Before the election of President Barrack Obama, as well as the senators and representatives who rode his coattails to victory, many of my conservative friends were concerned that the Democrats would ram through their policy priorities without an effective check on the process. They had every reason to be worried. Their own party had been doing the same for at least 6 of the past 8 years when they had majorities in Congress and the Senate.
The election of Scott Brown to the seat of the late Senator Edward Kennedy will help to undermine this supermajority that the Democrats have enjoyed for the past year. Despite this legislative advantage, Democrats have been anything but the legislative juggernaut many Republicans have feared. This is in large part due to a reality that the congressmen themselves realize that pundits can't seem to understand: Americans don't like unchecked power. They don't like legislators deciding on policy without the partial consent of their political opponents.
Electorates are a fickle bunch. They are prone to emotional swings and voting against their own interests. Because of this, our founders created a republic, based on the protection of minority interests. For some reason, 120 years of legislators from both sides of the political fence have been eroding those protections and have constructed a democracy instead. While this sounds good in principle, this is a disaster from a legal protection standpoint. After all, what protection does a minority group (racial, religious, gender or socioeconomic) have from "majority rules." The answer is none. We are supposed to have a federal court to protect the people from the whims of the people through their representatives. Unfortunately, the courts have largely been willing to cede this responsibility to make legislating easier. This is detrimental to all of our freedoms and the more Congress switches party control, the more we realize this.
Rather than creating a demand to regain our lost principles and decimated Constitution, it has instead created poltical warfare and the concept of an "eye for an eye," politically speaking.
Will this election in Massachussetts change anything? Probably not. Unfortunately, it is likely only to create retribution once control of the legislature changes, which history shows will most certainly happen again. If the Democrats aren't careful, it may happen sooner than even they could believe.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Saturday, November 28, 2009
"Too Big to Fail" by Alan Ross Sorkin
Too Big to Fail: The Inside Story of How Wall Street and Washington Fought to Save the Financial System from Crisis---and Lost by Andrew Ross SorkinMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This book is a must read to understand how the financial crisis was handled by the companies involved in the meltdown, as well as the administration officials who were attempting to stave off a complete meltdown. This book reads like a novel and is the kind of book you just can't put down. It helps to humanize the "masters of the universe" as they struggled to save their companies, and in many cases, their own significant investments in their companies.
While there are some inaccuracies in how the author interpreted how investments were perceiving the crisis (esp in the excerpt from Vanity Fair), they seem to have been corrected in the Kindle version and do not take away from the narrative which is told.
View all my reviews >>
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Global Climate Change
Earlier this week, it has been reported that a climate research facility in England was illegally hacked and hundreds of internal e-mails suggesting manipulation of climate data were discovered. Climate change skeptics have highlighted this manipulation extrapolating that this puts into doubt all climate research data.
It is an interesting story and goes towards the hubris of any organization, but what does this story tell us about the state of climate change in the world today.
First, there is no doubt that the climate has been changing; not just regionally, but globally as well. Unfortunately, when a debate becomes as heated as this, disinformation proliferates to the point that supporters of either side of the debate make crazy claims and take extreme positions.
I'd like to look at this from a slightly different perspective; one which I believe goes to the heart of how we address these concerns. Let me start off by saying I am not a scientist, but a mere salesman of financial services products. I have no specific knowledge of how the climate changes, how climate research is done and I won't address the validity, or lack thereof, in any of the arguments. Quite simply, I don't know and I am not willing to quote statistics to prove "my side" or not.
First, the climate of the earth, as well as certain regional ecosystems has been changing. This has occurred since the earth was created and will continue long after we have left. Sometimes it changes quickly (relatively speaking) and sometimes it changes slowly. Most climate change occurs due to factors beyond our control, as it always has. The debate is not and should not have anything to do with natural climate change. What the debate should be about (and is in scientific circles, but not so much in the non-scientific community) is about how do we reduce non-natural climate change, if we can, or at least address the implications of such change.
Second, what are the worst case scenarios if our positions are wrong? If we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to halt non-natural climate change, what impact will this have on societies, economies and governments? If we don't spend the money, same question? What impact would climate change have on societies, economies and governments?
This is the bottom line for me. The cost to arrest non-natural climate change, if it can be done or if it even necessary, would literally cost the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more. Will this expense be able to make a difference and if we commit to spending this money, can those efforts even have an impact? In America, we have been told that we will have to make changes to our lifestyles. Have we been told realistically what these changes will entail? We have been given carbon emission targets, but what does this translate into lifestyles? If America were told that they needed to reduce consumption (housing, electricity use (heat during the winter, air conditioning during the summer), travel, etc) would they buy into it? Shouldn't the people be told what kind of sacrifices they must make in order to curb non-natural climate change, if it can even be done?
But the problem is, people don't know. They figure someone else will bear the burden or that technology will bail us out. The reality is that people will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles be reducing or eliminating air travel, or moving into smaller homes, consuming fewer goods, eating less energy intensive foods, setting their thermostats higher in the summer and lower in the winter, driving less. Even if all of these tasks could be undertaken, it will likely have devastating impacts on the economy as we now know it. Money which would have been spent on entitlement programs and local services must instead be directed towards reducing carbon emissions, jobs programs, etc. Is this is sacrifice most Americans or Europeans or Asians are willing to make? Or are these people more likely to spend money combating the effects of the change as they happen, such as resettling populations impacted by rising waters. That is the debate we should have in this country.
It is an interesting story and goes towards the hubris of any organization, but what does this story tell us about the state of climate change in the world today.
First, there is no doubt that the climate has been changing; not just regionally, but globally as well. Unfortunately, when a debate becomes as heated as this, disinformation proliferates to the point that supporters of either side of the debate make crazy claims and take extreme positions.
I'd like to look at this from a slightly different perspective; one which I believe goes to the heart of how we address these concerns. Let me start off by saying I am not a scientist, but a mere salesman of financial services products. I have no specific knowledge of how the climate changes, how climate research is done and I won't address the validity, or lack thereof, in any of the arguments. Quite simply, I don't know and I am not willing to quote statistics to prove "my side" or not.
First, the climate of the earth, as well as certain regional ecosystems has been changing. This has occurred since the earth was created and will continue long after we have left. Sometimes it changes quickly (relatively speaking) and sometimes it changes slowly. Most climate change occurs due to factors beyond our control, as it always has. The debate is not and should not have anything to do with natural climate change. What the debate should be about (and is in scientific circles, but not so much in the non-scientific community) is about how do we reduce non-natural climate change, if we can, or at least address the implications of such change.
Second, what are the worst case scenarios if our positions are wrong? If we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to halt non-natural climate change, what impact will this have on societies, economies and governments? If we don't spend the money, same question? What impact would climate change have on societies, economies and governments?
This is the bottom line for me. The cost to arrest non-natural climate change, if it can be done or if it even necessary, would literally cost the world economy hundreds of billions of dollars, if not more. Will this expense be able to make a difference and if we commit to spending this money, can those efforts even have an impact? In America, we have been told that we will have to make changes to our lifestyles. Have we been told realistically what these changes will entail? We have been given carbon emission targets, but what does this translate into lifestyles? If America were told that they needed to reduce consumption (housing, electricity use (heat during the winter, air conditioning during the summer), travel, etc) would they buy into it? Shouldn't the people be told what kind of sacrifices they must make in order to curb non-natural climate change, if it can even be done?
But the problem is, people don't know. They figure someone else will bear the burden or that technology will bail us out. The reality is that people will need to make significant changes to their lifestyles be reducing or eliminating air travel, or moving into smaller homes, consuming fewer goods, eating less energy intensive foods, setting their thermostats higher in the summer and lower in the winter, driving less. Even if all of these tasks could be undertaken, it will likely have devastating impacts on the economy as we now know it. Money which would have been spent on entitlement programs and local services must instead be directed towards reducing carbon emissions, jobs programs, etc. Is this is sacrifice most Americans or Europeans or Asians are willing to make? Or are these people more likely to spend money combating the effects of the change as they happen, such as resettling populations impacted by rising waters. That is the debate we should have in this country.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
This is my first post since...
The last time I mentioned I would be writing more frequently (one year ago). Parker is now nearly 3 1/2 years old. He is talking like crazy and is starting to develop a fairly good memory.
It has been stormy in Portland this week. We lost power 2 days ago due to high winds (upwards of 50 miles per hour). We are also receiving a good amount of rain.
It is kind of a letdown, as Kari and I returned from Las Vegas last week. We went for Kari's sister Kim's 40th birthday party and visted the location of our wedding: Bellagio. We layed pretty low and went out on the last night to Mystere (the Cirque de Soleil show). During our stay, temperatures stayed in the upper 70's, lower 80's during the day.
While in Las Vegas, I finished two books. The first was "Horse Soldiers," which discussed the incursion of US special forces soldiers into Afghanistan in 2001 on horseback. It was a harrowing tale and just happens to have been soldiers from my cousin, Henry's base in Tennessee. The second book was, "The Devil We Know," by Robert Baer. This book was a review of the United States' conflict with Iran, what their intentions are and possible solutions to this conflict. Absent was any ideological bent and was a fairly pragmatic view of the Iranian opponent. Hopefully, people in power will read this and will help to put the tension with Iran in proper perspective.
Well, that's all for now. Perhaps I will write again in less than one year.
It has been stormy in Portland this week. We lost power 2 days ago due to high winds (upwards of 50 miles per hour). We are also receiving a good amount of rain.
It is kind of a letdown, as Kari and I returned from Las Vegas last week. We went for Kari's sister Kim's 40th birthday party and visted the location of our wedding: Bellagio. We layed pretty low and went out on the last night to Mystere (the Cirque de Soleil show). During our stay, temperatures stayed in the upper 70's, lower 80's during the day.
While in Las Vegas, I finished two books. The first was "Horse Soldiers," which discussed the incursion of US special forces soldiers into Afghanistan in 2001 on horseback. It was a harrowing tale and just happens to have been soldiers from my cousin, Henry's base in Tennessee. The second book was, "The Devil We Know," by Robert Baer. This book was a review of the United States' conflict with Iran, what their intentions are and possible solutions to this conflict. Absent was any ideological bent and was a fairly pragmatic view of the Iranian opponent. Hopefully, people in power will read this and will help to put the tension with Iran in proper perspective.
Well, that's all for now. Perhaps I will write again in less than one year.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
I Couldn't Wait Another Year....
Well, it has been nearly exactlhy one year since I last posted on these pages. Hopefully, enough people have been discouraged from reading my drivel that I will be writing exclusively for myself.
Over the next couple of posts, I will address the current world, at least as I see things. In the meantime, I hope this post finds you well.
Over the next couple of posts, I will address the current world, at least as I see things. In the meantime, I hope this post finds you well.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
How is the Military Like Goldman Sachs?
On November 15th, Michael de la Merced of the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/business/15goldman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), profiled investment house, Goldman Sachs and their success in creating today's most influential leaders. Everyone from Henry Paulson (current Treasury Secretary), Bob Rubin (former Treasury Secretary and current Chairman of Citigroup), Jon Corzine (former senator from New Jersey and now its governor) and Josh Bolton (White House Chief of Staff) all plied their trade at Goldman.
The crux of the article was that this ocurred because of the culture at Goldman. Everything from its roots as a partnership to its 360 degree executive reviews have to its management's choice of acquisitions have gone into building the "Goldman Model."
In yesterday's Washington Post, Anne Scott Tyson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602258.html?nav=most_emailed_emailafriend) has noted a transformation ocurring within the United States Army; one which sounds surprisingly like the "Goldman Model." General David Patreus, commander of forces in Iraq, has been briefly called back stateside to assist in the promotion boards of Colonels to the rank of Brigadier General. Historically, this promotion has ocurred because the Colonel in question has caught the eye of his superior, who would nominate him for this promotion. Often, these colonels were politically experienced with significant Washington credentials on their resumes (read that as meaning staff positions instead of combat postings).
General Patreus, who re-wrote the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual for the army, is beginning to rewrite the promotion manual. It would appear that they have begun the 360 degree review process (or reviews not only by your superiors, but also by your subordinates and colleagues), they are valuing combat experience more and even paying extravagent (by Army, not Goldman, standards) retention bonuses to keep experienced officers in the service.
Will the US Army be as successful as Goldman Sachs? One can only hope.
The crux of the article was that this ocurred because of the culture at Goldman. Everything from its roots as a partnership to its 360 degree executive reviews have to its management's choice of acquisitions have gone into building the "Goldman Model."
In yesterday's Washington Post, Anne Scott Tyson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/16/AR2007111602258.html?nav=most_emailed_emailafriend) has noted a transformation ocurring within the United States Army; one which sounds surprisingly like the "Goldman Model." General David Patreus, commander of forces in Iraq, has been briefly called back stateside to assist in the promotion boards of Colonels to the rank of Brigadier General. Historically, this promotion has ocurred because the Colonel in question has caught the eye of his superior, who would nominate him for this promotion. Often, these colonels were politically experienced with significant Washington credentials on their resumes (read that as meaning staff positions instead of combat postings).
General Patreus, who re-wrote the counterinsurgency (COIN) manual for the army, is beginning to rewrite the promotion manual. It would appear that they have begun the 360 degree review process (or reviews not only by your superiors, but also by your subordinates and colleagues), they are valuing combat experience more and even paying extravagent (by Army, not Goldman, standards) retention bonuses to keep experienced officers in the service.
Will the US Army be as successful as Goldman Sachs? One can only hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
