Ex-cop may be charged in case of man Tasered to death
Here's the Cliff's Notes, if the facts are presented truthfully: Police detain a man for cocaine possession and handcuff him on the ground. When asked to get in the Police car, the man was slow to respond so the Officer used the Taser to speed up the process. After six shots with the Taser in three minutes, the suspect was in the car. After three more Taser shots at the police station, the suspect was dead.
My question is: Once a suspect is in handcuffs, why would a Taser be used? The Officer's lawyer: "He's fighting, wrestling with an individual who weighs 100 pounds more than him," he said. "His partner had just come back to the police department from triple bypass surgery and could not assist Officer Nugent."
Well, why was another officer, who was incapable of fulfilling his employment obligations as a police officer, even on the job? I know that if my shoulder were injured and I couldn't pitch, my manager wouldn't just stick me out there for the hell of it.
Errors in judgment at multiple levels resulted in a man's death, a death he did not deserve. He was in possession if illegal drugs, yes, but certainly did not deserve to die for it.
Unrelated - another great Ron Paul video
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Maybe they really *are* on our side
Heard back from Saxby Chambliss following my email last week about rising energy prices. It's obviously a standardized letter, which is to be expected, but he sounds genuine and knowledgeable about the issues and dedicated to finding solutions.
Now let's just hope that he actually follows through on this.
--
Now let's just hope that he actually follows through on this.
--
Dear Mr. Kerfeld :
Thank you for contacting me about the impact of high fuel prices and, in particular, speculation in the energy trading markets and the impact these issues are having on U.S. consumers and airlines.
I share your concerns about the numerous factors affecting the price of crude oil, including supply and demand, the weak dollar, the need for increased conservation, and the development of alternative sources of energy.
Moreover, I am particularly troubled about any role that speculation is having in unduly inflating the price of oil or any commodity for that matter.
I am working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to develop real solutions to many of these issues. They include increased supply through discovery and environmentally sensitive exploration, improved conservation, and a common-sense assessment and application of regulations necessary for investors, traders, and speculators in all commodities including the energy markets.
With respect to the energy markets, I am leading a bi-partisan effort to develop legislation to ensure that American consumers, Congress, and the regulator of the futures markets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), can more accurately determine the impact of speculation in the energy market.
One of the major issues in determining how speculation affects the price of crude oil is understanding which market participants are truly speculators investing in paper and which investors are investing in the commodity.
For example, because dealers/brokers often conduct business for a variety of market participants, we must insist that the CFTC segregate and re-classify data to ensure that trades on behalf of truly commercial interests, such as airlines, are not classified in the same category as those trades (perhaps initiated by the same dealer/broker) for index funds.
Additionally, we must seek to ensure that the CFTC has the proper tools to better monitor and enforce any wrong-doing in these markets, and we should ensure that boards of trade located outside of the United States that conduct business on computer or video screens in the U.S. have adequate position limitations and reporting requirements.
Your comments are important to me. As we develop the legislation in the Agriculture Committee and other Committees in the Senate and as the legislation goes to the Senate floor for debate and votes, I will keep your views in mind.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
#7,480
Are you a republican at heart, but can't see yourself voting for John McCain? Check out this site. I'm #7480 on the list..
http://www.lettertogop.com/
http://www.lettertogop.com/
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Obama, continued
Some good points were brought up here to counter my arguments for Obama. Keep in mind, I'm all for a consumption-based tax and Ron Paul's plan of no income tax. But, I believe that in a country where either McCain or Obama will become president, Obama is the better choice. But, I'm still writing in Ron Paul and I hope you do too.
----
Mike,
I love these kinds of conversations. If you want to have more of these with me, please feel free to e-mail any time. I may come across as forceful in my explanations sometimes, but that is just because I'm so passionate about it.
My main point that you and Barack don't seem to understand. NO ONE is entitled in America or anywhere else. NO ONE, just because they were born here, should be entitled to anything more than freedom, education, and a clean environment from this government. If everyone is entitled, then there is no incentive.
-(name omitted)
1. Did you even read the article?
"I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief."
Yes, I read the article. First, NONE of our taxes are truly regressive. The social security tax is regressive once you make more than $102,000, but guess what....if you make more than that you won't end up getting social security in the first place (because they tax it). They are all progrssive. The only government policies that are regressive are our drug and tobacco policies, because lower-income individuals use thse things.
Families making $75,000 or less? This is redistribution of wealth from families making $250,000 or less to families making $75,000 or less. Guess what....a family making $100,000 (this is total gross income for a family) is middle-class. 25% of all families in the US fall in the > $75,000 category. Now, you are going to take money from the top 25% and redistribute it to the bottom 75%. Imagine if they did that at GE or Proctor and Gamble. Lets take the top 25% of employees in our company and punish them for their hard work, and then lets make it easier for the bottom 75%. Our nation can no longer be competitive with policies like that. There is no incentive to achieve.
Also, I am against income taxation all together. If we had a fiscally responsible government, then we would not need an income tax.
What you don't realize is that Barack Obama will hurt these families in the long run when he establishes money-sucking social programs like unviersal health care. These programs will balloon just like social security and medicaid have. People are smart. They can take care of themselves. Eventually we won't be able to afford it, and everyone will have to pay higher taxes, because the majority of society will be living off of the government.
I have no idea where he is going to get the money to pay for his programs unless he taxes the shit out of the top 25% of American families (as far as income goes)....which is not fair.
2. Yes, I agree, raising capital gains tax sucks for investors like us, but it does close the loophole for hedge fund managets et al, as mentioned in the interview. This should be a more complex area of taxes, whereas people whose primary source of income is investment management would pay normal income tax on capital gains, while investors such as you or me would pay the lower rate.
I disagree. We should stimulate investment in this country any way we can. The lower the corporate income tax and the lower the capital gains tax, the better. If your primary source of income involves giving other people money to create jobs and new products, then you should be compensated for that.
3. I agree, the death tax sucks
4. Well, I don't see this as a problem when the top 5% of Americans hold 68% of the financial wealth in the country (link)
There is a reason that they hold that wealth. Do you want them to leave? Remember the "American Dream". We are going to kill it. There will be no incentive to excel in life if the government hands us everything. Also, these people give much more to charity than the rest of the country. What would happen to their charity. I believe that the charitable organizations are much better at charity than the government. It is not the government's job.
5. Dude.. 'hard working americans'... are the people in the factories, etc, that make this country run. I have no problem with those people making $25-30K a year, paying a smaller percentage of their income back to the federal government than the people running the companies, making $500K+ a year - do you? Seriously? Think about what it costs to live, and whether that can really be properly accounted for with a flat-rate tax system.
Yes, I have a problem with it. They make this country run, but so do the people running the companies. And the people running the companies are getting more income b/c their skills are unique and can not be duplicated by the "people running the country". So guess what, you are going to alienate the talent that has made this country so great (and allowed those "hard working americans" to have great jobs in the first place, you are going to abandon the free-market system that has allowed us to thrive, and you are going to force the people we can not do without (those running the companies) to leave our country.
Why do americans enjoy such a great life.....its not because the government gave it to them. If we taxed the hell out of the people with the ideas, the risk tolerance, and the determination, we will lose jobs and income growth, and we will sacrifice it for sub-standard Government care in every area of our life. Socialism doesn't work....it just doesn't!
So abolish the income tax. Why should we have a progressive tax? In a free market society you are compensated for your skills. I just don't understand why I should pay more taxes because I took the risk to become a physician and will be compensated for that risk.
The government can help these people in only one way....by maintaining freedom...them I can give to them through Charity. It is not the government's job to take your income and give it to them. That is not related to "interstate commerce" last time I checked. There is no charity clause in the constitution.
Lets face it. If we live in a world where the person who cures cancer isn't properly compensated, there will never be a cure for cancer. There's no incentive. The free market offers the perfect incentive. Curing cancer is more important than picking up my garbage. If no one picks up the garbage, then I'll do it for $200,000/year. But lots of people can do it. If 5 billion people can't do your job, you shouldn't be paid as much.
In fact, if we want to be fair, taxes should be flat to regressive, because those making less money are going to be using more government services such as medicaid and social security.
I have a better idea. Abolish income taxes and base taxes on consumption. Tax life's necessary items less. Then, someone making $30,000 a year won't buy an iphone and depend on me for healthcare (and yes, we are paying for those in DeKalb county to get free healthcare from Grady right now through our property taxes).
It's not about redistribution of wealth; it's about recognizing who makes this country run and treating them with financial respect.
If the government respected the people, it wouldn't try to run our lives. Most of the people making 25-30K/year can take care of themselves, and the ones who spend every drop of that money shouldn't get saved by the gov't. There should be no safety net. Where is the personal responsibility. We are incentivizing our population to become less educated, more risk averse, less charitable, and more dependent.
Charity and the government should take care of those who truly can't help themselves, such as the mentally retarded or the physically disabled.
Whenever I hear someone say... "I don't know what I would do without Grady?", but then see them pick their iphone out of their Louis Vitton bag (yes, this happened), I think to myself....I know what they do without Grady....they would learn to take care of themselves, eat better, eat less, exercise, buy health insurance, and do without the Louis Vitton bag and the iphone to pay for their antibiotics.
Barack Obama's policies are the macrocosm to the microcosm that is Grady. Mark my words. The population in Atlanta is not better off for the free, reactive care they get at Grady....because it incentivizes the wrong behaviors....and the population of the United States will not be better off for the free, reactive assistance they get from the Government....because it incentivizes the wrong behaviors. Grady broke last year, when will the US break?
----
Mike,
I love these kinds of conversations. If you want to have more of these with me, please feel free to e-mail any time. I may come across as forceful in my explanations sometimes, but that is just because I'm so passionate about it.
My main point that you and Barack don't seem to understand. NO ONE is entitled in America or anywhere else. NO ONE, just because they were born here, should be entitled to anything more than freedom, education, and a clean environment from this government. If everyone is entitled, then there is no incentive.
-(name omitted)
1. Did you even read the article?
"I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief."
Yes, I read the article. First, NONE of our taxes are truly regressive. The social security tax is regressive once you make more than $102,000, but guess what....if you make more than that you won't end up getting social security in the first place (because they tax it). They are all progrssive. The only government policies that are regressive are our drug and tobacco policies, because lower-income individuals use thse things.
Families making $75,000 or less? This is redistribution of wealth from families making $250,000 or less to families making $75,000 or less. Guess what....a family making $100,000 (this is total gross income for a family) is middle-class. 25% of all families in the US fall in the > $75,000 category. Now, you are going to take money from the top 25% and redistribute it to the bottom 75%. Imagine if they did that at GE or Proctor and Gamble. Lets take the top 25% of employees in our company and punish them for their hard work, and then lets make it easier for the bottom 75%. Our nation can no longer be competitive with policies like that. There is no incentive to achieve.
Also, I am against income taxation all together. If we had a fiscally responsible government, then we would not need an income tax.
What you don't realize is that Barack Obama will hurt these families in the long run when he establishes money-sucking social programs like unviersal health care. These programs will balloon just like social security and medicaid have. People are smart. They can take care of themselves. Eventually we won't be able to afford it, and everyone will have to pay higher taxes, because the majority of society will be living off of the government.
I have no idea where he is going to get the money to pay for his programs unless he taxes the shit out of the top 25% of American families (as far as income goes)....which is not fair.
2. Yes, I agree, raising capital gains tax sucks for investors like us, but it does close the loophole for hedge fund managets et al, as mentioned in the interview. This should be a more complex area of taxes, whereas people whose primary source of income is investment management would pay normal income tax on capital gains, while investors such as you or me would pay the lower rate.
I disagree. We should stimulate investment in this country any way we can. The lower the corporate income tax and the lower the capital gains tax, the better. If your primary source of income involves giving other people money to create jobs and new products, then you should be compensated for that.
3. I agree, the death tax sucks
4. Well, I don't see this as a problem when the top 5% of Americans hold 68% of the financial wealth in the country (link)
There is a reason that they hold that wealth. Do you want them to leave? Remember the "American Dream". We are going to kill it. There will be no incentive to excel in life if the government hands us everything. Also, these people give much more to charity than the rest of the country. What would happen to their charity. I believe that the charitable organizations are much better at charity than the government. It is not the government's job.
5. Dude.. 'hard working americans'... are the people in the factories, etc, that make this country run. I have no problem with those people making $25-30K a year, paying a smaller percentage of their income back to the federal government than the people running the companies, making $500K+ a year - do you? Seriously? Think about what it costs to live, and whether that can really be properly accounted for with a flat-rate tax system.
Yes, I have a problem with it. They make this country run, but so do the people running the companies. And the people running the companies are getting more income b/c their skills are unique and can not be duplicated by the "people running the country". So guess what, you are going to alienate the talent that has made this country so great (and allowed those "hard working americans" to have great jobs in the first place, you are going to abandon the free-market system that has allowed us to thrive, and you are going to force the people we can not do without (those running the companies) to leave our country.
Why do americans enjoy such a great life.....its not because the government gave it to them. If we taxed the hell out of the people with the ideas, the risk tolerance, and the determination, we will lose jobs and income growth, and we will sacrifice it for sub-standard Government care in every area of our life. Socialism doesn't work....it just doesn't!
So abolish the income tax. Why should we have a progressive tax? In a free market society you are compensated for your skills. I just don't understand why I should pay more taxes because I took the risk to become a physician and will be compensated for that risk.
The government can help these people in only one way....by maintaining freedom...them I can give to them through Charity. It is not the government's job to take your income and give it to them. That is not related to "interstate commerce" last time I checked. There is no charity clause in the constitution.
Lets face it. If we live in a world where the person who cures cancer isn't properly compensated, there will never be a cure for cancer. There's no incentive. The free market offers the perfect incentive. Curing cancer is more important than picking up my garbage. If no one picks up the garbage, then I'll do it for $200,000/year. But lots of people can do it. If 5 billion people can't do your job, you shouldn't be paid as much.
In fact, if we want to be fair, taxes should be flat to regressive, because those making less money are going to be using more government services such as medicaid and social security.
I have a better idea. Abolish income taxes and base taxes on consumption. Tax life's necessary items less. Then, someone making $30,000 a year won't buy an iphone and depend on me for healthcare (and yes, we are paying for those in DeKalb county to get free healthcare from Grady right now through our property taxes).
It's not about redistribution of wealth; it's about recognizing who makes this country run and treating them with financial respect.
If the government respected the people, it wouldn't try to run our lives. Most of the people making 25-30K/year can take care of themselves, and the ones who spend every drop of that money shouldn't get saved by the gov't. There should be no safety net. Where is the personal responsibility. We are incentivizing our population to become less educated, more risk averse, less charitable, and more dependent.
Charity and the government should take care of those who truly can't help themselves, such as the mentally retarded or the physically disabled.
Whenever I hear someone say... "I don't know what I would do without Grady?", but then see them pick their iphone out of their Louis Vitton bag (yes, this happened), I think to myself....I know what they do without Grady....they would learn to take care of themselves, eat better, eat less, exercise, buy health insurance, and do without the Louis Vitton bag and the iphone to pay for their antibiotics.
Barack Obama's policies are the macrocosm to the microcosm that is Grady. Mark my words. The population in Atlanta is not better off for the free, reactive care they get at Grady....because it incentivizes the wrong behaviors....and the population of the United States will not be better off for the free, reactive assistance they get from the Government....because it incentivizes the wrong behaviors. Grady broke last year, when will the US break?
Friday, June 6, 2008
More on Obama
Had (am still having..) a good debate with a friend over Obama's policies, and thought some good ideas were exchanged. As such, I'm posting them here.
-------
MK to ****
I actually like a lot of what I just read here. Worth a look
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
---------
**** (Name omitted) to me
Why should "wealthy people pay more taxes" Its not the government's job to redistribute wealth or to provide charity. But I absolutely HATE Barack Obama's viewpoint.
Here's some reasons why you should hate this article:
He wants to:
1.) No tax increases for people making $250,000 or less is misleading...he just wants to let Bush's tax cuts expire.
2.) Raise capital gains tax - we already have high capital gains taxes in the US, he is going to stifle investment.
3.) He is for the estate tax...I think that is bull****....it kills family businesses. The government shouldn't be able to tax your estate b/c you made more than someone else in your lifetime. If you've amassed more than 1 million in your lifetime and you want to leave it to your kids....the government is going to get some of it. That INCLUDES land and other assets.
4.) Obama's viewpoint is twisted. Tax system skewed, but not in the way he says...its skewed in the other way...the top 5 percent of taxpayers in america pay 50% of the taxes.
5.) He wants to tax the shit out of hard working American's to pay for "universal healthcare and other initiatives" What happened ot personal responsibility. Get your own health insurance and take care of yourself. Its not my job to pay for your problems.
You are getting sucked into what I call the "Barack Hole". He's real charismatic, but his policies will turn this country to a socialist shithole akin to Cuba, etc. where technology flounders, investment is absent, and all the great minds leave because they know they will be more fairly compensated for their skills elsewhere in the world.
---------
MK to ****
1. Did you even read the article?
"I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief."
2. Yes, I agree, raising capital gains tax sucks for investors like us, but it does close the loophole for hedge fund managers et al, as mentioned in the interview. This should be a more complex area of taxes, whereas people whose primary source of income is investment management would pay normal income tax on capital gains, while investors such as you or me would pay the lower rate
3. I agree, the death tax sucks
4. Well, I don't see this as a problem when the top 5% of Americans hold 68% of the financial wealth in the country (link)
5. Dude.. 'hard working americans'... are the people in the factories, etc, that make this country run. I have no problem with those people making $25-30K a year, paying a smaller percentage of their income back to the federal government than the people running the companies, making $500K+ a year - do you? Seriously? Think about what it costs to live, and whether that can really be properly accounted for with a flat-rate tax system. It's not about redistribution of wealth; it's about recognizing who makes this country run and treating them with financial respect.
And I'm not getting sucked into anything... I'm still voting Ron Paul.
---(end emails)
So, I suppose my conclusion is that Barack wouldn't be as bad for the country as I had previously thought. I still think raising social security funding is a terrible idea (instead of first repairing the system, or replacing it altogether) and worried about Obama's stance that we need to actively "stamp out the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East" (from CNN interview last night). In my opinion, Ron Paul's stance on those two issues would be far more effective at managing the problems and providing real solutions.
I'm also a realist and know that Ron Paul will not be our next president. But that won't keep me from voting for him and his cause, which is larger than him - as he readily states time and time again - something you certainly don't hear every day out of a presidential candidate.
MK
-------
MK to ****
I actually like a lot of what I just read here. Worth a look
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
---------
**** (Name omitted) to me
Why should "wealthy people pay more taxes" Its not the government's job to redistribute wealth or to provide charity. But I absolutely HATE Barack Obama's viewpoint.
Here's some reasons why you should hate this article:
He wants to:
1.) No tax increases for people making $250,000 or less is misleading...he just wants to let Bush's tax cuts expire.
2.) Raise capital gains tax - we already have high capital gains taxes in the US, he is going to stifle investment.
3.) He is for the estate tax...I think that is bull****....it kills family businesses. The government shouldn't be able to tax your estate b/c you made more than someone else in your lifetime. If you've amassed more than 1 million in your lifetime and you want to leave it to your kids....the government is going to get some of it. That INCLUDES land and other assets.
4.) Obama's viewpoint is twisted. Tax system skewed, but not in the way he says...its skewed in the other way...the top 5 percent of taxpayers in america pay 50% of the taxes.
5.) He wants to tax the shit out of hard working American's to pay for "universal healthcare and other initiatives" What happened ot personal responsibility. Get your own health insurance and take care of yourself. Its not my job to pay for your problems.
You are getting sucked into what I call the "Barack Hole". He's real charismatic, but his policies will turn this country to a socialist shithole akin to Cuba, etc. where technology flounders, investment is absent, and all the great minds leave because they know they will be more fairly compensated for their skills elsewhere in the world.
---------
MK to ****
1. Did you even read the article?
"I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes. We are going to offset the payroll tax, the most regressive of our taxes, so that families who are middle-income individuals making $75,000 a year or less, that they would get a tax break so that families would see up to $1,000 worth of relief."
2. Yes, I agree, raising capital gains tax sucks for investors like us, but it does close the loophole for hedge fund managers et al, as mentioned in the interview. This should be a more complex area of taxes, whereas people whose primary source of income is investment management would pay normal income tax on capital gains, while investors such as you or me would pay the lower rate
3. I agree, the death tax sucks
4. Well, I don't see this as a problem when the top 5% of Americans hold 68% of the financial wealth in the country (link)
5. Dude.. 'hard working americans'... are the people in the factories, etc, that make this country run. I have no problem with those people making $25-30K a year, paying a smaller percentage of their income back to the federal government than the people running the companies, making $500K+ a year - do you? Seriously? Think about what it costs to live, and whether that can really be properly accounted for with a flat-rate tax system. It's not about redistribution of wealth; it's about recognizing who makes this country run and treating them with financial respect.
And I'm not getting sucked into anything... I'm still voting Ron Paul.
---(end emails)
So, I suppose my conclusion is that Barack wouldn't be as bad for the country as I had previously thought. I still think raising social security funding is a terrible idea (instead of first repairing the system, or replacing it altogether) and worried about Obama's stance that we need to actively "stamp out the anti-American sentiment in the Middle East" (from CNN interview last night). In my opinion, Ron Paul's stance on those two issues would be far more effective at managing the problems and providing real solutions.
I'm also a realist and know that Ron Paul will not be our next president. But that won't keep me from voting for him and his cause, which is larger than him - as he readily states time and time again - something you certainly don't hear every day out of a presidential candidate.
MK
Well hey, look at that -
I've been e-published
(direct link in case the front page is changed)
Subject matter is probably fairly uninteresting for most people, but for a Blackberry addict like myself, the review was most entertaining to do.
MK
(direct link in case the front page is changed)
Subject matter is probably fairly uninteresting for most people, but for a Blackberry addict like myself, the review was most entertaining to do.
MK
Friday, May 30, 2008
Italy
Had an amazing week in Italy May 15-21. I've been tremendously busy at work since getting back but did find time to upload my photos - have a look
MK
MK
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
Blackberry Bold
Research In Motion has issued a press release announcing the introduction of its newest and best model to date, the 9000 series (or Blackberry Bold, as is its creative name). The release mentions an official site at www.blackberrybold.com, but as of this writing, that site is blank. I'll be checking with relentless obsession throughout the day for an update to that site, as I am eagerly awaiting official images and documentation of this long-rumored device that may replace my current 8300 that I've been in love with for over a year now.
RIMM stock is up a few bucks on the news, and worth noting is that the press release mentions a release date of "around the beginning of the summer", dispelling the rumors spread by Fortune magazine (and Apple iPhone proponents) that the device was to be delayed until August.
Cheers, RIM, I look forward to holding and possibly purchasing your latest and greatest.
MK
RIMM stock is up a few bucks on the news, and worth noting is that the press release mentions a release date of "around the beginning of the summer", dispelling the rumors spread by Fortune magazine (and Apple iPhone proponents) that the device was to be delayed until August.
Cheers, RIM, I look forward to holding and possibly purchasing your latest and greatest.
MK
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Smart
Within a half mile on my way to work this morning I saw two Smart cars - something I had hardly ever seen in the US before. I smiled - what a perfect thing to bring to the US, where commutes so often never exceed 40 mph and a high-efficiency, low power runaround makes all the sense in the world. Starting at $13,500.. might be worth a look, although I might have a hard time fitting my entire body in one.
MK
MK
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Couple things
First off, I have been watching the NBC show 30 Rock pretty religiously lately, and am 4 episodes into the first season in an attempt to 'catch up' before the next new episode airs. It is a brilliant show, and has led me to develop a full-on childhood-style crush on Tina Fey. Remember Topanga from Boy Meets World, or Kelly Kapowski from Saved by the Bell? Yeah, that kind of crush. Tina is beautiful, hilarious, and many times has the same responses to certain situations that I would. Of course, this is all in a TV show, so she could be very different in real life, but that's a risk I would be willing to take. So Tina, if you ever get sick of your husband, shoot me an email and I'll be on the next flight to NYC.
Next, and totally unreleated, is the subject of waste and how it relates to my notion that just paying close attention to one's surroundings can have a profound impact on all sorts of things.
In the kitchen here at work this morning, one of my coworkers brewed a fresh pot of coffee at 9:15am, right after she filled her mug up. I didn't bother to ask, but I can't imagine that many people would be still wanting coffee, as most people are here in the office by 7:30am. But, I could very well mistaken and that wasn't the point. This occurrence did make me think about the issue though - how many times is pure waste produced just because we do things out of habit? Last night I needed a new toothbrush, so I went to CVS and picked one up. Then, about an hour later, I decided to grab some dinner at McDonald's after justifying the activity to myself by thinking about the healthy breakfast and lunch I had. So, I got back in my car and got my food. Pure waste - two trips that could have easily been consolidated, but because I didn't think about it, I ended up making two trips. The habit of just coming and going whenever I please trapped me, and I was caught violating one of my most closely held principles.
So I gave myself a few lashings and moved on.
Point being - escaping our habits can be the beginning of a positive and impactful change on everything from wasteful garbage to climate change.
MK
Next, and totally unreleated, is the subject of waste and how it relates to my notion that just paying close attention to one's surroundings can have a profound impact on all sorts of things.
In the kitchen here at work this morning, one of my coworkers brewed a fresh pot of coffee at 9:15am, right after she filled her mug up. I didn't bother to ask, but I can't imagine that many people would be still wanting coffee, as most people are here in the office by 7:30am. But, I could very well mistaken and that wasn't the point. This occurrence did make me think about the issue though - how many times is pure waste produced just because we do things out of habit? Last night I needed a new toothbrush, so I went to CVS and picked one up. Then, about an hour later, I decided to grab some dinner at McDonald's after justifying the activity to myself by thinking about the healthy breakfast and lunch I had. So, I got back in my car and got my food. Pure waste - two trips that could have easily been consolidated, but because I didn't think about it, I ended up making two trips. The habit of just coming and going whenever I please trapped me, and I was caught violating one of my most closely held principles.
So I gave myself a few lashings and moved on.
Point being - escaping our habits can be the beginning of a positive and impactful change on everything from wasteful garbage to climate change.
MK
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Oil, Alaska, and how President Bush won back some of my respect
While I do not have access to a television at work, I am able to watch live CNBC through stock broker thinkorswim's trading platform, and today I am especially thankful for that ability. President Bush gave what was his most passionate, meaningful, and (dare I say it?) sensible press conference that I have seen him give in years. He addressed the issues facing Americans, and called on Congress to stand by him as he works to solve the problems in a dutifully Conservative way.
Now, I do not view Bush's second term in a very positive light. He has made questionable decisions and at times has danced around the media's questions that follow. Through his actions and orders, he does not seem to understand where the real threats are to America, and how they should be properly dealt with. He has also been one of the most liberal Republican presidents in history in terms of government spending, which has driven the value of our currency down. All of this from somebody who voted for Bush twice, not that I am proclaiming that proudly.
So, when Bush took the podium and passionately appealed to Congress to consider and pass these initiatives that would tangibly help this country, I was taken aback. This was a president that, for the first time since I can remember, was speaking candidly with our nation and was displaying knowledge and eloquence. This was a president to hold in reverence, not in hate as so many have for so long.
On to the main point: drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The case that President Bush presented was both compelling and statistically correct, from what I have read. I'll use most of my statistics from the above wikipedia link, so absolute accuracy may come into question, but the main ideas are supported by many other sites.
Sufficient oil exists within American borders in Alaska to cover our nation's entire demand for oil for as long as 525 days (high estimate), or 215 days (low estimate). A rough average says that we have about a year's worth of oil in our own country. Keep in mind, should we take advantage of the opportunity, we would not seek to satisfy 100% of our country's oil demand from this supply. Such a proposition wouldn't even be possible. A more realistic look shows that we could essentially take Saudi Arabia off of our 'oil grid' and obtain the 11.5% instead from Alaska. Doing so would mean that our Alaskan oil supply would last between 5 and 12.5 years. Imagine that - a decade during which we cut out our second largest contributor and instead keep those dollars in the United States. Thousands of jobs would be created, new profits for domestic oil companies, more tax revenue for our federal government, and reduced dependence on OPEC.
The catch is that we would be destroying many square miles of beautiful wilderness and forcing a village to adapt to huge changes in lifestyle and diet, as their dependence on bowhead whales would come under jeopardy with the new petroleum business around. Even so, a 2000 survey showed 78% of the village was in favor of allowing oil drilling in ANWR.
Let's look at this ethically.
From a utilitarian point of view, more good will be done for more people by allowing drilling in ANWR.
Kant would say not to drill in ANWR - if we did, we should be prepared to drill everywhere else in the world where oil may exist without regard to externalities
Economics would say to drill.. see above
Machiavelli would... wait, let's not go there
It is my opinion that we should drill. I have a sneaking suspicion that I have left out some of the environmental consequences of such a decision, so I would be interested to hear any of your concerns in that regard.
MK
Now, I do not view Bush's second term in a very positive light. He has made questionable decisions and at times has danced around the media's questions that follow. Through his actions and orders, he does not seem to understand where the real threats are to America, and how they should be properly dealt with. He has also been one of the most liberal Republican presidents in history in terms of government spending, which has driven the value of our currency down. All of this from somebody who voted for Bush twice, not that I am proclaiming that proudly.
So, when Bush took the podium and passionately appealed to Congress to consider and pass these initiatives that would tangibly help this country, I was taken aback. This was a president that, for the first time since I can remember, was speaking candidly with our nation and was displaying knowledge and eloquence. This was a president to hold in reverence, not in hate as so many have for so long.
On to the main point: drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The case that President Bush presented was both compelling and statistically correct, from what I have read. I'll use most of my statistics from the above wikipedia link, so absolute accuracy may come into question, but the main ideas are supported by many other sites.
Sufficient oil exists within American borders in Alaska to cover our nation's entire demand for oil for as long as 525 days (high estimate), or 215 days (low estimate). A rough average says that we have about a year's worth of oil in our own country. Keep in mind, should we take advantage of the opportunity, we would not seek to satisfy 100% of our country's oil demand from this supply. Such a proposition wouldn't even be possible. A more realistic look shows that we could essentially take Saudi Arabia off of our 'oil grid' and obtain the 11.5% instead from Alaska. Doing so would mean that our Alaskan oil supply would last between 5 and 12.5 years. Imagine that - a decade during which we cut out our second largest contributor and instead keep those dollars in the United States. Thousands of jobs would be created, new profits for domestic oil companies, more tax revenue for our federal government, and reduced dependence on OPEC.
The catch is that we would be destroying many square miles of beautiful wilderness and forcing a village to adapt to huge changes in lifestyle and diet, as their dependence on bowhead whales would come under jeopardy with the new petroleum business around. Even so, a 2000 survey showed 78% of the village was in favor of allowing oil drilling in ANWR.
Let's look at this ethically.
From a utilitarian point of view, more good will be done for more people by allowing drilling in ANWR.
Kant would say not to drill in ANWR - if we did, we should be prepared to drill everywhere else in the world where oil may exist without regard to externalities
Economics would say to drill.. see above
Machiavelli would... wait, let's not go there
It is my opinion that we should drill. I have a sneaking suspicion that I have left out some of the environmental consequences of such a decision, so I would be interested to hear any of your concerns in that regard.
MK
Monday, April 28, 2008
Big weekend
Got my car back Friday evening after almost 3 weeks in the body shop. During lunch at Gordon's grandmother's house, the neighbor across the street failed to give a rearward glance before shifting his Toyota Tundra (large, large truck) into reverse and applying what must have been a generous amount of throttle, given the damage to my left fender.
$4,000 (thanks State Farm) and 3 weeks later and I have a new fender, bumper, headlights, turn signal, and wheel well lining. After it's all said and done, I'm actually glad it happened - new parts on an 11 year-old car are always a good thing.
Hockey game last night at 9:40 - we lost 5-3, but it was another fun one against the Red Wings and I was granted the opportunity to play left wing for the entire game - a change from my usual position on defense. I need to work on my puck handling and self-positioning, but the game is definitely more fun from the forward end of the ice.
On to stocks.. my favorite green company, Fuel Tech (Nasdaq: FTEK) has been approaching the point of break-even in my portfolio over the last few weeks, as an average-down in the 16's worked to my advantage. Shares were killed when they announced conservative guidance for 2008, but I (and many other hopeful investors) believe it's a case of under-promise, over-deliver.
And, for a less-happy story, Silicom (Nasdaq: SILC) continues to just kill me. Every time they announce earnings, they're beating estimates and showing continued success. Yet, their shares continue to tumble.
Federal incentive checks are supposed to be coming, so I'll be looking for my direct deposit today as the IRS timeline suggested. I plan on taking it all and putting it into stocks, as I think this is the beginning of another long bull market. A report I just saw on CNBC said that when you take financial institutions out of the picture, S&P 500 earnings are actually up 10% (I missed if that was quarterly or yearly) That doesn't sound recessionary to me-
MK
$4,000 (thanks State Farm) and 3 weeks later and I have a new fender, bumper, headlights, turn signal, and wheel well lining. After it's all said and done, I'm actually glad it happened - new parts on an 11 year-old car are always a good thing.
Hockey game last night at 9:40 - we lost 5-3, but it was another fun one against the Red Wings and I was granted the opportunity to play left wing for the entire game - a change from my usual position on defense. I need to work on my puck handling and self-positioning, but the game is definitely more fun from the forward end of the ice.
On to stocks.. my favorite green company, Fuel Tech (Nasdaq: FTEK) has been approaching the point of break-even in my portfolio over the last few weeks, as an average-down in the 16's worked to my advantage. Shares were killed when they announced conservative guidance for 2008, but I (and many other hopeful investors) believe it's a case of under-promise, over-deliver.
And, for a less-happy story, Silicom (Nasdaq: SILC) continues to just kill me. Every time they announce earnings, they're beating estimates and showing continued success. Yet, their shares continue to tumble.
Federal incentive checks are supposed to be coming, so I'll be looking for my direct deposit today as the IRS timeline suggested. I plan on taking it all and putting it into stocks, as I think this is the beginning of another long bull market. A report I just saw on CNBC said that when you take financial institutions out of the picture, S&P 500 earnings are actually up 10% (I missed if that was quarterly or yearly) That doesn't sound recessionary to me-
MK
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Will your next car run on hydrogen?
Probably not, but General Motors is spending millions on R&D for its Hydrogen Fuel Cell, most lately adapted into the Equinox SUV body. Check it out here
If anyone from GM reads this, please pass along the word that Atlanta would love to be the next test market for these.. and yours truly would be first in line
MK
If anyone from GM reads this, please pass along the word that Atlanta would love to be the next test market for these.. and yours truly would be first in line
MK
Sunday, April 20, 2008
It's The Economy, Stupid
Did my part this weekend by spending about $100 in the retail sector. Slowdown in consumer spending? What slowdown?
Almost pulled the trigger on a Sony book reader at Borders too, but decided to walk away in favor of doing some research online about which has the best reviews, as well as to think about whether or not I would actually use the device.
Anyway, the ionizing fan is working great and the Umphrey's McGee live double-CD is everything I hoped for. I haven't bought a CD in ages (in favor of digital format downloads), but my policy is that if Umphrey's puts out a release, I buy it.
MK
Friday, April 18, 2008
Bottled Water Taboo
Yale's Sustainability Office presents its opinion on bottled water
I've thought the same for awhile, but they have the statistics and facts to make it a compelling point. Good read
MK
I've thought the same for awhile, but they have the statistics and facts to make it a compelling point. Good read
MK
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Israel, the Arab world, and the US Presidential Election
This is a great article/interview regarding the current election and its effect on the Arab-Israeli conflict, by my former commissioner in the Israel Baseball League. Such a complex issue cannot hope to be summed up in anything less than a lifetime of reading, but I have tried to learn as much as I can and grasp the deep-rooted emotional foundations of each side. One particular area that I take great interest in is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Some of the most beautiful scenery in the region can be had in this area of Arab-controlled land, and many Israelis feel entitled to experience it on a daily basis. It goes beyond a simple border war chest-beating match - the holy area of East Jerusalem physically lies in the West Bank, thus bringing into question the entire legitimacy of an Arab-controlled West Bank, in the minds of many.
But enough of the history - my opinion is that a lot of conflict could be avoided if Israelis would cease their provocation and stop building these settlements. The existing state of Jerusalem that I experienced last summer is actually quite healthy, with Arabs and Jews living in peace amongst each other. It exists as a 'middle ground' where the holiness of the place circumvents violence and petty conflicts... for the most part. If Israel would forcefully outlaw the building of new settlements and encourage existing ones to move back within Israel's borders, and Arabs would agree to an undivided district of Jerusalem (which would serve as the official, universally-recognized capital of Israel), a compromise could possibly be reached.
Problems exist, too many to innumerate, with a proposal like this. They have been well-documented and are voiced almost daily through violence in the Gaza Strip. A leader needs to emerge from the region - somebody that both sides can relate to and support. Sounds impossible, right? So too sounded movements such as civil rights and the resistance to German oppression during the World Wars. Leaders emerged and people came together for the greater good. Whites and blacks, British and French stood side by side after centuries apart.
While the religious, ideological, and methodical difference between Arabs and Israelis may seem like an impenetrable wall, the amount of effort that peace would justify is infinite.
This is an area in which I believe Barack Obama could make a positive impact. Hillary Clinton and John McCain make little mention of Israel on their respective websites, whereas Obama presents a comprehensive outline (pdf). I do not support many of Obama's stances on policy, but this one hits close to home and is deserving of close consideration.
MK
But enough of the history - my opinion is that a lot of conflict could be avoided if Israelis would cease their provocation and stop building these settlements. The existing state of Jerusalem that I experienced last summer is actually quite healthy, with Arabs and Jews living in peace amongst each other. It exists as a 'middle ground' where the holiness of the place circumvents violence and petty conflicts... for the most part. If Israel would forcefully outlaw the building of new settlements and encourage existing ones to move back within Israel's borders, and Arabs would agree to an undivided district of Jerusalem (which would serve as the official, universally-recognized capital of Israel), a compromise could possibly be reached.
Problems exist, too many to innumerate, with a proposal like this. They have been well-documented and are voiced almost daily through violence in the Gaza Strip. A leader needs to emerge from the region - somebody that both sides can relate to and support. Sounds impossible, right? So too sounded movements such as civil rights and the resistance to German oppression during the World Wars. Leaders emerged and people came together for the greater good. Whites and blacks, British and French stood side by side after centuries apart.
While the religious, ideological, and methodical difference between Arabs and Israelis may seem like an impenetrable wall, the amount of effort that peace would justify is infinite.
This is an area in which I believe Barack Obama could make a positive impact. Hillary Clinton and John McCain make little mention of Israel on their respective websites, whereas Obama presents a comprehensive outline (pdf). I do not support many of Obama's stances on policy, but this one hits close to home and is deserving of close consideration.
MK
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Really, Fed? Really?
Inflation Becoming a Big Problem for Economy, Fed
And we wonder why inflation is happening - I learned in my basic International Finance class the relationship between interest rates and the value of money - as rates go down, so follows the value of local currency. I surely hope that the people running our country's money supply know this subject a bit deeper than I, but evidence would suggest otherwise. For months I've been saying that this incessant rate cutting is just a patch over the problem, and that the weak dollar and impending inflation will kill us long-term. It sickens me to think that the people paid to do that sort of thinking and reasoning wouldn't realize it first. So, what now to curb inflation? Raise interest rates? It wouldn't be that bad of an idea, with investment banks safe from liquidity problems now that the discount window is open to them. It would hurt anyone that just refinanced into an adjustable rate mortgage, but given recent history, I would hope that not too many people would have done that.
This is all very basic analysis done by yours truly, who has not much practical credibility in this arena, except for my education. So, I could very well be totally wrong with all of this. But then, somebody should have a talk with some of my professors.
MK
And we wonder why inflation is happening - I learned in my basic International Finance class the relationship between interest rates and the value of money - as rates go down, so follows the value of local currency. I surely hope that the people running our country's money supply know this subject a bit deeper than I, but evidence would suggest otherwise. For months I've been saying that this incessant rate cutting is just a patch over the problem, and that the weak dollar and impending inflation will kill us long-term. It sickens me to think that the people paid to do that sort of thinking and reasoning wouldn't realize it first. So, what now to curb inflation? Raise interest rates? It wouldn't be that bad of an idea, with investment banks safe from liquidity problems now that the discount window is open to them. It would hurt anyone that just refinanced into an adjustable rate mortgage, but given recent history, I would hope that not too many people would have done that.
This is all very basic analysis done by yours truly, who has not much practical credibility in this arena, except for my education. So, I could very well be totally wrong with all of this. But then, somebody should have a talk with some of my professors.
MK
Monday, April 14, 2008
Perspective
I found the following website to contain some of the most thought-provoking photography that I've seen on the internet. There is a lot of material, but I kept finding myself going back to make sure I saw every single one.
Chris Jordon Photography
Sobering and awe-inspiring at the same time
MK
Chris Jordon Photography
Sobering and awe-inspiring at the same time
MK
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Linus and Lucy
After a long and arduous internet search I finally found what my heart desired this early Sunday afternoon: sheet music for the Charlie Brown classic theme song, "Linus and Lucy" by Vince Guaraldi. So, I thought I would save any of you the trouble and post a direct link, just in case there are any piano players out there that would like to learn this bit of musical genius: Here ya go
MK
MK
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
AT&T's weasley plan
Since May, 2007, I have enjoyed what is referred to as "push" email on my Blackberry. Anything sent to my @gmail.com address was sent instantly to my phone, allowing me to get it right away as long as I was within the reach of a cellular tower. To say that I loved this ability would be an understatement.. no longer would I come back to my computer with 20 emails waiting, and no longer would I miss an important 'Latest Specials' notification from our local Mexican restaurant.
Well, I guess it was all too good to be true, and AT&T has decided to no longer offer this 'push' service for external email accounts. About two weeks ago, I noticed emails arriving in 'clumps', instead of instantly. For example, if I was at work and having an email conversation with my roommates over our house Google Group, 5-6 emails may be exchanged between the five of us over a matter of minutes. In the past, these emails would come instantly as soon as they were sent. Lately, however, my phone sits dormant for up to 15 minutes, followed by a barrage of vibrations (or tones if I have the speaker on) all in a row. So, it would appear that the phone is only checking for emails every 15 minutes.
WHAT? This cannot be... that's exactly the delay that I wanted to get away from (and succeeded in doing so for 10 months) by switching from Treo that I had with Verizon. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to many of you that a 15 minute delay could really matter at all, but it's the difference between being able to have an email conversation over the phone (free using the data plan) or having to use text messages to communicate via the written word (15 cents a pop).
So, tonight, after an hour on the phone I finally got the Blackberry specialist on duty for AT&T to fork over the info: They have indeed changed the way emails are forwarded, and the Blackberry Internet Service only polls email accounts every 15 minutes for new messages. If one is found, the time interval is reduced to 10 minutes, and that happens again and again down to 8, 5, and 2 minutes. But, if there are no new messages found during one of the polls, the interval goes back to 15 minutes. This means that I could get an email, send my reply right away, and not get the reply until 10 minutes later. How rude.
This is just another effort to save costs, and I don't exactly blame AT&T for it, but I do hold a high level of contempt for their perceived attempts to cover up this new policy. I even had to go through the trouble of switching out my device last week because the local AT&T store didn't know what was going on. As a member of a few different Blackberry online forums, I have seen more and more posts regarding this issue, with no resolution found. Now that this new 'policy' of AT&Ts has been made clear to me, maybe a public outcry will elicit a reversal back to the glory that was true push email.
And, that's my rant for the night.
MK
And now for an update... I've corrected the problem with the following procedure:
Just set up your Gmail/Yahoo to forward to your @(carrier).blackberry.net address. In BIS, set up your blackberry.net address with a 'reply-to address' as the same as your Gmail/Yahoo. Works perfect again, true push, and recipients don't know any difference.
Well, I guess it was all too good to be true, and AT&T has decided to no longer offer this 'push' service for external email accounts. About two weeks ago, I noticed emails arriving in 'clumps', instead of instantly. For example, if I was at work and having an email conversation with my roommates over our house Google Group, 5-6 emails may be exchanged between the five of us over a matter of minutes. In the past, these emails would come instantly as soon as they were sent. Lately, however, my phone sits dormant for up to 15 minutes, followed by a barrage of vibrations (or tones if I have the speaker on) all in a row. So, it would appear that the phone is only checking for emails every 15 minutes.
WHAT? This cannot be... that's exactly the delay that I wanted to get away from (and succeeded in doing so for 10 months) by switching from Treo that I had with Verizon. I'm sure it seems ridiculous to many of you that a 15 minute delay could really matter at all, but it's the difference between being able to have an email conversation over the phone (free using the data plan) or having to use text messages to communicate via the written word (15 cents a pop).
So, tonight, after an hour on the phone I finally got the Blackberry specialist on duty for AT&T to fork over the info: They have indeed changed the way emails are forwarded, and the Blackberry Internet Service only polls email accounts every 15 minutes for new messages. If one is found, the time interval is reduced to 10 minutes, and that happens again and again down to 8, 5, and 2 minutes. But, if there are no new messages found during one of the polls, the interval goes back to 15 minutes. This means that I could get an email, send my reply right away, and not get the reply until 10 minutes later. How rude.
This is just another effort to save costs, and I don't exactly blame AT&T for it, but I do hold a high level of contempt for their perceived attempts to cover up this new policy. I even had to go through the trouble of switching out my device last week because the local AT&T store didn't know what was going on. As a member of a few different Blackberry online forums, I have seen more and more posts regarding this issue, with no resolution found. Now that this new 'policy' of AT&Ts has been made clear to me, maybe a public outcry will elicit a reversal back to the glory that was true push email.
And, that's my rant for the night.
MK
And now for an update... I've corrected the problem with the following procedure:
Just set up your Gmail/Yahoo to forward to your @(carrier).blackberry.net address. In BIS, set up your blackberry.net address with a 'reply-to address' as the same as your Gmail/Yahoo. Works perfect again, true push, and recipients don't know any difference.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Market-beating returns
So while my personal dingy of stocks has been tossed about by the credit hurricane of the past 6 months, one area of the investing community has prodded steadily along, producing market-beating returns - but wait.. you're not about to read about a hedge fund or hot stock pick.
Last night I attended a Microfinance event at the business school and learned quite a bit about that emerging industry. If you haven't heard about it before, check it out on Wikipedia - very cool idea, and philanthropic to boot. We were presented with a detailed and convincing pitch for lending money on a micro-level to entrepreneurs in poor and developing countries. The debt portion of the loans (as opposed to equity) was headlined by an 8% yearly return, and access to capital after one year. If that sentence means nothing to you, consider this: As I write this, the S&P 500 stock index is 12% lower than it was on October 11, about 6 months ago. (I refuse to use the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a metric for our economy on a macro level, but I won't get into that right now). So, if you invested $10,000 in US stocks on October 11, your investment would now be worth only $8,771 - $1,229 less than you started worth. That is not successful investing. But, if you had that same $10,000 and would have invested it in an 8% annual yield bond, your investment would now be worth $10,400 - $400 more than you started with. While not exactly lucrative, $400 is always better than -$1,229.
Now, Microfinance is not without risk. In fact, there is huge risk in lending money to people with whom you have had and will have no face-to-face contact with. In addition, Microfinance institutions tend to lend mostly to women, who often face cultural challenges to making money that could bankrupt them - and leave the lender out to dry. More risks exist, but the point is that while no return is guaranteed, funds such as Gray Ghost aim to manage that risk in a way that gives the investor a steady, dependable return. I talked at length with a director from Gray Ghost last night about this very subject - managing risk - and I believe that can be managed ('hedged' for you finance types) not only through collateralizing and securitization, but also geographically and even by understanding the groups to which one is lending. These are people who are driven to succeed like nobody we have seen before, for one simple reason: if they don't, they don't eat that day.
So, I encourage you to look at Microfinance, if for no other reason than to learn about the generous and caring people that genuinely want their borrowers to succeed. The presenters at the event last night were quite obviously not Wall Street Financiers who were only looking for money. They were people who have spent years overseas, working with local villages and their businesses, and finding places where American money could improve quality of life. I walked away hugely interested in the industry and even considering if I might see what employment opportunities exist.
So, to wrap up, I even made it out of the event with half of a case of free Michelob Ultra, as is tradition around school (alcohol seemed to always be over-provided, which yielded my roommate and I plenty of free booze last year) This post started as an email response to my Aunt who was kind enough to email me last night with a general family update - which I love reading (so send me a note if we haven't talked in awhile!)
MK
Last night I attended a Microfinance event at the business school and learned quite a bit about that emerging industry. If you haven't heard about it before, check it out on Wikipedia - very cool idea, and philanthropic to boot. We were presented with a detailed and convincing pitch for lending money on a micro-level to entrepreneurs in poor and developing countries. The debt portion of the loans (as opposed to equity) was headlined by an 8% yearly return, and access to capital after one year. If that sentence means nothing to you, consider this: As I write this, the S&P 500 stock index is 12% lower than it was on October 11, about 6 months ago. (I refuse to use the Dow Jones Industrial Average as a metric for our economy on a macro level, but I won't get into that right now). So, if you invested $10,000 in US stocks on October 11, your investment would now be worth only $8,771 - $1,229 less than you started worth. That is not successful investing. But, if you had that same $10,000 and would have invested it in an 8% annual yield bond, your investment would now be worth $10,400 - $400 more than you started with. While not exactly lucrative, $400 is always better than -$1,229.
Now, Microfinance is not without risk. In fact, there is huge risk in lending money to people with whom you have had and will have no face-to-face contact with. In addition, Microfinance institutions tend to lend mostly to women, who often face cultural challenges to making money that could bankrupt them - and leave the lender out to dry. More risks exist, but the point is that while no return is guaranteed, funds such as Gray Ghost aim to manage that risk in a way that gives the investor a steady, dependable return. I talked at length with a director from Gray Ghost last night about this very subject - managing risk - and I believe that can be managed ('hedged' for you finance types) not only through collateralizing and securitization, but also geographically and even by understanding the groups to which one is lending. These are people who are driven to succeed like nobody we have seen before, for one simple reason: if they don't, they don't eat that day.
So, I encourage you to look at Microfinance, if for no other reason than to learn about the generous and caring people that genuinely want their borrowers to succeed. The presenters at the event last night were quite obviously not Wall Street Financiers who were only looking for money. They were people who have spent years overseas, working with local villages and their businesses, and finding places where American money could improve quality of life. I walked away hugely interested in the industry and even considering if I might see what employment opportunities exist.
So, to wrap up, I even made it out of the event with half of a case of free Michelob Ultra, as is tradition around school (alcohol seemed to always be over-provided, which yielded my roommate and I plenty of free booze last year) This post started as an email response to my Aunt who was kind enough to email me last night with a general family update - which I love reading (so send me a note if we haven't talked in awhile!)
MK
Monday, April 7, 2008
An unexpected forward
The following is an email that I received last night and thought that posting it here would be a nice 'option 3' per the end. There are some people that would read this and find it cheesy, but I am not one of those people, and think that this sort of story should be a first reference in most decisions throughout one's day.
-----------------
Two Choices
What would you do? You make the choice. Don't look for a punch line, there isn't one. Read it anyway. My question is: Would you have made the same choice?
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.
Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.
All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third! Shay, run to third!'
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!
AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces.
If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the 'natural order of things.' So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.
You now have two choices:
1. Delete
2. Forward
May your day, be a Shay Day.
-------------------
Reading this makes me feel bad about being rude to the State Farm insurance adjuster earlier this morning on the phone.. but that feeling is somewhat mitigated when looking at what I've paid in premiums over the past few years combined with their unwillingness to help me with my current situation. Still, rudeness is almost always not a productive behavior, and reading the above makes me realize its uselessness.
MK
-----------------
Two Choices
What would you do? You make the choice. Don't look for a punch line, there isn't one. Read it anyway. My question is: Would you have made the same choice?
At a fundraising dinner for a school that serves learning-disabled children, the father of one of the students delivered a speech that would never be forgotten by all who attended. After extolling the school and its dedicated staff, he offered a question: 'When not interfered with by outside influences, everything nature does is done with perfection. Yet my son, Shay, cannot learn things as other children do. He cannot understand things as other children do. Where is the natural order of things in my son?'
The audience was stilled by the query.
The father continued. 'I believe that when a child like Shay, physically and mentally handicapped comes into the world, an opportunity to realize true human nature presents itself, and it comes in the way other people treat that child.'
Then he told the following story:
Shay and his father had walked past a park where some boys Shay knew were playing baseball. Shay asked, 'Do you think they'll let me play?' Shay's father knew that most of the boys would not want someone like Shay on their team, but the father also understood that if his son were allowed to play, it would give him a much-needed sense of belonging and some confidence to be accepted by others in spite of his handicaps.
Shay's father approached one of the boys on the field and asked (not expecting much) if Shay could play. The boy looked around for guidance and said, 'We're losing by six runs and the game is in the eighth inning. I guess he can be on our team and we'll try to put him in to bat in the ninth inning.'
Shay struggled over to the team's bench and, with a broad smile, put on a team shirt. His Father watched with a small tear in his eye and warmth in his heart. The boys saw the father's joy at his son being accepted. In the bottom of the eighth inning, Shay's team scored a few runs but was still behind by three. In the top of the ninth inning, Shay put on a glove and played in the right field. Even though no hits came his way, he was obviously ecstatic just to be in the game and on the field, grinning from ear to ear as his father waved to him from the stands. In the bottom of the ninth inning, Shay's team scored again. Now, with two outs and the bases loaded, the potential winning run was on base and Shay was scheduled to be next at bat.
At this juncture, do they let Shay bat and give away their chance to win the game? Surprisingly, Shay was given the bat. Everyone knew that a hit was all but impossible because Shay didn't even know how to hold the bat properly, much less connect with the ball.
However, as Shay stepped up to the plate, the pitcher, recognizing that the other team was putting winning aside for this moment in Shay's life, moved in a few steps to lob the ball in softly so Shay could at least make contact. The first pitch came and Shay swung clumsily and missed. The pitcher again took a few steps forward to toss the ball softly towards Shay. As the pitch came in, Shay swung at the ball and hit a slow ground ball right back to the pitcher.
The game would now be over. The pitcher picked up the soft grounder and could have easily thrown the ball to the first baseman. Shay would have been out and that would have been the end of the game.
Instead, the pitcher threw the ball right over the first baseman's head, out of reach of all team mates. Everyone from the stands and both teams started yelling, 'Shay, run to first! Run to first!' Never in his life had Shay ever run that far, but he made it to first base. He scampered down the baseline, wide-eyed and startled.
Everyone yelled, 'Run to second, run to second!' Catching his breath, Shay awkwardly ran towards second, gleaming and struggling to make it to the base. By the time Shay rounded towards second base, the right fielder had the ball ... the smallest guy on their team who now had his first chance to be the hero for his team. He could have thrown the ball to the second-baseman for the tag, but he understood the pitcher's intentions so he, too, intentionally threw the ball high and far over the third-baseman's head. Shay ran toward third base deliriously as the runners ahead of him circled the bases toward home.
All were screaming, 'Shay, Shay, Shay, all the Way Shay'
Shay reached third base because the opposing shortstop ran to help him by turning him in the direction of third base, and shouted, 'Run to third! Shay, run to third!'
As Shay rounded third, the boys from both teams, and the spectators, were on their feet screaming, 'Shay, run home! Run home!' Shay ran to home, stepped on the plate, and was cheered as the hero who hit the grand slam and won the game for his team.
'That day', said the father softly with tears now rolling down his face, 'the boys from both teams helped bring a piece of true love and humanity into this world'.
Shay didn't make it to another summer. He died that winter, having never forgotten being the hero and making his father so happy, and coming home and seeing his Mother tearfully embrace her little hero of the day!
AND NOW A LITTLE FOOTNOTE TO THIS STORY: We all send thousands of jokes through the e-mail without a second thought, but when it comes to sending messages about life choices, people hesitate. The crude, vulgar, and often obscene pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion about decency is too often suppressed in our schools and workplaces.
If you're thinking about forwarding this message, chances are that you're probably sorting out the people in your address book who aren't the 'appropriate' ones to receive this type of message. Well, the person who sent you this believes that we all can make a difference. We all have thousands of opportunities every single day to help realize the 'natural order of things.' So many seemingly trivial interactions between two people present us with a choice: Do we pass along a little spark of love and humanity or do we pass up those opportunities and leave the world a little bit colder in the process?
A wise man once said every society is judged by how it treats it's least fortunate amongst them.
You now have two choices:
1. Delete
2. Forward
May your day, be a Shay Day.
-------------------
Reading this makes me feel bad about being rude to the State Farm insurance adjuster earlier this morning on the phone.. but that feeling is somewhat mitigated when looking at what I've paid in premiums over the past few years combined with their unwillingness to help me with my current situation. Still, rudeness is almost always not a productive behavior, and reading the above makes me realize its uselessness.
MK
Friday, April 4, 2008
E-Networking
Everything we're taught in business school tries to prepare us for the 'real world' in terms of getting out there, making a good impression, and successfully finding a job that's right for you. In other words, networking. With the massive success of Facebook in the past 4 years, the internet became a new way for people to connect on a social level, giving a channel for people to communicate, share photos, and even meet new people.
Does this type of electronic frivolousness that is so prevalent and enjoyable for high school and college aged people really belong in the professional world? A site called LinkedIn was the first mover (that I encountered) in terms of a 'professional Facebook', if you will. You create an account, update your professional profile (even if still a student) and look to network and make connections. That's fine, I suppose, but I cannot imagine too many professionals that would take time out of a busy day to log in to their LinkedIn account to see that 300 college students had reached out to try and network. One can work through the entire LinkedIn signup process in a matter of minutes, so it really does not take too much effort to network in this way. Rest assured, the one on the receiving end of the E-ReachOut knows this too. They also know that they'll receive phone calls and even people showing up in person to try to network, and they know that those channels take much more effort and initiative.
So, you ask what my point is.
This all was prompted by an email I just got with an invitation to join Doostang.com, sent by one of my friends still at Emory. While her intentions are undoubtedly pure, it made me start thinking about the relationship between electronic communication channels and networking, and I have concluded that there is simply no replacement for a phone call; or even better, a face-to-face meeting.
I do have an account at LinkedIn, but have found it to be a monumental waste of time. When I find someone that I might like to get in touch with, I look a little harder and find that more often than not I could have just found their email address or phone number through their company's website.
Does that mean that one shouldn't even bother with sites such as LinkedIn and Doostang? Well....who am I to tell you what to do. Personally, I won't spend any time signing up for a site with a name that to me sounds like Asian profanity.
MK
Does this type of electronic frivolousness that is so prevalent and enjoyable for high school and college aged people really belong in the professional world? A site called LinkedIn was the first mover (that I encountered) in terms of a 'professional Facebook', if you will. You create an account, update your professional profile (even if still a student) and look to network and make connections. That's fine, I suppose, but I cannot imagine too many professionals that would take time out of a busy day to log in to their LinkedIn account to see that 300 college students had reached out to try and network. One can work through the entire LinkedIn signup process in a matter of minutes, so it really does not take too much effort to network in this way. Rest assured, the one on the receiving end of the E-ReachOut knows this too. They also know that they'll receive phone calls and even people showing up in person to try to network, and they know that those channels take much more effort and initiative.
So, you ask what my point is.
This all was prompted by an email I just got with an invitation to join Doostang.com, sent by one of my friends still at Emory. While her intentions are undoubtedly pure, it made me start thinking about the relationship between electronic communication channels and networking, and I have concluded that there is simply no replacement for a phone call; or even better, a face-to-face meeting.
I do have an account at LinkedIn, but have found it to be a monumental waste of time. When I find someone that I might like to get in touch with, I look a little harder and find that more often than not I could have just found their email address or phone number through their company's website.
Does that mean that one shouldn't even bother with sites such as LinkedIn and Doostang? Well....who am I to tell you what to do. Personally, I won't spend any time signing up for a site with a name that to me sounds like Asian profanity.
MK
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Hope For America lives on
While Ron Paul may be out of the race for Presidency to ensure he keeps his Texas House seat, former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr is considering presidential candidacy. Barr would have the official support of Dr. Paul, which has prompted me to look into this Barr character a little deeper. Initial indications are that if Ron Paul is a fan, I too would be a fan.
MK
MK
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Google: the best at everything?
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Public Service Announcement
On interstate highways (all roads, really, but the problem and its effects are most amplified on interstate highways):
The Left Lane is for Passing
If you are in the leftmost lane (HOV lanes do not count as leftmost here), you had better be passing or planning on passing somebody. Put another way, if you are in the left lane, and there are no cars to your immediate- and forward-right (that's starboard for you sailors), you should not be in the left lane, and instead should move over into that right lane.
Put another way, your default lane choice on the interstate should be a lane other than the leftmost lane. That way, if you need to pass somebody, you can change lanes to the left and complete the pass.
Put yet another way, by defaulting to a non-leftmost lane, you leave the left lane open for idiots like myself to travel at a.... 'reasonable and prudent' (as Montana would put it)...speed when running a bit late for work.
Thanks for listening to this public service announcement.
MK
The Left Lane is for Passing
If you are in the leftmost lane (HOV lanes do not count as leftmost here), you had better be passing or planning on passing somebody. Put another way, if you are in the left lane, and there are no cars to your immediate- and forward-right (that's starboard for you sailors), you should not be in the left lane, and instead should move over into that right lane.
Put another way, your default lane choice on the interstate should be a lane other than the leftmost lane. That way, if you need to pass somebody, you can change lanes to the left and complete the pass.
Put yet another way, by defaulting to a non-leftmost lane, you leave the left lane open for idiots like myself to travel at a.... 'reasonable and prudent' (as Montana would put it)...speed when running a bit late for work.
Thanks for listening to this public service announcement.
MK
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Stepping back into politics
Read a couple articles on NPR's Economy RSS feed provided graciously by Viigo on my Blackberry (how's that for free marketing), and was struck at the good old fashioned juxtaposition of Hillary and John McCain. Here are the articles:
McCain Opposed to Housing Bailout
Clinton Calls for More Aid for Struggling Homeowners
It's a beautiful thing, directly opposing viewpoints. I only wish the election could be boiled down to this single point - McCain would be the easy choice for me. While Hillary's stance has been cheered by Wall Street, it is a fundamentally poor choice for two reasons:
It rewards the irresponsible lending and subsequent home-buying practices that took place over the past decade
It takes the risk of toxic mortgage investment products that are currently held by the investment banks who were predatory enough to create them, and places it in the hands of the federal government. What happened to Bear Stearns 2 weeks ago? Well, let's just put that scenario on the US Treasury's balance sheet. Good idea.
In other news, I went OCD on the wires under my desk today, due to the fact that I kicked my power supply off twice in two days. My spastic leg muscles will be a bain to my electricity supply no longer:
MK
McCain Opposed to Housing Bailout
Clinton Calls for More Aid for Struggling Homeowners
It's a beautiful thing, directly opposing viewpoints. I only wish the election could be boiled down to this single point - McCain would be the easy choice for me. While Hillary's stance has been cheered by Wall Street, it is a fundamentally poor choice for two reasons:
It rewards the irresponsible lending and subsequent home-buying practices that took place over the past decade
It takes the risk of toxic mortgage investment products that are currently held by the investment banks who were predatory enough to create them, and places it in the hands of the federal government. What happened to Bear Stearns 2 weeks ago? Well, let's just put that scenario on the US Treasury's balance sheet. Good idea.
In other news, I went OCD on the wires under my desk today, due to the fact that I kicked my power supply off twice in two days. My spastic leg muscles will be a bain to my electricity supply no longer:
MK
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Nobody better lay a finger...
I just bought a Butterfinger from the vending machine here. It tastes incredible... you know how long it's been since I've had one of these bad boys? Neither do I.. but this is damn good
MK
MK