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.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)