I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing ten years ago on 9/11/2001.
I was sitting in a Boston hotel room waiting to leave for the second day of a conference I was attending. I was watching the Today show on NBC (live on the east coast) when I saw the report of a plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. Obviously something bad had happened, but it sounded at the time like it might be a small single engine plane, and who knew maybe the pilot had a heart attack or something.
After a while I turned over to watch CNBC. They were also showing the smoke coming from the first tower when you saw the explosion in the second tower, and shortly after that, the replay that made it clear it was intentional, an attack was happening. I forgot about the conference, and stayed in the room to watch. The frantic reports were rolling in about the Pentagon, then other planes perhaps going down. I even recall a report about a fire on the National Mall that turned out not to be true.
The rest of the day was just weird, mostly spent trying to figure out what happened, and how I was going to get back to Iowa. Since I was stranded in a highrise hotel in a major city from which most employees had been sent home, I doubted if I'd even be able to find something to eat. In the end, the hotel had food, and let me stay for as long as I needed. The conference had been abandoned, but it still took me two days, until Thursday morning, to find a one-way rental car and make the 20+ hour drive home.
One of the things I remember most about that day was the local news coverage that evening. One of the hijacked planes used in the attacks had taken off from Boston's Logan Airport, where I'd been just a couple of days before. A lot of local New England people had been on that plane, so it was very sad there, a much smaller version of New York City. It certainly made what happened seem more personal, and less like an international story.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Tolerating Intolerance
In the past week, I've had a front row seat to witness what I consider to be two separate acts of religious intolerance. It isn't the religious intolerance one might think of though. Someone isn't putting down a religion - a religion is putting someone down.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Incident 1 - a pastor at a conservative church is requiring all employees to sign a document to agree to abide by a certain Christian lifestyles. In other words, he is telling some existing (and all potential) employees they are no longer good enough to work there simply based on how they live their life away from work. This type of discrimination may be quite legal for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention unenforcable.
Incident 2 - a Catholic diocesan pastor vetoed a distinguished alumni award that a school was going to give to a well-regarded community volunteer. The reason - for a short time some years ago, she was on the board of Planned Parenthood. In other words, he is telling her (and everyone else) that all good deeds are usurped by helping an organization he and the church oppose. Again, this type of discrimination may be quite acceptable for a religious organization, but it's also quite intolerant, not to mention stupid.
What do these incidents have in common? That religious 'leaders' preach tolerance, but act differently. They actually only tolerate those who agree with them. In both cases, this is not the first time the pastor in question has said or done controversial things that are far more politically based than faith-based. They are, in a word, hypocrites.
It sounds ironic, but I actually think the world would be a better place if people followed certain so-called Christian principles - if those principles are broadly defined. Things like loving your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as they have done to you, and showing compassion to those less fortunate. What these pastors are doing, however, doesn't jibe with any of those. They demand that people rigidly adhere to their specific, often politically-motivated agendas. (By the way, Christianity doesn't own those broadly based principles.)
Basically, their religion screws up their faith. It makes them tolerate intolerance. It makes atheists look good.
Friday, August 26, 2011
The Empty Nest
Our last child went off to college this past week. We've taken kids to college enough that most of it was decidedly routine - pack to leave, drive there, unpack, offer my standard reminder about how there are a lot of people in the world that aren't so nice, tell them to keep their name out of the newspaper, and say good-bye.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
What was decidedly unroutine about it, however, was arriving back at home to accept the new reality of an empty nest. The house that was once just big enough is now bigger and quieter than it was meant to be. It's hard to comprehend how it got to be like that.
To help cope with the unofficial end to two decades of child-raising, I keep reminding myself about what a success it has been. My kids are the best. There is absolutely no doubt that they are going to make major positive contributions to society. As far as parenting goes, something must have been done right.
One emotion that I didn't expect to have is that of feeling abandoned. The past 23 years have been spent raising children into adults who are going to improve civilization. This has been done with a fair amount of personal and financial sacrifice - I mean, time and money could have been spent on other things. So now, civilization, where is my parade? In the words of Carl Spackler of Caddyshack, "How about a little something, you know, for the effort!?"
One other thing I'm getting used to is the time. It suddenly seems like there's a lot more time to do things. I suppose this is because there just isn't as much to occupy my mind without kids around. This is something I didn't really expect, but frankly, it's also something it won't take me long to get used to.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Waking Up In Vegas
I recently returned from 3-day, 4-night stay in big, bad Las Vegas, Nevada. It's only the fourth time I've been there, and the first time for a legit 100% leisure stay.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
I'm always interested to see for myself how Vegas changes over time, and I've got a few observations:
1) Conventional wisdom is that over the past 20 years, Vegas went from Sin City, to a more family-friendly atmosphere, and back to Sin City again. I'm not sure it ever stopped being an adult playground, but I can confirm that there are still plenty of kids there. In fact, I saw kids with their parents all over the strip. While there may be some benign things for kids to see, like the Bellagio fountains, it's disturbingly dumb for parents to drag small kids around that town, because there are also things kids shouldn't see. My conclusion is, many of the strip hotels are marketing themselves as resort destinations for the whole family, especially in the summer. They have great pools, restaurants, shops, like an all-inclusive resort would have, but the thing is, nobody just stays on the same hotel property when they're in Vegas.
2) The days of cheap lodging and meals on the strip are gone. Same for casino action - it's hard to find a table game with under a $15 minimum bet at night, maybe $10 during the day. This is another reason why it's dumb to bring kids there. If you want deals at Vegas now, you have to go downtown, where table games are cheap, music is live, and you can still get a great buffett for between $5-$10. In a related story, I saw no kids downtown at Fremont Street. There's nothing for them to do there, except watch the Fremont Street Experience light show once an hour at night.
3) Vegas and its strip hotels have come a long way in providing ground transportation by tram or monorail at various points up and down the strip. Still, this is a 5+ mile long piece of real estate, and there is a helluva lot of walking to be done if you want to get around without a car, or don't want to pay for a taxi. If you aren't in shape, the heat and the physical activity will bite you.
4) It didn't look like a town that's supposedly in a major recession. Maybe everything is just tremendously leveraged, but from what I saw the Vegas tourism and hospitality indistries were doing pretty well. I saw plenty of people spending money anyway, on both commerce and gambling.
Bottom line, Las Vegas is still Disneyworld for adults. Cool architecture, lights, music, food, even rides. A lifetime multi-visit venue.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Headline News
For the twelve-month period ending June 30, 2011, while the global economic news was mostly cloudy, equity investors enjoyed the equivalent of blue skies. Most developed and emerging-country stock markets had positive double-digit returns, some in excess of 30%.
If someone knew a year ago that global markets would stage such a broad-based rally, one would have assumed that trends in employment, housing, and financial distress were about to take a pronounced turn for the better. In fact, they have done nothing of the sort.
Somehow, despite gloomy financial page news that kept repeating itself, equity prices marched substantially higher.
Now, as equity prices have turned lower in the past month, and have become especially volitile in the past several days, the financial pages are again full of dire forecasts. Really, if you compare the headlines, it's just like last year.
No one knows if the stock market will react differently this year to similar news. Based on last year, however, we know one thing for certain – markets do not base their movements on proclamations from the financial media!
Remember the bottom line: Due to unforeseen events, no one can accurately predict the direction of markets. Rather than react to stormy news, you should act on what's already known, and consistently keep your financial plan and asset allocation both cost-effective and aligned with your risk tolerance.
If someone knew a year ago that global markets would stage such a broad-based rally, one would have assumed that trends in employment, housing, and financial distress were about to take a pronounced turn for the better. In fact, they have done nothing of the sort.
Somehow, despite gloomy financial page news that kept repeating itself, equity prices marched substantially higher.
Now, as equity prices have turned lower in the past month, and have become especially volitile in the past several days, the financial pages are again full of dire forecasts. Really, if you compare the headlines, it's just like last year.
No one knows if the stock market will react differently this year to similar news. Based on last year, however, we know one thing for certain – markets do not base their movements on proclamations from the financial media!
Remember the bottom line: Due to unforeseen events, no one can accurately predict the direction of markets. Rather than react to stormy news, you should act on what's already known, and consistently keep your financial plan and asset allocation both cost-effective and aligned with your risk tolerance.
Friday, August 12, 2011
It's Easy To Be Number 3
For as long as I've lived in Des Moines, the ABC-TV affiliate, WOI, has been a distant 3rd in local TV ratings. Basically, no one watches their news at 5, 6, or 10pm. This is despite the fact that over the past 10 years they may have had the best weather director and sports director of all three broacast affiliates.
One thing they've consistently had during this time, however, is dumb management. They changed general managers earlier this year, but it apparently only made them dumber.
This link will tell you why, by way of another very funny Colbert Report clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394521/august-11-2011/colbert-super-pac---confused-by-rick-parry-with-an--a--for-america
One thing they've consistently had during this time, however, is dumb management. They changed general managers earlier this year, but it apparently only made them dumber.
This link will tell you why, by way of another very funny Colbert Report clip:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/394521/august-11-2011/colbert-super-pac---confused-by-rick-parry-with-an--a--for-america
Friday, August 5, 2011
Truth And Prevention
I haven't mentioned WOITH member and Iowa congressman (and possibly Martian) Steve King in a while, although I could do so virtually any day.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
He and his Fox News friends are at it again, this time over the new Obama administration's stance that insurers cover contrceptives as preventative care. A controversial position, but not exactly for the flat-earth reasoning of King. Check out the clip from this week's The Colbert Report:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393824/august-03-2011/women-s-health-nazi-plan
I especially enjoyed Colbert's remark that a woman's health is a private matter between..... her priest and her husband! Satire is funnier when it's not so far from the truth.
While I'm at it, let me take this time to officially elevate his Tea Party mistress, Minnesota congressperson Michele Bachmann, to WOITH status. Her stance to not raise the U.S. debt ceiling is effectively saying it's better to have an international economic crisis than it is for the U.S. to pay the bills it has already incurred.
It's going to be fun having her around Iowa to campaign for president, telling everyone she would do the opposite of what Obama does without ever actually saying what she would do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)