independent study that can verify that preschool leads to a better civilization, and certainly no way to justify the cost. Regardless, if a person truly believed it was worth it, they should be willing to pay for it themselves. Why socialize the cost to taxpayers who don't believe in it?
My argument against what some call 'free' preschool today is the same as it was in 2007. If we're being intellectually honest, a program with no means testing is all about dual-career parents who don't want to pay for daycare.
Here an exerpt of the letters I wrote:
"Unless someone gives Iowa a golden goose or a money tree, I doubt Iowa taxpayers will consider it to be 'free' preschool. At a projected cost of $75 million annually by 2013-2014, that isn't free preschool, it's taxpayer-funded daycare. A statewide preschool program is simply a natural evolution from all-day kindergarten, another taxpayer-funded creation that didn't exist entil dual income parents decided they didn't want to pay for another year of full-time daycare. If it's so worth it, why stop at preschool? Just set up a program that makes Iowa taxpayers fund an educational program that starts at birth."
I should submit those old letters to the Register now - they're still accurate.
I was reminded of this again this week, as the now-Republican controlled legislature attempts to end this program along with many others, to cut spending. Actually, it wouldn't be eliminated, but replaced by a voucher system with income/means testing. Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, the tax-and-spenders don't think so. Nor do the parents who want to use the preschool program. They want us to believe that the tax money is worth it, that we're getting better-prepared kids out of this deal. They have better 'social skills' you know. And they can really fingerpaint up a storm.
The thing is, there's no independent study that can verify that preschool leads to a better civilization, and certainly no way to justify the cost. Regardless, if a person truly believed it was worth it, they should be willing to pay for it themselves. Why socialize the cost to taxpayers who don't believe in it?
My argument against what some call 'free' preschool today is the same as it was in 2007. If we're being intellectually honest, a program with no means testing is all about dual-career parents who don't want to pay for daycare.
Here an exerpt of the letters I wrote:
"Unless someone gives Iowa a golden goose or a money tree, I doubt Iowa taxpayers will consider it to be 'free' preschool. At a projected cost of $75 million annually by 2013-2014, that isn't free preschool, it's taxpayer-funded daycare. A statewide preschool program is simply a natural evolution from all-day kindergarten, another taxpayer-funded creation that didn't exist entil dual income parents decided they didn't want to pay for another year of full-time daycare. If it's so worth it, why stop at preschool? Just set up a program that makes Iowa taxpayers fund an educational program that starts at birth."
I should submit those old letters to the Register now - they're still accurate.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Resolutions For Investing
The start of a new year lends itself to making personal and professional commitments for the future. Here are a few resolutions that might be helpful anyone's plans for financial success:
Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.
Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.
Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.
Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.
Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!
Ignore the financial media. Like others in their field, the financial media want to tell the extraordinary story, something that will increase their audience. Fortunately for them, there are many ‘experts’ claiming an extraordinary ability to predict the future direction of markets. Unfortunately for investors, such stories mask the truth – no one can accurately predict the future. Identifying and ignoring this hype allows investors to make investment decisions based on personal needs, instead of the biased opinions of strangers.
Determine your risk tolerance. One of the cornerstone concepts of investing is that risk and return are related. Investors who seek higher returns can only do so by accepting more risk, but more risk also increases the possibility of a negative outcome. It’s crucial for investors to decide how much volatility they are willing to accept over both short and long-term periods. Only then can one construct an asset allocation that is right for their risk tolerance. This is the cornerstone of investing, yet it is often overlooked.
Do not attempt to time the market. In 2010, the broad stock market hit its low point around July 1. If you would have left the market at that time, and followed the conventional wisdom of a double-dip recession, you would have missed the subsequent broad stock market rally of 20%+ over the last half of the year! Plus, now you would have to decide the ‘right’ time to reinvest. While it’s human nature to follow the latest investment fad, this is yet another example of the outcome an investor can expect when trying to time the market.
Focus on what you can control. Worry is a useless emotion, especially in financial markets, where movements are largely based on unpredictable and uncontrollable events. Investors who focus on that uncertainty are sure to have anxiety over what the future holds. That unease can be avoided by concentrating on financial planning items that can be controlled, such as discretionary spending and desired risk. Investors cannot control the market, but they can control making emotional decisions related to it.
Just as an exercise partner will help someone keep a resolution for a healthier future, I tell people that I will be their investment partner to keep these resolutions for their financial future. Here’s to good health and good wealth in 2011!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The Biggest Loser Losers
I don't watch much reality television, which come to think of it, is fairly limiting. However, I watch enough to know that some reality shows are more watchable (e.g. The Amazing Race) than others (e.g. anything on MTV or VH1).
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
There's one reality TV show that many would consider to be more watchable, but that I consider to be a blight on the nation - The Biggest Loser. Obese people from across America who go to a fat ranch to learn how to eat right and exercise, the 'winner' being the person who loses the highest percentage weight, and also happens not to tick off other contestants who might vote them out along the way. (It even sounds boring, doesn't it?)
What kills me about this show is how it's framed as a 'feel good' story for everyone. Basically, each contestant has a reason why they are fat, something that no mere mortal could possbly have overcome. It's usually blamed on a rough upbringing, or death, or depression, or genetics, or whatever, and apparently they tried to cope with their problems by doing little else but eating. How could you blame them, right?
Let me try. I have a certain disdain for obesity, something that goes way beyond just the gross-ness of it. To wit, fat people cost society money, ergo fat people cost me money. I've blogged about this before (http://streffblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/tax-on-fat-people.html).
While there may be a few exceptions, the vast majority of obese people are that way by choice. Genetics and childhood environment may have something to do with it, but let's face it, it also takes a big dose of lazy. It's a mindset, the kind that takes the easy way out. Most Americans are like that, it just that most Americans also muster up the will to move, to take control of their life, to do what's right instead of what's lazy. On most days.
But The Biggest Loser doesn't want people to think about that. They want viewers to root for their poor, common sense-challenged contestants, who have suddenly decided to try to lose weight with the help of network television. Why those same contestants can't try to exercise and eat right without millions of other people watching, I don't know. Apparently some people aren't motivated by trying to not be a replusive-looking burden on society, they also need to be motivated by money and attention.
Dear Obese People - Stop trying to become a reality show freak, set down the Twinkies, roll off of the couch, look in the mirror, and stop living your life in a way that makes everyone else pay for your poor choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)