It's once again time to review my 2015 list of things I'd like to see happen, and lay out my hopes for 2016. Here's the 2015 list, with new notes in ALL CAPS:
-Less glorification of big butts.
I'M DECLARING VICTORY ON THIS, BECAUSE IT MOVED FROM A 9 TO AN 8 ON A SCALE OF 1-10.
-A Final Four for Iowa State men's basketball, and an NCAA tournament berth for both Iowa and Northern Iowa men's basketball.
OH, SO CLOSE. THAT IS, IF YOU CAN CALL ISU LOSING IN THEIR FIRST NCAA TOURNAMENT GAME AS A 3 SEED 'CLOSE'
-More action, less inaction by the U.S. Congress.
A PERPETUALLY WASTED HOPE.
-Stephen Colbert dominating late night television, with Conan and Fallon and Stewart right behind.
OTHER THAN JON STEWART RETIRING, I FEEL THIS IS STARTING TO HAPPEN.
-Common use of Apple Pay.
NOT AS COMMON YET AS IT SHOULD BE.
-Might as well go for it again -- at least medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.
C'MON, MAN! PROGRESS IN SOME OTHER STATES, BUT NOT IN IOWA.
-A vaccine against Ebola.
DID NOT HAPPEN, STILL WORKING ON IT.
-A week-long vacation for me.
DID NOT HAPPEN, STILL WORKING ON IT.
For 2016 I'd like to see:
At least some progress, not regress, on medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.
Chris Christie versus Hillary Clinton for president, with ? winning.
A higher stock market.
Just one actual, even very minor piece of legislation to make it slightly more difficult to buy a gun.
The personal, financial, and political implosion of Donald Trump.
A way to charge devices without a wire.
An à la carte option for cable and satellite TV channels.
More time for eating right, less time for exercise.
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Monday, December 21, 2015
The Meaning Of Christmas (Gift Exchanges)
I can't let the holiday season go by without an annual complaint about the bastardization of some Christmas tradition. In 2012, and again in 2013, it was Christmas cards. In 2014, it was Christmas songs.
This year, it's about Christmas gift exchanges. I'm mostly referring to an event where an inane gift is blindly purchased to be given to another family member or co-worker, without an idea of what the receiver might actually want.
(I want to note that I have disdain for ANY type of co-worker gifting, often couched in the name 'Secret Santa'. It doesn't matter it it's known what that person may want, because you can be sure most workers don't want feel as if they are being forced to spend time and money buying a Christmas gift for a randomly chosen co-worker.)
Growing up, it was a common practice for a family member to draw a sibling's name and buy a gift for that person. This was a simple process, and the person could actually find out what the recipient wanted, and buy something useful.
But that wasn't good enough for my generation to pass on to their kids. No, we had to invent a silly, more elaborate gift exchange process, one that included extended family and co-workers and had no requirements related to practical gift-giving.
Blind gift exchanges may seem like fun to some folks (read: women), but what is the actual outcome? Time and money being spent on 'gifts' that are very unlikely to be used by the recipient. And to achieve that ridiculous outcome, people need to sit around for an hour or so watching undesirable presents being opened by others.
Stop the madness! Everyone would be much better off to open up their windows and throw the money spent on gift exchanges out onto the street, where perhaps a needy person could get some benefit from it.
But at least we are all honoring the birth of the Savior, right?
This year, it's about Christmas gift exchanges. I'm mostly referring to an event where an inane gift is blindly purchased to be given to another family member or co-worker, without an idea of what the receiver might actually want.
(I want to note that I have disdain for ANY type of co-worker gifting, often couched in the name 'Secret Santa'. It doesn't matter it it's known what that person may want, because you can be sure most workers don't want feel as if they are being forced to spend time and money buying a Christmas gift for a randomly chosen co-worker.)
Growing up, it was a common practice for a family member to draw a sibling's name and buy a gift for that person. This was a simple process, and the person could actually find out what the recipient wanted, and buy something useful.
But that wasn't good enough for my generation to pass on to their kids. No, we had to invent a silly, more elaborate gift exchange process, one that included extended family and co-workers and had no requirements related to practical gift-giving.
Blind gift exchanges may seem like fun to some folks (read: women), but what is the actual outcome? Time and money being spent on 'gifts' that are very unlikely to be used by the recipient. And to achieve that ridiculous outcome, people need to sit around for an hour or so watching undesirable presents being opened by others.
Stop the madness! Everyone would be much better off to open up their windows and throw the money spent on gift exchanges out onto the street, where perhaps a needy person could get some benefit from it.
But at least we are all honoring the birth of the Savior, right?
Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Good, Evil, And Religion
There's been so much rhetoric lately on domestic terrorism, given the recent events in Paris and now San Bernadino, CA. It seems there's no middle ground for people who think the answer is arming ourselves with more automatic weapons, or banning said weapons, or perhaps banning immigration altogether.
This week, it was taken to the extreme by the non-to-be-taken-seriously Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who suggested banning new Muslims from entering America. It's an unconstitutional, certifiably insane idea, but he actually gets cheers from other extreme Republicans for saying it.
I plan to blog about the presidential candidates sometime before the Iowa caucuses. In the meantime, to all who think like Donald Trump, I say in the famous words of Joseph Welsh to Senator Joseph McCarthy, who destroyed lives in the 1950s with false accusations of communism: "Have you no sense of decency?"
The underlying current behind all of this rhetoric is religion. We like to think religion reminds us to love our fellow man, but aren't there as many examples of religion making us hate?
I'm not just talking about radical Islam, either. I know plenty of Christians who have no problem discriminating against gays (yes, that counts as hate), for no other reason than their religion tells them to do so. Religion and religious differences have promulgated hate for centuries, from the Crusades to the Revolutionary War to the World Wars.
I'm not just talking about radical Islam, either. I know plenty of Christians who have no problem discriminating against gays (yes, that counts as hate), for no other reason than their religion tells them to do so. Religion and religious differences have promulgated hate for centuries, from the Crusades to the Revolutionary War to the World Wars.
The other day, I came across a quote from more than a decade ago, attributed to Steven Weinberg. He's an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions on the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles. (Whaaaaat?) Let's just assume he's a very smart dude. Oh, he's also an atheist. His quote pretty much sums up how this deal works:
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Not Thankful Yet Again
Here's the 7th annual edition of my Thanksgiving-time list of things for which I am not thankful. You can get to the trail of prior lists here or by using the label Thanksgiving.
As usual, this year's list is in no particular order:
People on social media who believe everything they read, and then forward it, without question.
Superhero movies.
Caitlyn Jenner and her/his so-called courageousness.
Academic professors more concerned about their tenured, taxpayer-supported livelihoods than needed academic reform.
The Ebola virus.
Those who refuse to vaccinate their children because they don't understand science.
Those who refuse to acknowledge climate change because they don't understand science.
The Southeastern Conference.
Bill Cosby.
The end of the Grantland web site.
Another year without medical marijuana legalization.
As usual, this year's list is in no particular order:
People on social media who believe everything they read, and then forward it, without question.
Superhero movies.
Caitlyn Jenner and her/his so-called courageousness.
Academic professors more concerned about their tenured, taxpayer-supported livelihoods than needed academic reform.
The Ebola virus.
Those who refuse to vaccinate their children because they don't understand science.
Those who refuse to acknowledge climate change because they don't understand science.
The Southeastern Conference.
Bill Cosby.
The end of the Grantland web site.
Another year without medical marijuana legalization.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Vive la Facebook
A few days ago, a coordinated terrorist attack in Paris, France murdered over 100 innocent people and wounded hundreds more. It’s saddening and infuriating, as all terrorist actions are.
What I want to write about, however, is something that happened in the aftermath that I also find saddening and infuriating, in a much different way. It’s the response of Facebook users to this tragedy, and to other man-made catastrophes similar to it.
Within hours of the attack, before we even knew of the true scope of it, Facebook had created a way for users to show their support for France by putting overlaying the French flag to their profile picture. Untold numbers of users have utilized this new feature. Now, this seems benign enough, why would that be saddening or infuriating?
Because the vast majority of those users are only trying to make themselves look/feel better.
I’m not saying these Facebook users don’t care about the victims, or the victims’ families. I believe they do. But let’s get real, 'supporting' them or France by adding a transparent French flag on social media for your friends to see is not making the slightest difference. At best, it’s a self-serving coping mechanism, not to mention a PR win for Facebook. At worst, it’s a faux-show of concern over terror victims, and terrorism in general.
We’ve seen how social media can be powerful tool to elicit social change in the world – in some instances, not for the better. However, no good change whatsoever is going to result from a short-lived symbolic gesture like this. It doesn't DO anything, that's the saddening part.
Here's the infuriating part: Most of these same Facebook users couldn’t point out France on a map, nor name their own elected federal representatives, to whom they’ve actually granted power that might effect change.
No, it’s only a matter of time, probably just days, before these same folks forget about France or terrorism and go back to forwarding stupid animal videos, or posting far right-or-left wing political and religious propaganda. Of course, these things are also without real meaning.
If people want to do something using social media that might actually make a difference to reduce terrorism, or to support the ideals of liberty and a free society like France, they needn't waste time updating a Facebook profile picture. Instead, use the time on social media (or elsewhere) to learn more about the geo-political, scientific, and especially religious issues at the root of domestic and international conflicts and terrorism. Or learn the names of elected officials. You can even learn where France is.
Support and resolution requires understanding. It does not require an updated Facebook image. If this is too much work for Facebook users, well, just keep posting those hilarious animal videos!
What I want to write about, however, is something that happened in the aftermath that I also find saddening and infuriating, in a much different way. It’s the response of Facebook users to this tragedy, and to other man-made catastrophes similar to it.
Within hours of the attack, before we even knew of the true scope of it, Facebook had created a way for users to show their support for France by putting overlaying the French flag to their profile picture. Untold numbers of users have utilized this new feature. Now, this seems benign enough, why would that be saddening or infuriating?
Because the vast majority of those users are only trying to make themselves look/feel better.
I’m not saying these Facebook users don’t care about the victims, or the victims’ families. I believe they do. But let’s get real, 'supporting' them or France by adding a transparent French flag on social media for your friends to see is not making the slightest difference. At best, it’s a self-serving coping mechanism, not to mention a PR win for Facebook. At worst, it’s a faux-show of concern over terror victims, and terrorism in general.
We’ve seen how social media can be powerful tool to elicit social change in the world – in some instances, not for the better. However, no good change whatsoever is going to result from a short-lived symbolic gesture like this. It doesn't DO anything, that's the saddening part.
Here's the infuriating part: Most of these same Facebook users couldn’t point out France on a map, nor name their own elected federal representatives, to whom they’ve actually granted power that might effect change.
No, it’s only a matter of time, probably just days, before these same folks forget about France or terrorism and go back to forwarding stupid animal videos, or posting far right-or-left wing political and religious propaganda. Of course, these things are also without real meaning.
If people want to do something using social media that might actually make a difference to reduce terrorism, or to support the ideals of liberty and a free society like France, they needn't waste time updating a Facebook profile picture. Instead, use the time on social media (or elsewhere) to learn more about the geo-political, scientific, and especially religious issues at the root of domestic and international conflicts and terrorism. Or learn the names of elected officials. You can even learn where France is.
Support and resolution requires understanding. It does not require an updated Facebook image. If this is too much work for Facebook users, well, just keep posting those hilarious animal videos!
Sunday, November 1, 2015
New York City, Part 2
Here's the second and final installment of my New York City trip summary. Part 1 dealt with my overall impressions of the city. This one focuses on the sightseeing aspects of the visit.
Rockefeller Center
Got there early enough to watch some of the Today show being broadcast live, there was even a Broadway show performance for School Of Rock outside the studio. That made the whole thing worthwhile, since there isn't that much else to see or do. Fortunately, the skating rink on the plaza had just been opened, so I got to see that as well, I'm sure it would be better to be there when the Christmas tree is also there and lit. Also walked by Radio City Music Hall, which is just a block away. Overall grade: A-
Times Square
With all of the huge lighted signs, restaurants, theaters, and tall buildings, it had a very Las Vegas feel to it. Picture-taking tourists were everywhere, belying its seedy past. I didn't realize the famous Times Square New Year's Eve ball was in view all year. We mostly saw the area during the daytime, but went back the next evening, when the large crowds and glowing signs gave it even more of a Vegas-vibe. Overall grade: B+
Ed Sullivan Theater / Hello Deli
Just up Broadway from Times Square, I had to go see where David Letterman, and now Stephen Colbert, taped The Late Show. There was no taping that day, ergo no line, but we did go around the corner to buy a sweatshirt at the Hello Deli, and had a nice visit with Rupert Jee, the man Letterman made famous. Overall grade: A
Statue of Liberty
This was a bit of a disappointment, partly because I only viewed the statue from the Manhattan shore. It was great to see it, but the bottom line is, it’s a statue. Did not want to spend the time and money to ferry to the island to get a closer look, and if I did, I’d be as interested to see all of Ellis Island. Overall grade: C-
Wall Street / NYSE
There really isn’t that much to see in the financial district. The New York Stock Exchange is walled off by security, you can’t even go through on a tour these days, so you’re stuck with outside pictures. Touring it, like I did the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade many years ago, would’ve made all the difference. It was cool to be there, but I didn’t get the feeling it was the financial capital of the world. Overall grade: B
Columbia University
Wanted to check out Columbia, since I know some kids who attended school there. Enjoyed the openness compared to the skyscrapers of mid-and-lower Manhattan. In the end, it looks like a lot of urban college campuses, nothing more, nothing less. Overall grade: C
Macy’s
The largest department store in the world, and it is crazy big. Eight floors of retail items, representing all of the big, expensive brand names. My best story here came from the first floor, where the cosmetics folks present a virtual gauntlet for one to walk through – if you can do it without someone spraying perfume or cologne on you, congratulations. Overall grade: C+
9/11 Memorial Site and Museum
This was definitely the highlight of the trip. The outdoor waterfall memorials, in the footprints of the original World Trade Center buildings, were beautifully done. They included the names of all those who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, including those at the Pentagon and in the aircrafts. The museum itself was awesome, with so many facts and artifacts from that day. It’s a sobering reminder of what happened, and of the loss of so many people in the prime of their lives. I was inside the museum for four hours, and could have stayed much longer. A must see for anyone in New York City. Overall grade: A+
Central Park
An vehicle-free oasis of greenery in a place with virtually none of that. Lots of people exercising, sharing space with many horse-drawn carriages. Also, got to see and have a beverage at the famous Tavern On The Green restaurant. But at the end of the day, it’s just a park (a really, really big park), and after a while, trees and squirrels can get boring. Overall grade: B-
Rockefeller Center
Got there early enough to watch some of the Today show being broadcast live, there was even a Broadway show performance for School Of Rock outside the studio. That made the whole thing worthwhile, since there isn't that much else to see or do. Fortunately, the skating rink on the plaza had just been opened, so I got to see that as well, I'm sure it would be better to be there when the Christmas tree is also there and lit. Also walked by Radio City Music Hall, which is just a block away. Overall grade: A-
Times Square
With all of the huge lighted signs, restaurants, theaters, and tall buildings, it had a very Las Vegas feel to it. Picture-taking tourists were everywhere, belying its seedy past. I didn't realize the famous Times Square New Year's Eve ball was in view all year. We mostly saw the area during the daytime, but went back the next evening, when the large crowds and glowing signs gave it even more of a Vegas-vibe. Overall grade: B+
Ed Sullivan Theater / Hello Deli
Just up Broadway from Times Square, I had to go see where David Letterman, and now Stephen Colbert, taped The Late Show. There was no taping that day, ergo no line, but we did go around the corner to buy a sweatshirt at the Hello Deli, and had a nice visit with Rupert Jee, the man Letterman made famous. Overall grade: A
Statue of Liberty
This was a bit of a disappointment, partly because I only viewed the statue from the Manhattan shore. It was great to see it, but the bottom line is, it’s a statue. Did not want to spend the time and money to ferry to the island to get a closer look, and if I did, I’d be as interested to see all of Ellis Island. Overall grade: C-
Wall Street / NYSE
There really isn’t that much to see in the financial district. The New York Stock Exchange is walled off by security, you can’t even go through on a tour these days, so you’re stuck with outside pictures. Touring it, like I did the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and Chicago Board of Trade many years ago, would’ve made all the difference. It was cool to be there, but I didn’t get the feeling it was the financial capital of the world. Overall grade: B
Columbia University
Wanted to check out Columbia, since I know some kids who attended school there. Enjoyed the openness compared to the skyscrapers of mid-and-lower Manhattan. In the end, it looks like a lot of urban college campuses, nothing more, nothing less. Overall grade: C
Macy’s
The largest department store in the world, and it is crazy big. Eight floors of retail items, representing all of the big, expensive brand names. My best story here came from the first floor, where the cosmetics folks present a virtual gauntlet for one to walk through – if you can do it without someone spraying perfume or cologne on you, congratulations. Overall grade: C+
9/11 Memorial Site and Museum
This was definitely the highlight of the trip. The outdoor waterfall memorials, in the footprints of the original World Trade Center buildings, were beautifully done. They included the names of all those who died in the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, including those at the Pentagon and in the aircrafts. The museum itself was awesome, with so many facts and artifacts from that day. It’s a sobering reminder of what happened, and of the loss of so many people in the prime of their lives. I was inside the museum for four hours, and could have stayed much longer. A must see for anyone in New York City. Overall grade: A+
Central Park
An vehicle-free oasis of greenery in a place with virtually none of that. Lots of people exercising, sharing space with many horse-drawn carriages. Also, got to see and have a beverage at the famous Tavern On The Green restaurant. But at the end of the day, it’s just a park (a really, really big park), and after a while, trees and squirrels can get boring. Overall grade: B-
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
New York City, Part 1
Made my long-anticipated, first-ever visit to New York City (or is it New York, New York?) last weekend. There was so much to see and do, it's too much for one blog entry, so I'm going to break it up into two parts. This first part will be my overall impressions, and I'll devote the second part to the sightseeing aspect of the trip.
As prologue, recall that I'm basically a child of the 70s, when NYC was the consensus murder capital of the world, a gang-infested, dark and dirty place. I know that it changed since then, especially in the 90s and beyond, but to me it was still a place you only saw on TV.
So to start, I found the people there to be more friendly than I expected. I'd set the bar low, but there were at least two occasions where help was given that was not expected. The first time happened right away at the airport, where someone offered help when buying train tickets into the city's Penn Station. Granted, this was that person's job, but she was still very accommodating. The second time happened the next day, when a random Yo-Pro noticed a bit of confusion in our search for the correct subway train, and offered his help.
Speaking of the subway, it was also better than I expected. I was prepared for something much more grimy, with panhandlers at every turn. Turns out it was clean enough, and other than a few homeless souls wandering around, it was just a whole lot of folks trying to get somewhere else as quickly and inexpensively as they could. It was actually pretty incredible to think of this huge, efficient, subterranean train system existing several stories below ground. (Note: I did see a couple of official subway rats.)
Which brings me to the next thing -- New Yorkers are in a hurry. It was easy to tell the tourists from everyone else, because everyone else was walking at breakneck speed to wherever they were going. I had no problem with this, I just wonder if they're always running late to get somewhere, or maybe they just hate where they're at now.
Another observation has to do with food. Namely, ready-to-eat food, and the great number of food carts and restaurants and bars on every city block. I suppose with so many residents and workers, New York City has to have a lot of places to eat and drink, it just seems like there are too many of those vendors to survive. Here's another thing: In three days of walking around Manhattan, I didn't notice one grocery store. Not one. They must be there, hidden in the nooks and crannies of buildings, but you aren't going to see any supermarkets.
Finally, one peculiar thing I'll always remember about NYC, especially after staying at a hotel in mid-town Manhattan, is.....car horns. The sound of people honking their horns -- typically at other vehicles, not at pedestrians -- was always there, even very late at night. So many cars (mostly taxis or limos or delivery trucks) on so many narrow streets made for lots of folks honking at one another. And unlike Iowa, it wasn't to say hello.
As prologue, recall that I'm basically a child of the 70s, when NYC was the consensus murder capital of the world, a gang-infested, dark and dirty place. I know that it changed since then, especially in the 90s and beyond, but to me it was still a place you only saw on TV.
So to start, I found the people there to be more friendly than I expected. I'd set the bar low, but there were at least two occasions where help was given that was not expected. The first time happened right away at the airport, where someone offered help when buying train tickets into the city's Penn Station. Granted, this was that person's job, but she was still very accommodating. The second time happened the next day, when a random Yo-Pro noticed a bit of confusion in our search for the correct subway train, and offered his help.
Speaking of the subway, it was also better than I expected. I was prepared for something much more grimy, with panhandlers at every turn. Turns out it was clean enough, and other than a few homeless souls wandering around, it was just a whole lot of folks trying to get somewhere else as quickly and inexpensively as they could. It was actually pretty incredible to think of this huge, efficient, subterranean train system existing several stories below ground. (Note: I did see a couple of official subway rats.)
Which brings me to the next thing -- New Yorkers are in a hurry. It was easy to tell the tourists from everyone else, because everyone else was walking at breakneck speed to wherever they were going. I had no problem with this, I just wonder if they're always running late to get somewhere, or maybe they just hate where they're at now.
Another observation has to do with food. Namely, ready-to-eat food, and the great number of food carts and restaurants and bars on every city block. I suppose with so many residents and workers, New York City has to have a lot of places to eat and drink, it just seems like there are too many of those vendors to survive. Here's another thing: In three days of walking around Manhattan, I didn't notice one grocery store. Not one. They must be there, hidden in the nooks and crannies of buildings, but you aren't going to see any supermarkets.
Finally, one peculiar thing I'll always remember about NYC, especially after staying at a hotel in mid-town Manhattan, is.....car horns. The sound of people honking their horns -- typically at other vehicles, not at pedestrians -- was always there, even very late at night. So many cars (mostly taxis or limos or delivery trucks) on so many narrow streets made for lots of folks honking at one another. And unlike Iowa, it wasn't to say hello.
Friday, October 9, 2015
Golf Season (At Bushwood)
Now that it's October, and the days are getting colder and darker, any round of golf I play may be the last one of 2015. Here's a summary of the beginning and end of most rounds I played with my buddies, using scenes from Caddyshack:
On the first tee
Al Czervik: What're we, waiting for these guys? Hey Whitey, where's your hat?
Judge Smails: Do you mind, sir. I'm trying to tee off.
Al Czervik: I'll bet you a hundred bucks you slice it into the woods.
Judge Smails: Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir, and I never slice.
[Swings club, slices ball into woods]
Judge Smails: Damn!
Al Czervik: OK, you can owe me.
Judge Smails: I owe you nothing!
At the 19th hole
Bartender: Another Rob Roy, Bishop?
Bishop: You never ask a navy man if he'll have another drink, because it's nobody's goddamned business how much he's had already.
Judge Smails: Wrong, you're drinking too much your Excellency…..
Bishop: Excellency, fiddlesticks, my name's Fred and I'm a man, same as you.
Judge Smails: You're not a man, you're a bishop, for God's sakes!
Bishop: There is no God.....
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
Viva il Papa
Pope Francis visited the United States last week, attending events in Washington D.C., New York City, and Philadelphia. Thus did faith (generally) and Catholicism (specifically) become the top news story of the week.
As a Catholic, I viewed the media attention the pope received with mixed feelings. To be sure, the fact that the host cities were in the major east coast media markets made a difference. Plus, there is definitely more excitement about having a likable, more open-minded, quasi-celebrity leading the church. But why are the messages of hope and compassion given so much more attention when delivered by the pope in person, as opposed to any other time?
I especially loved how our federal politicians over-compensated, giving Francis time to speak at the White House and to a joint meeting of Congress. There’s a basic cynicism to that, given how most of them aren’t practicing Catholics, but knowing how crucial it might be for voters to see them with the pope.
On the other hand, it was understandable how some devout Catholics considered the pontiff’s visit to be a spiritual, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see him in person. I wish there’d have been a way for them to get more exclusivity, they deserved it. For those not-so-devout Catholics and others, I was left to wonder if seeing the pope in person constituted a faith/life-changing event, or just a chance to see a celebrity.
In the end, the pope’s visit to America made for a generally uplifting week. Given the past scandals and unappealing social conservatism of the Catholic Church, it’s encouraging to see so many people enthused by Pope Francis. The church – the world – needs more of him, and more like him.
As a Catholic, I viewed the media attention the pope received with mixed feelings. To be sure, the fact that the host cities were in the major east coast media markets made a difference. Plus, there is definitely more excitement about having a likable, more open-minded, quasi-celebrity leading the church. But why are the messages of hope and compassion given so much more attention when delivered by the pope in person, as opposed to any other time?
I especially loved how our federal politicians over-compensated, giving Francis time to speak at the White House and to a joint meeting of Congress. There’s a basic cynicism to that, given how most of them aren’t practicing Catholics, but knowing how crucial it might be for voters to see them with the pope.
On the other hand, it was understandable how some devout Catholics considered the pontiff’s visit to be a spiritual, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see him in person. I wish there’d have been a way for them to get more exclusivity, they deserved it. For those not-so-devout Catholics and others, I was left to wonder if seeing the pope in person constituted a faith/life-changing event, or just a chance to see a celebrity.
In the end, the pope’s visit to America made for a generally uplifting week. Given the past scandals and unappealing social conservatism of the Catholic Church, it’s encouraging to see so many people enthused by Pope Francis. The church – the world – needs more of him, and more like him.
Monday, September 14, 2015
Best Song Lyrics (Part XVII)
It shames me to realize that in my previous XVI installments about song lyrics, I've listed only caucasian song writers. A politically incorrect and embarrassing oversight that I will now fix.
There are plenty of great non-white songwriters out there, and today you'll find most of them in the hip-hop genre. We are definitely not going down that road though -- hip-hop (or 'rap' as it was called when I started this blog) is one of the main reasons I complained about the loss of meaningful lyrics in the first place.
If you go back farther, though, way back, you find Smokey Robinson. With his backup group The Miracles, he wrote or co-wrote all kinds of hit songs, including The Tracks of My Tears and I Second That Emotion. He also wrote the famous My Girl for The Temptations.
You could go to any of those songs for an example, but I'll go with the subtle sadness found in the first part of The Tracks of My Tears:
People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two
Although I might be laughing loud and hearty
Deep inside I'm blue
So take a good look at my face
You'll see my smile looks out of place
If you look closer, it's easy to trace
The tracks of my tears
Since you left me if you see me with another girl
Seeming like I'm having fun
Although she may be cute, she's just a substitute
Because you're the permanent one
So take a good look at my face
You'll see my smile looks out of place
If you look closer, it's easy to trace
The tracks of my tears
There are plenty of great non-white songwriters out there, and today you'll find most of them in the hip-hop genre. We are definitely not going down that road though -- hip-hop (or 'rap' as it was called when I started this blog) is one of the main reasons I complained about the loss of meaningful lyrics in the first place.
If you go back farther, though, way back, you find Smokey Robinson. With his backup group The Miracles, he wrote or co-wrote all kinds of hit songs, including The Tracks of My Tears and I Second That Emotion. He also wrote the famous My Girl for The Temptations.
You could go to any of those songs for an example, but I'll go with the subtle sadness found in the first part of The Tracks of My Tears:
People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two
Although I might be laughing loud and hearty
Deep inside I'm blue
So take a good look at my face
You'll see my smile looks out of place
If you look closer, it's easy to trace
The tracks of my tears
Since you left me if you see me with another girl
Seeming like I'm having fun
Although she may be cute, she's just a substitute
Because you're the permanent one
So take a good look at my face
You'll see my smile looks out of place
If you look closer, it's easy to trace
The tracks of my tears
Monday, August 31, 2015
Be Greedy When Others Are Fearful
“A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." --Warren Buffett, October 2008
This quote about investing in stocks may be many years old, but it applies like new based on the last 10 days of stock market trading.
A downturn in the investment marketplace creates a natural fear for even the most experienced investor. When something is cutting away at our net worth, we want to stop it as soon as possible. We want to do something.
Here’s the problem: Leaving the markets in that environment is generally a bad idea, because it’s done out of fear. People make the biggest investment mistakes when they’re fearful. It’s even more powerful than greed, and there's proof.
Daniel Kahneman is a research psychologist, but he won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his work in an area now referred to as behavioral economics. His research reveals that the response to a price drop generates a much stronger emotion than a response to an equal price gain. In short, he found that most people fear loss much more than they enjoy success, and this makes fear a powerful enemy of an otherwise level-headed investor.
If we feel the urge to reduce our stock or bond allocation during a market downturn, our challenge is to recognize Kahneman’s observation. We need to remember that we picked our asset allocation target during a period when we weren't emotional, and did it for good reason. We must also remember that short-term market movements are of little-to-no consequence if we have a long-term investment horizon.
That said, we should do something during a big market correction -- but not leave the market. Rather, we should rebalance to our pre-chosen allocation target, effectively buying more stocks or bonds at a time when we may fear it most. Then later, when those markets inevitably recover, we should try to enjoy our success more!
This quote about investing in stocks may be many years old, but it applies like new based on the last 10 days of stock market trading.
A downturn in the investment marketplace creates a natural fear for even the most experienced investor. When something is cutting away at our net worth, we want to stop it as soon as possible. We want to do something.
Here’s the problem: Leaving the markets in that environment is generally a bad idea, because it’s done out of fear. People make the biggest investment mistakes when they’re fearful. It’s even more powerful than greed, and there's proof.
Daniel Kahneman is a research psychologist, but he won the 2002 Nobel prize in economics for his work in an area now referred to as behavioral economics. His research reveals that the response to a price drop generates a much stronger emotion than a response to an equal price gain. In short, he found that most people fear loss much more than they enjoy success, and this makes fear a powerful enemy of an otherwise level-headed investor.
If we feel the urge to reduce our stock or bond allocation during a market downturn, our challenge is to recognize Kahneman’s observation. We need to remember that we picked our asset allocation target during a period when we weren't emotional, and did it for good reason. We must also remember that short-term market movements are of little-to-no consequence if we have a long-term investment horizon.
That said, we should do something during a big market correction -- but not leave the market. Rather, we should rebalance to our pre-chosen allocation target, effectively buying more stocks or bonds at a time when we may fear it most. Then later, when those markets inevitably recover, we should try to enjoy our success more!
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Fitbit(e) Me
Some consumer product fads are harmless. Pet rocks. Rubik’s cubes. Bottled water. Wait, check that, I’m being told that bottled water is still a multi-billion dollar industry…..go figure.
Regardless, I’ve been waiting in the weeds to complain about a new product fad that began as harmless, but has morphed into an annoying pastime for some. It involves the Fitbit.
For the un-indoctrinated, a Fitbit is a wearable product (basically like a wristwatch) that uses sensors and wireless technology to calculate how much a person moves in a prescribed time. While there are plenty of competitors (such as the Apple Watch), Fitbit has developed tremendous brand-awareness and loyalty, and has a big lead in this space.
There’s nothing wrong with the Fitbit, nor with the consumer ‘need’ that the Fitbit tries to address for people. That is, give them motivation to live a more active lifestyle. If monitoring the number of steps taken daily, along with distance and time does that for people, that’s great. Fitter human beings benefit not only that person, but society in general.
The problem is not the Fitbit. The problem is Fitbit users who consistently believe they must tell everyone else how much they’ve moved. I’m beginning to think the Fitbit user manual carries a warning message claiming the Fitbit will self-destruct if the wearer doesn’t immediately announce their daily (or more frequent) fitness results to those within shouting distance.
Hey Fitbit users: The rest of us are happy that a consumer product has made you more fitness-aware. We just don’t want to hear about it every damn time you’re around us. You might want to assume that some of us are doing a lot more than you are to stay fit, we simply aren’t publicizing it. Also, I would caution Fitbit users to remember the importance of diet in overall health – but please, you don’t have to tell the rest of us your daily fresh vegetable or yogurt intake, either.
By definition, fads come and go, and that’s especially true with fitness and diet crazes. Only time will tell whether the Fitbit is a fad. In the meantime, let’s at least agree not to talk about it.
Regardless, I’ve been waiting in the weeds to complain about a new product fad that began as harmless, but has morphed into an annoying pastime for some. It involves the Fitbit.
For the un-indoctrinated, a Fitbit is a wearable product (basically like a wristwatch) that uses sensors and wireless technology to calculate how much a person moves in a prescribed time. While there are plenty of competitors (such as the Apple Watch), Fitbit has developed tremendous brand-awareness and loyalty, and has a big lead in this space.
There’s nothing wrong with the Fitbit, nor with the consumer ‘need’ that the Fitbit tries to address for people. That is, give them motivation to live a more active lifestyle. If monitoring the number of steps taken daily, along with distance and time does that for people, that’s great. Fitter human beings benefit not only that person, but society in general.
The problem is not the Fitbit. The problem is Fitbit users who consistently believe they must tell everyone else how much they’ve moved. I’m beginning to think the Fitbit user manual carries a warning message claiming the Fitbit will self-destruct if the wearer doesn’t immediately announce their daily (or more frequent) fitness results to those within shouting distance.
Hey Fitbit users: The rest of us are happy that a consumer product has made you more fitness-aware. We just don’t want to hear about it every damn time you’re around us. You might want to assume that some of us are doing a lot more than you are to stay fit, we simply aren’t publicizing it. Also, I would caution Fitbit users to remember the importance of diet in overall health – but please, you don’t have to tell the rest of us your daily fresh vegetable or yogurt intake, either.
By definition, fads come and go, and that’s especially true with fitness and diet crazes. Only time will tell whether the Fitbit is a fad. In the meantime, let’s at least agree not to talk about it.
Thursday, August 6, 2015
The Real Mad Men
Not so long ago, I wrote about how much I enjoyed reading non-fiction books by Dave Barry. He published a new humor book recently, titled Live Right and Find Happiness (Although Beer is Much Faster). I got the book for Father's Day, and just finished it.
While it was another laugh out loud collection of essays, I was particularly interested in a section where Barry got semi-serious. In a chapter titled The Real Mad Men, he wrote about how the parents of the Baby Boom generation lived their lives and raised their children differently from us modern parents.
He makes fun of how much today's parents coddle their children and worry about things, compared to how their parents rolled with the punches. He makes the predictable comparisons in areas like sports ["If a kid played a sport, they might go to the games, but they didn't complain to the coach.....or make fools of themselves by getting into fights with other parents or screaming at the referee. It just wasn't that big a deal to them. It was kids paying games."] and education ["They found out how their child was doing when the child brought home a report card.....if the grades were bad, they didn't march into the school and complain that the school had failed their child.....they told their child to shape up, and they maybe even gave their child a smack on the back of the head."].
But at the end of the chapter, he makes this summary that should be required reading for most of today's parents: "I'm not saying my parents' generation didn't give a crap. I'm saying they gave a crap mainly about big things, like providing food and shelter. Whereas we modern parents.....never stop parenting, making sure [kids] get whatever they want, removing obstacles from their path, solving their problems and worrying about what else will go wrong, so we can fix it for them. Yes, we've gotten really, really good at parenting, we Boomers. This is fortunate, because for some inexplicable reason a lot of our kids seem to have trouble getting a foothold in adult life, which is why so many of them are sill living with us at age thirty-seven."
"They're lucky they have us around."
While it was another laugh out loud collection of essays, I was particularly interested in a section where Barry got semi-serious. In a chapter titled The Real Mad Men, he wrote about how the parents of the Baby Boom generation lived their lives and raised their children differently from us modern parents.
He makes fun of how much today's parents coddle their children and worry about things, compared to how their parents rolled with the punches. He makes the predictable comparisons in areas like sports ["If a kid played a sport, they might go to the games, but they didn't complain to the coach.....or make fools of themselves by getting into fights with other parents or screaming at the referee. It just wasn't that big a deal to them. It was kids paying games."] and education ["They found out how their child was doing when the child brought home a report card.....if the grades were bad, they didn't march into the school and complain that the school had failed their child.....they told their child to shape up, and they maybe even gave their child a smack on the back of the head."].
But at the end of the chapter, he makes this summary that should be required reading for most of today's parents: "I'm not saying my parents' generation didn't give a crap. I'm saying they gave a crap mainly about big things, like providing food and shelter. Whereas we modern parents.....never stop parenting, making sure [kids] get whatever they want, removing obstacles from their path, solving their problems and worrying about what else will go wrong, so we can fix it for them. Yes, we've gotten really, really good at parenting, we Boomers. This is fortunate, because for some inexplicable reason a lot of our kids seem to have trouble getting a foothold in adult life, which is why so many of them are sill living with us at age thirty-seven."
"They're lucky they have us around."
Sunday, July 26, 2015
RAGBRAI - 2015 Edition
This year I was only able to fit in one day of riding on the Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI). Instead of the last year or two, I rode 100 miles in a single day rather than over two days, from Fort Dodge to Eldora.
My 2015 observations:
* We need more bandwidth! Cell phones worked OK on LTE out in the country, but in the small towns where everybody stopped, there was no data going in or out. You'd think RAGBRAI and its vendors would find a way to end the data gridlock.
* There was a significant delay on the ride due to two bridges being under construction within a couple of miles of each other. This is unacceptable to any veteran of the ride. We know RAGBRAI is supposed to work with the Iowa Department of Transportation to make sure the route doesn't run into this kind of thing.
* It can get a little lonely on the extra 25 mile loop that allowed for this year's optional 100 mile day. I've done that three times now, and it helps to have someone else with you. Unlike the regular route, there are few riders and almost no organized places to stop along the road.
* Still hard to find church-stand fruit pie on the ride. But I did, a fine slice of apple pie. There were several other varieties, but again saw no pineapple pie this year.
* The usual big corporate food vendors were there (Farm Boys, Mr. Pork Chop, Tom Tenders, Beekman's Ice Cream), but the biggest crowd I saw by far was at the new Iowa Craft Beer Tent. Rumor is that it drew the largest crowds all week.
* Drones! Saw drones overhead capturing video of the ride in a few different towns. It would make for a good chamber of commerce presentation.
* Best jersey seen this year goes to Team Good Beer. Nothing special about the name, but they had lederhosen-style jerseys, which were awesome.
My 2015 observations:
* We need more bandwidth! Cell phones worked OK on LTE out in the country, but in the small towns where everybody stopped, there was no data going in or out. You'd think RAGBRAI and its vendors would find a way to end the data gridlock.
* There was a significant delay on the ride due to two bridges being under construction within a couple of miles of each other. This is unacceptable to any veteran of the ride. We know RAGBRAI is supposed to work with the Iowa Department of Transportation to make sure the route doesn't run into this kind of thing.
* It can get a little lonely on the extra 25 mile loop that allowed for this year's optional 100 mile day. I've done that three times now, and it helps to have someone else with you. Unlike the regular route, there are few riders and almost no organized places to stop along the road.
* Still hard to find church-stand fruit pie on the ride. But I did, a fine slice of apple pie. There were several other varieties, but again saw no pineapple pie this year.
* The usual big corporate food vendors were there (Farm Boys, Mr. Pork Chop, Tom Tenders, Beekman's Ice Cream), but the biggest crowd I saw by far was at the new Iowa Craft Beer Tent. Rumor is that it drew the largest crowds all week.
* Drones! Saw drones overhead capturing video of the ride in a few different towns. It would make for a good chamber of commerce presentation.
* Best jersey seen this year goes to Team Good Beer. Nothing special about the name, but they had lederhosen-style jerseys, which were awesome.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
You Have A Tumor
In July of 2000, after a few months searching for answers about chronic fatigue and stiffness in my legs, I got a call from my family physician. It was obvious this was no ordinary call; it was Sunday morning around 9 A.M.
After a quick exchange of pleasantries, I will always remembers her next words: "You have a tumor." I will never remember much about the rest of the call, beyond being told to go to the hospital later to visit with a neurosurgeon she recommended to me.
In short, I had surgery a few days later to remove a spinal tumor. Although the pathology was not confirmed for a couple of weeks, it was later determined to be a benign ependymoma.
Today, July 14, 2015, marks the 15th anniversary of that surgery, the only in-patient surgery I've ever had so far, and hopefully the only one I'll ever have. Several weeks later, it was followed by a six-week course of preventative radiation therapy, which I know I'll never have again.
I don't want to write much about it, I don't even want to talk much about it, but it's a good time for me to look back and consider the lasting impressions I have now:
After a quick exchange of pleasantries, I will always remembers her next words: "You have a tumor." I will never remember much about the rest of the call, beyond being told to go to the hospital later to visit with a neurosurgeon she recommended to me.
In short, I had surgery a few days later to remove a spinal tumor. Although the pathology was not confirmed for a couple of weeks, it was later determined to be a benign ependymoma.
Today, July 14, 2015, marks the 15th anniversary of that surgery, the only in-patient surgery I've ever had so far, and hopefully the only one I'll ever have. Several weeks later, it was followed by a six-week course of preventative radiation therapy, which I know I'll never have again.
I don't want to write much about it, I don't even want to talk much about it, but it's a good time for me to look back and consider the lasting impressions I have now:
- There is no not being scared when you are told you have a tumor. It doesn't help for others to tell you it's going to be fine. However, one thing that does somewhat mitigate the fear is drugs, in my case Xanax, which has a way of making you not care about things even though you know they are very serious. This remains the only time I've ever taken something like Xanax, but I can understand how and why people get addicted to it.
- The internet is an incredibly distracting, mentally exhausting resource for looking up health issues. It's 50/50 to me whether it was (is) a good thing or a bad thing. But what might help is to find someone else who's been through what you're going to go through. I wish I would have known someone else in my situation, someone who might have given credible advice. Unfortunately, it was kind of a rare deal, so much that the internet didn't even help.
- When someone is going through a recovery and/or long-term oncology-type treatment, send them a card sometime. Misery loves company, even when the company isn't as miserable as you. It's just good to know that others haven't forgotten about what not only you, but also your family, are going through.
- Don't act in such a hurried or fearful way that you make non-emergency medical decisions without getting a second opinion. I didn't, and although I feel like I had a good surgeon and a good outcome, in retrospect, I'd have gotten a second opinion on both the surgery and especially on the preventative radiation therapy.
- There wasn't anything good about this tumor/surgery/treatment, but if I had to pick something, it's that I no longer care about aging. In fact, I've considered every birthday in the past 15 years to be a gift. Health is a gift. Age is a gift. Too bad I had to spend a few weeks thinking about dying young before I figured that out.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
What's In A Name
Years ago, one of my kids was talking to a friend, who was trying to remember my name. She couldn’t come up with it, and eventually she said that it was "some old guy’s name.” And so it was that I first recall ‘Bill’ being called an old guy’s name.
For reasons unknown, I always remembered that story. My given name is William, and I certainly have other options for an everyday nickname, including Will, or the more contemporary Liam. (But not Billy, I already went through that phase as a child.)
So in the past year or so, after reading that the name Liam was the #1 name for newborn boys in Iowa for the past two years, I’ve been jokingly(?) asking folks to call me Liam, because Bill is an old guy’s name and I’m still a young guy.
This Liam thing is starting to catch on. So I'm telling people.
If I simply don’t respond to Bill, by chance or by choice, I can always correct the person by saying I don’t recognize Bill anymore, only Liam. Of course, this isn’t entirely true – because I’ll also go with Will. I often use Will instead of Liam when asked for a name at a casual/fast food restaurant.
Name versatility. It allows you to go from a young guy to an old guy and back to a young guy.
For reasons unknown, I always remembered that story. My given name is William, and I certainly have other options for an everyday nickname, including Will, or the more contemporary Liam. (But not Billy, I already went through that phase as a child.)
So in the past year or so, after reading that the name Liam was the #1 name for newborn boys in Iowa for the past two years, I’ve been jokingly(?) asking folks to call me Liam, because Bill is an old guy’s name and I’m still a young guy.
This Liam thing is starting to catch on. So I'm telling people.
If I simply don’t respond to Bill, by chance or by choice, I can always correct the person by saying I don’t recognize Bill anymore, only Liam. Of course, this isn’t entirely true – because I’ll also go with Will. I often use Will instead of Liam when asked for a name at a casual/fast food restaurant.
Name versatility. It allows you to go from a young guy to an old guy and back to a young guy.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Vehicle vs. Pedestrian, Redux
Today, I'm writing about a simple change in behavior that will save hundreds, if not thousands, of human lives each year. It requires no change in the law, and no government or private money to implement.
Here it is: Show some humility when crossing a street at a non-electronically controlled intersection, look both ways, and yield to the traffic instead of thinking it should yield to you.
I actually touched on this idea in a blog post about six years ago. Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on. I'm constantly amazed at how many people enter nonchalantly into uncontrolled (or not stop-lighted) crosswalks, seemingly without regard to the thousand pound steel cannonballs converging on them. It just happened to me the other day, when a fat man and his dog crossed in front of me without so much as a glance.
Maybe it's just me (it isn't), but when I'm driving, I'm not paying that much attention to a poorly marked pedestrian crossing. It's just another set of faded white lines. I'm a lot more worried about the other vehicular traffic around me. Hell, I'm at least as worried about avoiding potholes, which is in essence me saying I care as much about pavement conditions as I do about crosswalk conditions.
Sure, I know that a pedestrian supposedly has the right of way in a crosswalk. But in the end, that is a specious argument. What does that matter? If my vehicle accidentally hits a clueless pedestrian, I might get a ticket, perhaps worse, but they might be permanently disabled or dead. Who made out worse?
Given the no-win nature of this outcome, why do pedestrians continue to think it's OK to cross a street without taking the minimal precaution of looking both ways? I know people aren't raised that way, so what makes them change?
Perhaps this is too broad of a conclusion, but I think today's 'look at me, I'm important' reality show / social media-based culture plays at least a minor role. You know, the culture in which I'm supposed to care more about what you're doing than I am about what I'm doing.
Please. In the meeting between vehicle and pedestrian, vehicle always wins. Do yourself a favor, show some humility, and look both ways before crossing any street.
Here it is: Show some humility when crossing a street at a non-electronically controlled intersection, look both ways, and yield to the traffic instead of thinking it should yield to you.
I actually touched on this idea in a blog post about six years ago. Unfortunately, it hasn't caught on. I'm constantly amazed at how many people enter nonchalantly into uncontrolled (or not stop-lighted) crosswalks, seemingly without regard to the thousand pound steel cannonballs converging on them. It just happened to me the other day, when a fat man and his dog crossed in front of me without so much as a glance.
Maybe it's just me (it isn't), but when I'm driving, I'm not paying that much attention to a poorly marked pedestrian crossing. It's just another set of faded white lines. I'm a lot more worried about the other vehicular traffic around me. Hell, I'm at least as worried about avoiding potholes, which is in essence me saying I care as much about pavement conditions as I do about crosswalk conditions.
Sure, I know that a pedestrian supposedly has the right of way in a crosswalk. But in the end, that is a specious argument. What does that matter? If my vehicle accidentally hits a clueless pedestrian, I might get a ticket, perhaps worse, but they might be permanently disabled or dead. Who made out worse?
Given the no-win nature of this outcome, why do pedestrians continue to think it's OK to cross a street without taking the minimal precaution of looking both ways? I know people aren't raised that way, so what makes them change?
Perhaps this is too broad of a conclusion, but I think today's 'look at me, I'm important' reality show / social media-based culture plays at least a minor role. You know, the culture in which I'm supposed to care more about what you're doing than I am about what I'm doing.
Please. In the meeting between vehicle and pedestrian, vehicle always wins. Do yourself a favor, show some humility, and look both ways before crossing any street.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Coffee And Doughnuts (And Terrorists)
I don't understand coffee and doughnuts.
Oh, I know what they are, I just don't understand the people who are willing to buy and consume them. Let me explain.
I recently met a colleague at a local Starbucks (his choice, not mine, I don't drink coffee). I got there around 10am, and during the next hour, I observed a steady stream of customers walk through the door. There were men and women of all ages, some dressed for work, some clearly not working. If I had to categorize them under one group, I suppose I'd say they were upper-middle class Caucasians.
These customers all had one other thing in common: They were perfectly willing to pay several dollars for a cup of heavily sweetened, coffee bean-flavored hot water. No doubt, this same thing was going on in thousands of other coffee shops in America, and perhaps every other country in the developed world.
This is why the terrorists hate us. We live in a society where people are willing and able to spend hundreds / thousands of dollars every year on foo-foo coffee. In the meantime, there is human suffering occurring in the U.S., and especially in the rest of the world. Make no mistake, the terrorists don't intend to lessen the suffering, they simply want everyone else to suffer like them. (Oh, and there's that religious thing, too.)
I don't blame Starbucks for any of this. They are branding geniuses, able to get consumers to not only feel good about paying a lot for something unhealthy, but to also get those folks to waste the equivalent of many hours per year to stand in line for it! As a capitalist, I say props to them.
I observed this same sort of hypnotic consumer behavior a few days ago at another brand name juggernaut, Krispy Kreme. They were giving away free doughnuts on National Doughnut Day (yup, that's a thing), and the line reportedly when around the block for hours. All of this for an unhealthy, warm, super-sugary blob of dough. At least people weren't paying for it that day, which accounts for why I presume the crowd to have been made up of all economic classes and ethnicity.
So let's recap. Starbucks and Krisy Kreme = admirable brand name juggernauts. Their customers = free-spending hypnotized calorie consumers. Coffee and doughnuts = super-expensive comfort food. Terrorists = still and always a-holes.
Oh, I know what they are, I just don't understand the people who are willing to buy and consume them. Let me explain.
I recently met a colleague at a local Starbucks (his choice, not mine, I don't drink coffee). I got there around 10am, and during the next hour, I observed a steady stream of customers walk through the door. There were men and women of all ages, some dressed for work, some clearly not working. If I had to categorize them under one group, I suppose I'd say they were upper-middle class Caucasians.
These customers all had one other thing in common: They were perfectly willing to pay several dollars for a cup of heavily sweetened, coffee bean-flavored hot water. No doubt, this same thing was going on in thousands of other coffee shops in America, and perhaps every other country in the developed world.
This is why the terrorists hate us. We live in a society where people are willing and able to spend hundreds / thousands of dollars every year on foo-foo coffee. In the meantime, there is human suffering occurring in the U.S., and especially in the rest of the world. Make no mistake, the terrorists don't intend to lessen the suffering, they simply want everyone else to suffer like them. (Oh, and there's that religious thing, too.)
I don't blame Starbucks for any of this. They are branding geniuses, able to get consumers to not only feel good about paying a lot for something unhealthy, but to also get those folks to waste the equivalent of many hours per year to stand in line for it! As a capitalist, I say props to them.
I observed this same sort of hypnotic consumer behavior a few days ago at another brand name juggernaut, Krispy Kreme. They were giving away free doughnuts on National Doughnut Day (yup, that's a thing), and the line reportedly when around the block for hours. All of this for an unhealthy, warm, super-sugary blob of dough. At least people weren't paying for it that day, which accounts for why I presume the crowd to have been made up of all economic classes and ethnicity.
So let's recap. Starbucks and Krisy Kreme = admirable brand name juggernauts. Their customers = free-spending hypnotized calorie consumers. Coffee and doughnuts = super-expensive comfort food. Terrorists = still and always a-holes.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
About A Funeral
My dad passed away last week. He had cheated death for 89 years, spending the final 70 smoking Lucky Strike or Marlboro cigarettes, at least when he wasn't using Red Man chewing tobacco.
I'm not going to eulogize him here. There was plenty of that done last week by others, and I wouldn't be that good at it anyway. By the time I was a teenager, my dad was in his 50s, and there's a lot I don't know well about his earlier years.
But I do want to write about my observations of the visitation and funeral, and what I think my dad would have thought about what went on.
The presentation of the casket and the memorials were very nice -- almost too nice. It was all very calming, and the flowers/plants/statues are good for both the receivers and the givers. But while I think my dad would have liked that, I think he would have hated the cost of the jewelry box-looking casket. There's no good alternative short of cremation, but he was a frugal man.
The visitation was an exercise in stamina for the family. With an immediate family that included my mom and all nine children and assorted spouses, there were a whole lot of visitors who made their way through the receiving line. There was no break from 4-8pm. I think my dad would have been surprised, and pleased, at all of the relatives and friends who were there.
The funeral service was respectful, and traditional, and unnecessarily sad. My dad was a traditional man, a military veteran, someone who I think would have liked the formality of the service. For me, it was fine except for the music. So slow and somber. A funeral is supposed to be a celebration of a person's life, right? Shouldn't the music be more celebratory? Makes no sense to me.
The short time at the burial site in the cemetery was difficult for some, but not all. After the final words are spoken, it's apparently become a thing for mourners to stay and watch the casket be lowered into the vault, and then into the ground. I suppose it's an attempt at closure for some, but it seemed to me to just prolong their grief. I didn't stay for that, and I think my dad would have wondered what the hell we were still doing there by that point, and why we weren't doing something more productive.
All in all, I felt sad through my initial viewing of the body prior to the visitation, and again near the end of the funeral mass. It was especially difficult seeing other family members having a hard time. But other than that, I mostly felt calm inside. It was much, much easier than the prior week, when the immediate family came home to say a final goodbye prior to his death.
My dad lived a good long life. It was very tough to see him go, but his health was failing, and his quality of life was getting poor. He went to church the entire way through, praying that he might go to heaven. He knew as much as anyone that you can't get there if you're still living.
I'm not going to eulogize him here. There was plenty of that done last week by others, and I wouldn't be that good at it anyway. By the time I was a teenager, my dad was in his 50s, and there's a lot I don't know well about his earlier years.
But I do want to write about my observations of the visitation and funeral, and what I think my dad would have thought about what went on.
The presentation of the casket and the memorials were very nice -- almost too nice. It was all very calming, and the flowers/plants/statues are good for both the receivers and the givers. But while I think my dad would have liked that, I think he would have hated the cost of the jewelry box-looking casket. There's no good alternative short of cremation, but he was a frugal man.
The visitation was an exercise in stamina for the family. With an immediate family that included my mom and all nine children and assorted spouses, there were a whole lot of visitors who made their way through the receiving line. There was no break from 4-8pm. I think my dad would have been surprised, and pleased, at all of the relatives and friends who were there.
The funeral service was respectful, and traditional, and unnecessarily sad. My dad was a traditional man, a military veteran, someone who I think would have liked the formality of the service. For me, it was fine except for the music. So slow and somber. A funeral is supposed to be a celebration of a person's life, right? Shouldn't the music be more celebratory? Makes no sense to me.
The short time at the burial site in the cemetery was difficult for some, but not all. After the final words are spoken, it's apparently become a thing for mourners to stay and watch the casket be lowered into the vault, and then into the ground. I suppose it's an attempt at closure for some, but it seemed to me to just prolong their grief. I didn't stay for that, and I think my dad would have wondered what the hell we were still doing there by that point, and why we weren't doing something more productive.
All in all, I felt sad through my initial viewing of the body prior to the visitation, and again near the end of the funeral mass. It was especially difficult seeing other family members having a hard time. But other than that, I mostly felt calm inside. It was much, much easier than the prior week, when the immediate family came home to say a final goodbye prior to his death.
My dad lived a good long life. It was very tough to see him go, but his health was failing, and his quality of life was getting poor. He went to church the entire way through, praying that he might go to heaven. He knew as much as anyone that you can't get there if you're still living.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Dear Graduating Class of 2015
If it's the latter part of May, it's again time for my annual advice to graduating seniors. I have both a college undergraduate and graduate student this year, so I'm going to say it with more meaning.
This year, I only want you to remember three things:
Challenge authority -- sometimes. You've probably been taught to respect authority, and that's what you should do. However, the racial tensions we're seeing now related to police actions against black citizens ought be enough to keep you from respecting authority without question. The best way for anyone to avoid confrontations with authority is to follow the rules/laws. Having said that, remember that absolute power corrupts absolutely. To borrow half of a phrase from the late Ronald Reagan, respect, but verify.
Challenge religion -- mostly. You've probably also been taught to be a God-fearing Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, or some other religion (but probably Christian). There is more good about that than there is bad. However, you should be wary of organized religion -- the kind that people use to justify all sorts of crazy, damaging ideas and actions. Do you really want to live your entire secular life based on the rigid, non-secular, white-male interpretations of scripture supposedly written over 2000 years ago? Instead, remember the words of Galileo Galilei: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Challenge group-think -- always. If too many people think the same thing, and those people only talk to each other, they think everybody agrees with them. What other excuse is there for all of the far right candidates running for the 2016 republican presidential nomination, most of whom have no more chance than I do of becoming president? On a related note, this is an overarching problem with all of today's politicians, who lack the courage and/or conviction to take a stance contrary to that of the dogma of their own political party. You would do well to always remember the old saying, "Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools are on the same side."
Now, go out there and try to never move back in with your parents!
This year, I only want you to remember three things:
Challenge authority -- sometimes. You've probably been taught to respect authority, and that's what you should do. However, the racial tensions we're seeing now related to police actions against black citizens ought be enough to keep you from respecting authority without question. The best way for anyone to avoid confrontations with authority is to follow the rules/laws. Having said that, remember that absolute power corrupts absolutely. To borrow half of a phrase from the late Ronald Reagan, respect, but verify.
Challenge religion -- mostly. You've probably also been taught to be a God-fearing Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, or some other religion (but probably Christian). There is more good about that than there is bad. However, you should be wary of organized religion -- the kind that people use to justify all sorts of crazy, damaging ideas and actions. Do you really want to live your entire secular life based on the rigid, non-secular, white-male interpretations of scripture supposedly written over 2000 years ago? Instead, remember the words of Galileo Galilei: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Challenge group-think -- always. If too many people think the same thing, and those people only talk to each other, they think everybody agrees with them. What other excuse is there for all of the far right candidates running for the 2016 republican presidential nomination, most of whom have no more chance than I do of becoming president? On a related note, this is an overarching problem with all of today's politicians, who lack the courage and/or conviction to take a stance contrary to that of the dogma of their own political party. You would do well to always remember the old saying, "Sometimes the majority only means that all the fools are on the same side."
Now, go out there and try to never move back in with your parents!
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Berky Meeting Nuggets 2015
After a one-year absence due to a family wedding, I attended the Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting in Omaha last week. So this year, I'm back to my own very limited summary of what Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger had to say. And even though the former is now age 84 and the latter is age 91, it was another great time:
On current stock market valuation:
Buffett noted that any valuation measure of the stock market is skewed now by very low interest rates. Corporate profits are worth a lot more if the government bond yield is 1% as opposed to 5%. Is short, the market is undervalued if you assume interest rates will remain low, and slightly overvalued if you assume interest rates will return to something more historically normal.
On economists and forecasts:
Responding to a question about the direction of interest rates and the economy, Buffett used the opportunity to swipe at economists, suggesting that “any company that employs an economist has one employee too many.” Munger noted that neither he nor Buffett predicted the current, prolonged low interest rate environment, and since they got that wrong, why anyone would want their opinion now? Later, Munger added that the problem with [economist] pronouncements is that eventually they think they know something and “it would be better if they just said they were ignorant.”
On raising the minimum wage:
Buffett noted the problem of income inequality in the United States, but said that he didn’t see how raising the minimum wage cold make a big impact on it, because it would come at the cost of too many lost jobs. He said increasing the earned income tax credit was a much better way. Munger noted that he was a republican, but he agreed full with his democratic counterpart. He considered raising the minimum wage to be counterproductive and “massively stupid.” On the other hand, the earned income tax credit rewards and helps people who work.
On the behavior of activist investors:
Buffett said he didn’t see Berky ever being an activist investor target, even after he gave all of his shares to charity, because the whole would always be greater than the sum of its parts. He went on to say some activism is stupid, particularly when activism results in stock repurchases. That’s when things get silly, because often the buybacks occur when stocks are overpriced. Munger was his typical blunt self, simply stating he couldn't think of any activist he’d want to marry into the family.
On making friends:
When asked about how to meet people and make a lot of friends, Munger unusually jumped in first and said that the only way he was able to get people to like him was to be very rich and very generous! Buffett said to look at other people and determine why you admire them, and then reflect those qualities that you like. He also noted that Munger often said the most important thing in finding a spouse is to “look for someone with low expectations!”
On current stock market valuation:
Buffett noted that any valuation measure of the stock market is skewed now by very low interest rates. Corporate profits are worth a lot more if the government bond yield is 1% as opposed to 5%. Is short, the market is undervalued if you assume interest rates will remain low, and slightly overvalued if you assume interest rates will return to something more historically normal.
On economists and forecasts:
Responding to a question about the direction of interest rates and the economy, Buffett used the opportunity to swipe at economists, suggesting that “any company that employs an economist has one employee too many.” Munger noted that neither he nor Buffett predicted the current, prolonged low interest rate environment, and since they got that wrong, why anyone would want their opinion now? Later, Munger added that the problem with [economist] pronouncements is that eventually they think they know something and “it would be better if they just said they were ignorant.”
On raising the minimum wage:
Buffett noted the problem of income inequality in the United States, but said that he didn’t see how raising the minimum wage cold make a big impact on it, because it would come at the cost of too many lost jobs. He said increasing the earned income tax credit was a much better way. Munger noted that he was a republican, but he agreed full with his democratic counterpart. He considered raising the minimum wage to be counterproductive and “massively stupid.” On the other hand, the earned income tax credit rewards and helps people who work.
On the behavior of activist investors:
Buffett said he didn’t see Berky ever being an activist investor target, even after he gave all of his shares to charity, because the whole would always be greater than the sum of its parts. He went on to say some activism is stupid, particularly when activism results in stock repurchases. That’s when things get silly, because often the buybacks occur when stocks are overpriced. Munger was his typical blunt self, simply stating he couldn't think of any activist he’d want to marry into the family.
On making friends:
When asked about how to meet people and make a lot of friends, Munger unusually jumped in first and said that the only way he was able to get people to like him was to be very rich and very generous! Buffett said to look at other people and determine why you admire them, and then reflect those qualities that you like. He also noted that Munger often said the most important thing in finding a spouse is to “look for someone with low expectations!”
Friday, May 1, 2015
Post #300
This is my 300th blog post since I started it around six years ago. As with post #200, let's take a look at some of what I wrote about over the past 100 posts spanning about two years:
I wrote with more practical, real life advice for high school and college graduates.
I wrote about a variety of investment issues, client-approved of course.
I wrote about how a political lackey masquerading as a university president ended VEISHEA.
I wrote more about the best songwriters and lyrics from yesteryear.
I wrote about how pop culture should start ignoring Lolo Jones, well before pop culture came to the same conclusion.
I wrote about major cities I visited.
I wrote more about taxpayers getting fleeced, and the primary non-profit fleecers.
I wrote about how medical doctors are self-centered, not patient-centered.
I wrote about what turning 50 years old meant to me, in a mostly non-philosophical way.
I wrote about a variety of ways that people / politicians / governments refuse to accept the evolution of social issues, such as how dumb it is to oppose both medical marijuana and decriminalization of marijuana, and how dumb it is to allow 2,000+ year-old religious doctrine control all of their secular decisions.
I wrote a little bit about a lot of other things, all in the name of getting things off my mind.
I wrote with more practical, real life advice for high school and college graduates.
I wrote about a variety of investment issues, client-approved of course.
I wrote about how a political lackey masquerading as a university president ended VEISHEA.
I wrote more about the best songwriters and lyrics from yesteryear.
I wrote about major cities I visited.
I wrote more about taxpayers getting fleeced, and the primary non-profit fleecers.
I wrote about how medical doctors are self-centered, not patient-centered.
I wrote about what turning 50 years old meant to me, in a mostly non-philosophical way.
I wrote about a variety of ways that people / politicians / governments refuse to accept the evolution of social issues, such as how dumb it is to oppose both medical marijuana and decriminalization of marijuana, and how dumb it is to allow 2,000+ year-old religious doctrine control all of their secular decisions.
I wrote a little bit about a lot of other things, all in the name of getting things off my mind.
Friday, April 24, 2015
LieSpotting
I recently watched a most popular TED talk with the same title as this post. Roughly the first half was about how often people lie, while the last half was about how to spot those lies.
I was more interested in the first half, because it verified my somewhat cynical belief that most people lie, and lie often, when they talk to you about something. Many of these are of the 'little white lie' variety, the kind you tell to make someone else feel better, or to maintain a social grace.
However, a lot of these lies are exaggerations, to make the liar look better than he or she really is. Some of these are couples/relationship type of lies, but the ones I'm referring to come from the stories that others tell about something they did. You know the ones -- so-and-so did something crazy, or saw something crazy, and the story gets crazier (and a little bit different) every time you hear it.
Of course, this type of lying is common among pre-teens and teens, where it's almost a rite of passage. In the past I've suggested you should only believe 75% of half of what they say!
But I feel like it happens more often these days with adults. It's as if baby-boomers are in a contest among themselves to better whatever another person says. Like the Dilbert character Topper, except not always in an office environment.
In this context, I suppose it's harmless. It's isn't like I'm going going to make a bad decision based on this inaccurate information. It just isn't good form.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Terrorists Still > VEISHEA
The past week / weekend should have been a fun time on the campus of Iowa State University. It should have been the 90-something-th edition of VEISHEA. But that was postponed last year, indirectly due to a riot, but directly due to an out-of touch university president.
Last summer that president, Steven Leath, put a permanent end to VEISHEA Of course, he did this after getting that recommendation from his hand-picked task force. An absolute joke.
What was this task force going to do, make a recommendation contrary to what the president and his cronies wanted? Leath had already played judge and jury to cancel last year's VEISHEA shortly after the riot, but well before enough time had passed to collect the facts about what happened.
He acted impulsively and dictatorially, claiming student safety was at risk, and ruining work and plans that were many months in the making. He isn't going to admit now that he was wrong about his actions.
But in truth, those actions haven't made Iowa State students, or Ames, Iowa, a safer place. Suppressing the organized fun and freedom of people doesn't engender trust and safety -- it makes those people bitter and angry, and makes them dislike you. Worst case scenario, it manifests into something chaotic and violent.
Fortunately for ISU / Ames, that manifestation didn't happen this year, and maybe it won't ever. Unfortunately for Leath, the same can't be said for how much he's disliked on campus.
Last summer that president, Steven Leath, put a permanent end to VEISHEA Of course, he did this after getting that recommendation from his hand-picked task force. An absolute joke.
What was this task force going to do, make a recommendation contrary to what the president and his cronies wanted? Leath had already played judge and jury to cancel last year's VEISHEA shortly after the riot, but well before enough time had passed to collect the facts about what happened.
He acted impulsively and dictatorially, claiming student safety was at risk, and ruining work and plans that were many months in the making. He isn't going to admit now that he was wrong about his actions.
But in truth, those actions haven't made Iowa State students, or Ames, Iowa, a safer place. Suppressing the organized fun and freedom of people doesn't engender trust and safety -- it makes those people bitter and angry, and makes them dislike you. Worst case scenario, it manifests into something chaotic and violent.
Fortunately for ISU / Ames, that manifestation didn't happen this year, and maybe it won't ever. Unfortunately for Leath, the same can't be said for how much he's disliked on campus.
Monday, April 13, 2015
It's Not A Choice
Last week, the latest social culture conflict hit the Catholic high school my kids attended. Specifically, a gay teacher/coach was fired when the school poo-bahs suddenly(?) discovered that he lived an "openly" gay lifestyle.
This firing is legal for private institutions in Iowa. Which is beside the point. The point is, somehow our society still tolerates discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It took a very long time, but America finally figured out that it was wrong to discriminate based on gender and race. Of course, it still occurs, but it isn't socially acceptable. And as we go through future generations, that discrimination will occur less and less.
While great strides have been made to stop discrimination against gays, there is a very long way to go. This is evidenced not only by this high school's action, but by some of the support they got for it. I consider some of these supporters to be level-headed people. What do I see that they don't?
Here it is: They, like so many others, do not understand or accept that being gay is not a choice. That's really all there is to it. If you accept that people's sexual orientation is who they are, in the same way that gender or race are a given, then the discrimination becomes obvious -- and embarrassing, and infuriating, etc.
One day soon, society will not tolerate what went on at this high school and elsewhere. We won't consider protections for sexual orientation to be 'special rights' or otherwise. We'll look back and ask how any of this could have happened as late as 2015.
In the meantime, let's hope people figure out that it's wrong to be unfair to others who are born a certain way.
It took a very long time, but America finally figured out that it was wrong to discriminate based on gender and race. Of course, it still occurs, but it isn't socially acceptable. And as we go through future generations, that discrimination will occur less and less.
While great strides have been made to stop discrimination against gays, there is a very long way to go. This is evidenced not only by this high school's action, but by some of the support they got for it. I consider some of these supporters to be level-headed people. What do I see that they don't?
Here it is: They, like so many others, do not understand or accept that being gay is not a choice. That's really all there is to it. If you accept that people's sexual orientation is who they are, in the same way that gender or race are a given, then the discrimination becomes obvious -- and embarrassing, and infuriating, etc.
One day soon, society will not tolerate what went on at this high school and elsewhere. We won't consider protections for sexual orientation to be 'special rights' or otherwise. We'll look back and ask how any of this could have happened as late as 2015.
In the meantime, let's hope people figure out that it's wrong to be unfair to others who are born a certain way.
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
More April Fools
It's April Fools' Day again today, another chance to expand on last year's list of facts that should be followed by the phrase, "April Fools!" if only they weren't true:
* The state of Indiana thought it could allow businesses to discriminate against gays without anyone noticing.
* Stories about suffering pets commonly air before stories about suffering people on broadcast news.
* Ted Cruz thinks he is a viable presidential candidate.
* You can stockpile and use guns and alcohol, but will be thrown in jail for owning an ounce of cannabis.
* The NCAA makes billions of dollars annually on the backs of its institutions' revenue-producing athletes, but opposes sharing any of that revenue with those athletes.
* Farm Bureau believes farmers will sufficiently police themselves to keep ground water clean.
* Most people base their current moral beliefs on undocumented, male-only writings from thousands of years ago.
* The state of Indiana thought it could allow businesses to discriminate against gays without anyone noticing.
* Stories about suffering pets commonly air before stories about suffering people on broadcast news.
* Ted Cruz thinks he is a viable presidential candidate.
* You can stockpile and use guns and alcohol, but will be thrown in jail for owning an ounce of cannabis.
* The NCAA makes billions of dollars annually on the backs of its institutions' revenue-producing athletes, but opposes sharing any of that revenue with those athletes.
* Farm Bureau believes farmers will sufficiently police themselves to keep ground water clean.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Read More Dave Barry
I don't read as many books as I should, but when I do, I stick with non-fiction things related to history or finance or humor. In the latter category, my favorite humorist has always been Dave Barry. In the 80s and 90s, Barry wrote a hilarious, weekly syndicated column for the Miami Herald, which I always read because it was printed by the Des Moines Register. At the same time, he authored many humor books that I read, some original and some a collection of his Miami Herald columns or essays.
Unfortunately, Barry dropped off my map in the late 90s when he gave up his weekly column, at which time he continued to write a variety of fictional books. In the past several years, he's been using social media more, and gone back to writing more non-fiction again. He's published a new humor book in each of the past two years.
With that as background, I recently took his newer books with me on a trip, and it was just like old times. It is very, very hard to write in a way that's laugh-out-loud funny, but Barry and his books will do it. It's impossible to fully describe his observational writing style, but he gets help from his "many alert readers" who send him crazy newspaper stories. Among his favorite topics are exploding or flaming items (including cows, toilets, Pop-Tarts, and Barbie dolls), and the emotional differences between men and women.
He also has a few common sayings. For example, when distinguishing fact from hyperbole, Barry frequently asserts, "I am not making this up." Also, "would be a good name for a rock band" is a statement Barry often applies to certain phrases. (This reminds me of a softball team I once coached, where the first name had to be a color and the nickname was an action. Our team drew the name 'Purple Riot' which I immediately said would be a good name for a rock band.)
If you have a chance, and you want a good laugh, read more Dave Barry!
Unfortunately, Barry dropped off my map in the late 90s when he gave up his weekly column, at which time he continued to write a variety of fictional books. In the past several years, he's been using social media more, and gone back to writing more non-fiction again. He's published a new humor book in each of the past two years.
With that as background, I recently took his newer books with me on a trip, and it was just like old times. It is very, very hard to write in a way that's laugh-out-loud funny, but Barry and his books will do it. It's impossible to fully describe his observational writing style, but he gets help from his "many alert readers" who send him crazy newspaper stories. Among his favorite topics are exploding or flaming items (including cows, toilets, Pop-Tarts, and Barbie dolls), and the emotional differences between men and women.
He also has a few common sayings. For example, when distinguishing fact from hyperbole, Barry frequently asserts, "I am not making this up." Also, "would be a good name for a rock band" is a statement Barry often applies to certain phrases. (This reminds me of a softball team I once coached, where the first name had to be a color and the nickname was an action. Our team drew the name 'Purple Riot' which I immediately said would be a good name for a rock band.)
If you have a chance, and you want a good laugh, read more Dave Barry!
Sunday, March 15, 2015
No Thanks Necessary
Your investments had a great 2014, or so it appears. Your portfolio went up over 15%, and now you want to go out of your way to thank your investment advisor.
Instead, you ought to be looking for a new advisor. If your portfolio went up that much last year, it means virtually all of your money was invested in U.S. stocks. In turn, that means your advisor did not focus on something that should have been of equal concern: Risk.
No doubt, U.S. stocks performed well last year -- but what if they hadn't? History has taught us that no one can accurately predict the short-term direction of the investment marketplace. No one, investment advisors included, knows exactly when the market will go up or down, or when to jump in or out.
So managed properly, your investment portfolio would include more than just U.S. equities. It would include other asset classes whose returns don't always move in the same direction, nor with the same volatility, as the overall domestic stock market. These risk-diversifying assets would include things like corporate bonds, international stocks, government bonds, and real estate.
Last year, most of these 'non-correlated' asset classes did not perform as well as the U.S. stock market, and if you had them in your portfolio, they reduced your overall return. However, those assets also substantially reduced your risk of having a horrible year, from which it could take many years to recover.
If your investment advisor had focused on risk as well as performance, then it was mathematically improbable to generate a 15% return in 2014. They deserve no thanks.
Good investment advisors, and you, should focus instead on risk-adjusted return. You may not have huge shorter-term investment gains, but more importantly, you'll likely avoid huge losses.
Instead, you ought to be looking for a new advisor. If your portfolio went up that much last year, it means virtually all of your money was invested in U.S. stocks. In turn, that means your advisor did not focus on something that should have been of equal concern: Risk.
No doubt, U.S. stocks performed well last year -- but what if they hadn't? History has taught us that no one can accurately predict the short-term direction of the investment marketplace. No one, investment advisors included, knows exactly when the market will go up or down, or when to jump in or out.
So managed properly, your investment portfolio would include more than just U.S. equities. It would include other asset classes whose returns don't always move in the same direction, nor with the same volatility, as the overall domestic stock market. These risk-diversifying assets would include things like corporate bonds, international stocks, government bonds, and real estate.
Last year, most of these 'non-correlated' asset classes did not perform as well as the U.S. stock market, and if you had them in your portfolio, they reduced your overall return. However, those assets also substantially reduced your risk of having a horrible year, from which it could take many years to recover.
If your investment advisor had focused on risk as well as performance, then it was mathematically improbable to generate a 15% return in 2014. They deserve no thanks.
Good investment advisors, and you, should focus instead on risk-adjusted return. You may not have huge shorter-term investment gains, but more importantly, you'll likely avoid huge losses.
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Life After High School Sports
We are right in the middle of the most recent edition of the girls and boys high school state basketball championships in Des Moines. As it's been the past several years, there are a number of players with whom we are acquainted as the children of friends or relatives.
Along with just about every sport these days, lots of these kids play basketball on a year-round basis, thanks to competitive (typically AAU) programs. The real thanks actually goes to their parents, who have made a great sacrifice of both time and money to allow it to happen.
The question is, what is the real benefit, and is it worth the price? In this case, the price isn't just monetary, it's also the price paid in missed events with family, and all of the missed school time.
If you make it to the state tournament, and even win a state title, does that once-in-a-lifetime memory make it worth spending the thousands of hours and dollars, also resulting in other missed memories? Maybe, maybe not.
What about getting a college athletic scholarship? Most would answer yes to that, including me. Still, that's a crapshoot, and regardless, how much of that success can be directly correlated to the extra effort?
In the end, the 'cost' of a kid playing competitive sports throughout the year probably can't be determined until five or so years after high school. From my perspective, it's all about what kind of person the kid turns out to be when high school and college years are over.
Assuming they aren't one of the less than 1% that becomes a professional in their chosen sport, it depends on whether the kid becomes a productive member of society. If they did, it doesn't mean the extra athletic time helped them, but at least it didn't hurt them.
Along with just about every sport these days, lots of these kids play basketball on a year-round basis, thanks to competitive (typically AAU) programs. The real thanks actually goes to their parents, who have made a great sacrifice of both time and money to allow it to happen.
The question is, what is the real benefit, and is it worth the price? In this case, the price isn't just monetary, it's also the price paid in missed events with family, and all of the missed school time.
If you make it to the state tournament, and even win a state title, does that once-in-a-lifetime memory make it worth spending the thousands of hours and dollars, also resulting in other missed memories? Maybe, maybe not.
What about getting a college athletic scholarship? Most would answer yes to that, including me. Still, that's a crapshoot, and regardless, how much of that success can be directly correlated to the extra effort?
In the end, the 'cost' of a kid playing competitive sports throughout the year probably can't be determined until five or so years after high school. From my perspective, it's all about what kind of person the kid turns out to be when high school and college years are over.
Assuming they aren't one of the less than 1% that becomes a professional in their chosen sport, it depends on whether the kid becomes a productive member of society. If they did, it doesn't mean the extra athletic time helped them, but at least it didn't hurt them.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Non-representative Democracy
One of the reasons the United States is the greatest country in the world is our governing system of representative democracy. Too bad it doesn't always work that way.
When is a representative democracy not a representative democracy? In Iowa, the answer is when it comes to legalizing medicinal marijuana.
This week, a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 70% of adult Iowans favor the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. This is up from just 59% last year, and 58% the year before that.
It's over. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this issue has been decided, and Iowans are ready to follow the rest of the country into making this rational, albeit long overdue choice.
Unfortunately, Iowa's elected state legislators don't seem to be any closer to legalizing marijuana for medical uses. Basically, we've elected a bunch of old, white, close-minded, and mostly Republican males (including the governor) who will always believe pot is evil, regardless of its proven therapeutic uses or the desire of their constituents. They continue to use the intellectually dishonest argument that the 'unintended consequences' of legalization will lead to serious drug abuse in Iowa. Simultaneously, they attend numerous political receptions where they, along with many others, can legally drink non-medicinal booze without a thought of the 'unintended consequences' of alcohol abuse.
Some Iowans seem to be buying that 'unintended consequences' argument, because the same Iowa Poll reports that only 30% of adults approve legalizing marijuana for recreational use, a number unchanged over the past two years. We are still years away, or more likely, one big fiscal deficit away, from joining the few other states that have done this.
Oh well. One thing we know about representative democracy it that it works, it's just a matter of time. So it will be with legalizing marijuana use in Iowa and in the U.S.
When is a representative democracy not a representative democracy? In Iowa, the answer is when it comes to legalizing medicinal marijuana.
This week, a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 70% of adult Iowans favor the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes. This is up from just 59% last year, and 58% the year before that.
It's over. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this issue has been decided, and Iowans are ready to follow the rest of the country into making this rational, albeit long overdue choice.
Unfortunately, Iowa's elected state legislators don't seem to be any closer to legalizing marijuana for medical uses. Basically, we've elected a bunch of old, white, close-minded, and mostly Republican males (including the governor) who will always believe pot is evil, regardless of its proven therapeutic uses or the desire of their constituents. They continue to use the intellectually dishonest argument that the 'unintended consequences' of legalization will lead to serious drug abuse in Iowa. Simultaneously, they attend numerous political receptions where they, along with many others, can legally drink non-medicinal booze without a thought of the 'unintended consequences' of alcohol abuse.
Some Iowans seem to be buying that 'unintended consequences' argument, because the same Iowa Poll reports that only 30% of adults approve legalizing marijuana for recreational use, a number unchanged over the past two years. We are still years away, or more likely, one big fiscal deficit away, from joining the few other states that have done this.
Oh well. One thing we know about representative democracy it that it works, it's just a matter of time. So it will be with legalizing marijuana use in Iowa and in the U.S.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Hard(ly) Work
I've posted entries in the past about people who don't work, and live of my taxes in the form of government payments. I'm not linking to them here; you can either assume it wasn't altogether flattering, or find the 'work' label on the blog and check it out for yourself.
In the past couple of years, I haven't changed my mind about that, but I'm more disgusted about another form of not working. By this, I mean people who talk a lot about how hard they work, but who don't really work that hard.
I started to notice this more after being self-employed for a while. Many people with whom I interact seem to believe the scheduling flexibility that comes with self-employment is also a ticket to working less than their mandated 40 hour work-week.
In truth, while the W-2 employee is working an 8 hour day, they generally aren't going farther than that over the course of a year. And as one who worked that life for many years, I also know that there is plenty of time for chit-chat, personal calls, and now more often, social media time. The 8 hour work day or 40 hour work week for most (not all) people is actually a lot less than that, and I'm not even counting the 3 weeks or more of annual paid time off.
Meanwhile, self-employed folks on the pathway to success are usually working at least several hours a week in the evening and/or the weekend. There may be time off every day, with no time off any day. I grew up on a livestock farm, and it's the same deal, except a that's a helluva lot more and harder work.
The only self-employed people I know who consistently work less than 40 hours a week are ones who are failing, or have already succeeded. There is no in-between -- you aren't going to be a success in self-employment unless you are working harder and smarter than the typical 40 hours a week.
The crux of all this is, when someone feels the need to mention how hard they've been working at their job, I don't really want to hear it. Chances are, they're embellishing to begin with. Chances are, they take more vacation than I do. Chance are, they aren't working at their occupation harder than I am at mine.
If they think they're working hard now, they should try running their own business.
In the past couple of years, I haven't changed my mind about that, but I'm more disgusted about another form of not working. By this, I mean people who talk a lot about how hard they work, but who don't really work that hard.
I started to notice this more after being self-employed for a while. Many people with whom I interact seem to believe the scheduling flexibility that comes with self-employment is also a ticket to working less than their mandated 40 hour work-week.
In truth, while the W-2 employee is working an 8 hour day, they generally aren't going farther than that over the course of a year. And as one who worked that life for many years, I also know that there is plenty of time for chit-chat, personal calls, and now more often, social media time. The 8 hour work day or 40 hour work week for most (not all) people is actually a lot less than that, and I'm not even counting the 3 weeks or more of annual paid time off.
Meanwhile, self-employed folks on the pathway to success are usually working at least several hours a week in the evening and/or the weekend. There may be time off every day, with no time off any day. I grew up on a livestock farm, and it's the same deal, except a that's a helluva lot more and harder work.
The only self-employed people I know who consistently work less than 40 hours a week are ones who are failing, or have already succeeded. There is no in-between -- you aren't going to be a success in self-employment unless you are working harder and smarter than the typical 40 hours a week.
The crux of all this is, when someone feels the need to mention how hard they've been working at their job, I don't really want to hear it. Chances are, they're embellishing to begin with. Chances are, they take more vacation than I do. Chance are, they aren't working at their occupation harder than I am at mine.
If they think they're working hard now, they should try running their own business.
Monday, February 16, 2015
The Circle Of Competence
Among the many profound investing philosophies of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger are some that extend beyond the area of finance. Today I select one it seems I've cited a lot lately, that being the idea of staying within one's own "Circle of Competence."
The basic premise is simple: When you don't really know what you're doing, it's much riskier than when you do know what you're doing. This is one of those premises that everybody knows, but most still violate from time to time, even very smart people.
This concept is straightforward in finance, where another quote Buffett often refers to (not his) works as an explanation: "When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with the money, and the man with money leaves with the experience."
Consider, however, the practical, non-financial life applications to the Circle or Competence. How often don't you hear from someone giving you unsolicited and unqualified advice on issues of relationships? What about on issues of fashion? Or how about my most recent favorite, those who have no medical or health training, but want you to accept their understandings and beliefs on all sorts of specific medical or health related issues?
Those offering opinions that are outside their Circle of Competence are doing even more than nothing to help you or themselves. They're actually going into negative territory, because you may be able to take advantage of their incompetence. Here again, this may be most readily apparent in the world of finance, but applies to other walks of life.
The most important part of all this is knowing one's own Circle of Competence. Munger was once quoted as saying, in a bit of a self-fulfilling prophetic way, "It isn't a competency if you don't know the edge of it."
The basic premise is simple: When you don't really know what you're doing, it's much riskier than when you do know what you're doing. This is one of those premises that everybody knows, but most still violate from time to time, even very smart people.
This concept is straightforward in finance, where another quote Buffett often refers to (not his) works as an explanation: "When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with the money, and the man with money leaves with the experience."
Consider, however, the practical, non-financial life applications to the Circle or Competence. How often don't you hear from someone giving you unsolicited and unqualified advice on issues of relationships? What about on issues of fashion? Or how about my most recent favorite, those who have no medical or health training, but want you to accept their understandings and beliefs on all sorts of specific medical or health related issues?
Those offering opinions that are outside their Circle of Competence are doing even more than nothing to help you or themselves. They're actually going into negative territory, because you may be able to take advantage of their incompetence. Here again, this may be most readily apparent in the world of finance, but applies to other walks of life.
The most important part of all this is knowing one's own Circle of Competence. Munger was once quoted as saying, in a bit of a self-fulfilling prophetic way, "It isn't a competency if you don't know the edge of it."
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Insurance = Bad Investment, Redux
I've covered this before: Generally speaking, insurance is a bad investment.
Last week, I got into a prolonged, disagreeable phone conversation about a mutual client with what I consider to be the lowest form of 'financial advisor' on the planet: A career life insurance agent. Here's my open letter to him:
Last week, I got into a prolonged, disagreeable phone conversation about a mutual client with what I consider to be the lowest form of 'financial advisor' on the planet: A career life insurance agent. Here's my open letter to him:
What gives you the right to call yourself a financial advisor? You have one strategy -- convince everyone that their financial situation can be helped with some type of life insurance product, including (and especially) variable and indexed annuities. Isn't it interesting that these these products generate big commission payments to you? Never mind that your client pays well over 2% and probably closer to 3% of their 'invested' money every year in expenses to help pay those commissions, a fact you don't audibly disclose. Never mind that you have little or no expertise in retirement, investment, or tax planning. Never mind that you don't live by a fiduciary standard, you live by making your insurance company quotas. You either don't know, or don't care, that not everybody needs life insurance. In fact, you want people to believe that it's perfectly normal to buy enough life insurance to cover all the income they might make in the future -- a 'future value' approach that makes absolutely no sense, and profits nobody except you and your company. You are a self-serving loser, and you suck.
This letter doesn't apply to every career insurance agent, just most of them. As a certified financial planner, I do everything in my power not to be closely associated with them. Actually, that's a financial strategy that would help everyone!
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Un-Super Bowl
This weekend includes Super Bowl Sunday.
Like most Super Bowl Sundays, I'll put on my Minnesota Vikings team gear, and eat and drink and watch the game and commercials.
I'll probably root for the team I dislike the least, usually the NFC team.
And for the 38th consecutive year, I will do it all without passion, because it's been that long since the Vikings have been in the Super Bowl.
The Vikes were in 4 of the first 11 contests, losing all of them, and haven't been back. Their consistent winning tradition in the 1970s made it fun to be a fan growing up, it's just that they never got the brass ring.
Sadder still is that they've come within a game of getting back to the Super Bowl several times in those following 38 years (5 to be exact), only to lose that penultimate game, twice in torturous overtime fashion.
Fortunately, I can at least say I've seen other favorite professional sports franchises win titles over the years, including baseball's Minnesota Twins, hockey's Chicago Black Hawks (recently) and basketball's San Antonio Spurs (very recently).
But not football.
So this weekend, another Super Bowl champion will be crowned, and I won't care.
Maybe next year?
Like most Super Bowl Sundays, I'll put on my Minnesota Vikings team gear, and eat and drink and watch the game and commercials.
I'll probably root for the team I dislike the least, usually the NFC team.
And for the 38th consecutive year, I will do it all without passion, because it's been that long since the Vikings have been in the Super Bowl.
The Vikes were in 4 of the first 11 contests, losing all of them, and haven't been back. Their consistent winning tradition in the 1970s made it fun to be a fan growing up, it's just that they never got the brass ring.
Sadder still is that they've come within a game of getting back to the Super Bowl several times in those following 38 years (5 to be exact), only to lose that penultimate game, twice in torturous overtime fashion.
Fortunately, I can at least say I've seen other favorite professional sports franchises win titles over the years, including baseball's Minnesota Twins, hockey's Chicago Black Hawks (recently) and basketball's San Antonio Spurs (very recently).
But not football.
So this weekend, another Super Bowl champion will be crowned, and I won't care.
Maybe next year?
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Which Doctor / Witch Doctor, Part II
My last entry covered my frustration with traditional physicians and their lack of treatment on my sore shoulder. At the end, I declared my intention of turning to alternative medicine next, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I don't see going 'all-in' on the alternative medicine stuff. That isn't because I question the therapeutic benefits -- I accept that there are scientifically understandable aspects to things like chiropractic care, acupuncture, even natural foods/oils,
The problem is, so many of the practitioners of alternative medicine, ARE all-in. When I see and hear them rejecting any benefits of modern medicine, they and their beliefs lose credibility.
I think the best example of this is treatment for the flu. So many people are affected by it each winter (with this winter being one of the worst), you'd think everyone would get on board with the idea of a getting a flu shot. The science is clear -- introduce the dead virus to the body, essentially training it to attack the virus strain.
However, the alternative medicine folks want you to believe the flu can effectively be avoided, or its impact lessened, by going to the chiropractor or inhaling/ingesting/applying some natural element. They feel the body is already able to counteract any viral or bacterial attack as long as it's in optimum working order. And why introduce something unnatural into the body.
That's mostly crazy-talk. Our bodies are exposed to so many non-natural (chemical) elements these days, it doesn't follow that the body should be expected to manage it on its own, without some non-natural (chemical) elements like over-the-counter or prescription drugs. [Aside: Maybe here we can at least agree that natural but currently illegal elements like cannabis / marijuana would be helpful?]
Here's another way I've framed it for my hard-core alternative medicine friends; Why is it that I'm willing to compromise and accept alternative medicine as part of a holistic health program, but they are so adamantly opposed to any type of modern medicines? Is it because it makes sense, or is it because others who've convinced them to believe in it so much will also profit from that belief (e.g. chiropractors, natural element sellers, etc.)
And finally -- how come I never hear the alternative medicine folks talking about the role of exercise in health? You'd think this would be right down their alley, I mean, what could be a better way to naturally keep the body in top form? I think the answer is the same as it is for everyone else -- it's easier to inhaling/ingest/apply something to the body than it is to spend 30 minutes sweating. Ergo, alternative medicine.
In conclusion, both modern and alternative medicine practitioners (and exercise!) play a role in good health. Also, both modern and alternative medicine practitioners are trying to gain financially from what they say/do, so it's probably a good idea not to believe everything they say/do.
Unfortunately, I don't see going 'all-in' on the alternative medicine stuff. That isn't because I question the therapeutic benefits -- I accept that there are scientifically understandable aspects to things like chiropractic care, acupuncture, even natural foods/oils,
The problem is, so many of the practitioners of alternative medicine, ARE all-in. When I see and hear them rejecting any benefits of modern medicine, they and their beliefs lose credibility.
I think the best example of this is treatment for the flu. So many people are affected by it each winter (with this winter being one of the worst), you'd think everyone would get on board with the idea of a getting a flu shot. The science is clear -- introduce the dead virus to the body, essentially training it to attack the virus strain.
However, the alternative medicine folks want you to believe the flu can effectively be avoided, or its impact lessened, by going to the chiropractor or inhaling/ingesting/applying some natural element. They feel the body is already able to counteract any viral or bacterial attack as long as it's in optimum working order. And why introduce something unnatural into the body.
That's mostly crazy-talk. Our bodies are exposed to so many non-natural (chemical) elements these days, it doesn't follow that the body should be expected to manage it on its own, without some non-natural (chemical) elements like over-the-counter or prescription drugs. [Aside: Maybe here we can at least agree that natural but currently illegal elements like cannabis / marijuana would be helpful?]
Here's another way I've framed it for my hard-core alternative medicine friends; Why is it that I'm willing to compromise and accept alternative medicine as part of a holistic health program, but they are so adamantly opposed to any type of modern medicines? Is it because it makes sense, or is it because others who've convinced them to believe in it so much will also profit from that belief (e.g. chiropractors, natural element sellers, etc.)
And finally -- how come I never hear the alternative medicine folks talking about the role of exercise in health? You'd think this would be right down their alley, I mean, what could be a better way to naturally keep the body in top form? I think the answer is the same as it is for everyone else -- it's easier to inhaling/ingest/apply something to the body than it is to spend 30 minutes sweating. Ergo, alternative medicine.
In conclusion, both modern and alternative medicine practitioners (and exercise!) play a role in good health. Also, both modern and alternative medicine practitioners are trying to gain financially from what they say/do, so it's probably a good idea not to believe everything they say/do.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Which Doctor / Witch Doctor
This is a story of how traditional doctors failed me. It's also a story about why people turn to those who practice alternative medicine, to a fault.
Last November, I made an office visit to my family physician for chronic 'minor' shoulder pain I'd had for a few months. After an exam and x-ray, I was essentially diagnosed with tendinitis/bursitis and given stretching exercises to do.
Over the course of the next few weeks the pain was reduced by approximately 50%, but I made another office visit in late December, because I didn't want to wait again as long for the rest of the shoulder discomfort to go away. I asked about getting a cortisone shot (more on this later), and my doctor said that seemed reasonable, and scheduled an appointment for me with an orthopedist.
It all seems very reasonable so for, right? Well, here’s where it starts to fall apart.
First, the orthopedist’s office called to take my new patient information over the phone, which I did in a five minute interview. Great idea, right? Then I won’t have to spend a bunch of time filling out those pesky forms at the office.
Unfortunately, when I got to the office, I was given a bunch of paperwork to complete. When I told the reception staff that I’d already taken some time to provide that data over the phone, I was told that my particular doctor “prefers to have you fill out those forms.” Thank you for wasting my time, medical office! Maybe you should inform the person who called me? Just an idea.
Next, the orthopedist’s nurse tells me they need another x-ray. I asked to see the orthopedist to understand why, because that had already been done weeks ago, and was informed they “needed it from a different angle.” Factor in by this time, it’s already been ½ hour since I entered this office (plus a five minute pre-visit phone interview), so I’m officially getting annoyed that no progress has been made, nor will any be made until I get another x-ray.
After the x-ray (again negative – surprise!) and exam, I get a diagnosis of ‘frozen shoulder’ and the orthopedist simply tells me to do more and different stretching exercises. What about a cortisone shot? I was told it might temporarily help, but that would be something to discuss if my shoulder wasn't better in about 30 days, when of course, I should come back.
So let me recap: I've already invested the time and money for three doctor’s office visits and assorted paperwork over the course of about 8 weeks, and for that I've got nothing but a few exercises and a still-problem shoulder that may or may not get better inch-by-inch, plus I can look forward to coming back for another office visit to get more of nothing in another month!
What did I expect? At the least, I expected some temporary relief via a cortisone shot. If you think that’s a dumb idea because it only treats the symptoms, I'd say you were correct, and I’d also say screw you, because you haven’t been bothered by (and lost sleep from) a bum shoulder for almost six months. Throw me a bone, for god's sake. At least give me something for my money.
In the end, I’m pretty much where I was months ago, spending more time with a chronic dull pain in my shoulder, with no immediate relief in sight. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid happening, by going to see a doctor.
At this point, I see no reason to go back to see a traditional doctor if my shoulder is still hurting; I've already done that three times, with almost nothing to show for it. (Note: That won’t keep them from billing my insurance for several hundred dollars, or more, for their ‘work.’)
Can you imagine paying for any other service, on multiple occasions, and getting no satisfaction, but still be expected by the servicing entity to come back to them? If I had a car problem, and went to two different mechanics on three different instances to get it fixed, and it still wasn't repaired, is it reasonable to keep going back to them? That's a 'definition of insanity' alert.
If I feel I still need medical treatment, what medical provider do I want to see now? It isn't a matter of which doctor, it's more a matter of a witch doctor, perhaps -- a practitioner of alternative medicine. Maybe an acupuncturist, massage therapist, or even chiropractor. Why not? At least somebody would be actively trying something.....
Of course, there’s a downside to alternative care, too. For more on that, check back another time for Part II of Which Doctor / Witch Doctor!
Last November, I made an office visit to my family physician for chronic 'minor' shoulder pain I'd had for a few months. After an exam and x-ray, I was essentially diagnosed with tendinitis/bursitis and given stretching exercises to do.
Over the course of the next few weeks the pain was reduced by approximately 50%, but I made another office visit in late December, because I didn't want to wait again as long for the rest of the shoulder discomfort to go away. I asked about getting a cortisone shot (more on this later), and my doctor said that seemed reasonable, and scheduled an appointment for me with an orthopedist.
It all seems very reasonable so for, right? Well, here’s where it starts to fall apart.
First, the orthopedist’s office called to take my new patient information over the phone, which I did in a five minute interview. Great idea, right? Then I won’t have to spend a bunch of time filling out those pesky forms at the office.
Unfortunately, when I got to the office, I was given a bunch of paperwork to complete. When I told the reception staff that I’d already taken some time to provide that data over the phone, I was told that my particular doctor “prefers to have you fill out those forms.” Thank you for wasting my time, medical office! Maybe you should inform the person who called me? Just an idea.
Next, the orthopedist’s nurse tells me they need another x-ray. I asked to see the orthopedist to understand why, because that had already been done weeks ago, and was informed they “needed it from a different angle.” Factor in by this time, it’s already been ½ hour since I entered this office (plus a five minute pre-visit phone interview), so I’m officially getting annoyed that no progress has been made, nor will any be made until I get another x-ray.
After the x-ray (again negative – surprise!) and exam, I get a diagnosis of ‘frozen shoulder’ and the orthopedist simply tells me to do more and different stretching exercises. What about a cortisone shot? I was told it might temporarily help, but that would be something to discuss if my shoulder wasn't better in about 30 days, when of course, I should come back.
So let me recap: I've already invested the time and money for three doctor’s office visits and assorted paperwork over the course of about 8 weeks, and for that I've got nothing but a few exercises and a still-problem shoulder that may or may not get better inch-by-inch, plus I can look forward to coming back for another office visit to get more of nothing in another month!
What did I expect? At the least, I expected some temporary relief via a cortisone shot. If you think that’s a dumb idea because it only treats the symptoms, I'd say you were correct, and I’d also say screw you, because you haven’t been bothered by (and lost sleep from) a bum shoulder for almost six months. Throw me a bone, for god's sake. At least give me something for my money.
In the end, I’m pretty much where I was months ago, spending more time with a chronic dull pain in my shoulder, with no immediate relief in sight. This is exactly what I was trying to avoid happening, by going to see a doctor.
At this point, I see no reason to go back to see a traditional doctor if my shoulder is still hurting; I've already done that three times, with almost nothing to show for it. (Note: That won’t keep them from billing my insurance for several hundred dollars, or more, for their ‘work.’)
Can you imagine paying for any other service, on multiple occasions, and getting no satisfaction, but still be expected by the servicing entity to come back to them? If I had a car problem, and went to two different mechanics on three different instances to get it fixed, and it still wasn't repaired, is it reasonable to keep going back to them? That's a 'definition of insanity' alert.
If I feel I still need medical treatment, what medical provider do I want to see now? It isn't a matter of which doctor, it's more a matter of a witch doctor, perhaps -- a practitioner of alternative medicine. Maybe an acupuncturist, massage therapist, or even chiropractor. Why not? At least somebody would be actively trying something.....
Of course, there’s a downside to alternative care, too. For more on that, check back another time for Part II of Which Doctor / Witch Doctor!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)