a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life
You are here
Creativity!
Get it!
I like it!
Fun stuff!
About me...
Random Quote
When I went to school, I knew poetry was not a dead thing. I knew it was always written by the living, even though the dateline said the man was dead. -- Stephen Vincent Benet
"We've got to get our fiscal house in order here in Washington. I'm not sure it's going to happen under the current leadership."
Who said that? Barack Obama in 2006. The national debt is over $4 trillion higher since that time, and $3.7 trillion of that during Obama's term in office.
Holy smokes, but did Sarah Jarosz catch me by surprise. I downloaded both of her albums from Amazon, and there's a deep sophistication in her bluegrass-tinged music that you wouldn't think you'd get from such a young woman - except that she's been playing since she was two.
Yumm... that music gets me in my soul. Watch how she moves with the music: after the introduction, she is curled up in that song and in a different place and time. The audience is almost irrelevant for where she's at within her own music.
I both love and hate the depth of this software! I love it because it's fantastic and can do just about everything. I hate it because it keeps surprising me so I'll think "I'm almost done w/this section" then one link opens another whole Pandora's box of functionality.
This comes while he is testing the request component and after I introduced him to the beginnings of the fundraising module.
I loaded three years of fundraising data in for one of the organizations that use 247Toolset, and while there is a lot that remains to be done, they chose 247Toolset over other fundraising software - as did another organization that's very big here in the state of Iowa. Both did so on the strength of what was there, and before they even saw the fundraising suite.
Jonathan and I finished setting up the ability to text donations to a 247Toolset portal, and I was able to show that in a demo the other day. The woman who sat through the demo kept saying, "This seems too good to be true." That's a good thing to hear in a demo.
So it's all good news. I just keep driving value into my product. And one of these days, I'll actually finish the time zone management feature...
ETC: Sold two golf courses on it today. They want to use the Text Words function, which allows the administrator to create their own special words for use with text messages. They plan to use it for discounts and coupons, plus I'll be building in a special "check-in" feature for use with it, which will allow them to mass text message the golfers on the course in case of an emergency.
I tell my children all the time: "You are only as free as you are independent."
But what is independence? I'll start by telling you what it isn't: it's not a life lived alone.
All of us rely upon one another. I rely on my client to pay me. My client relies on me to do the work required of me. I rely on my grocer to stock the shelves. My grocer relies on me to purchase groceries.
I choose these relationships of my own free will.
I am not dependent upon my client; I am dependent upon my willingness to search out work and excel at it. If at some point I don't like my client or vice versa, either one of us can terminate the relationship and search out an alternative.
Ditto for buying groceries.
Independence requires alternatives as much as it requires choice. If there is only one grocer in town, then everyone in town is dependent on the grocer, whether the grocer is horrible or not. But once a second grocer opens for business, dependency stops and choice enters the picture.
This is why such notions as "single payer" for health care are anti-American. They allow no alternative, therefore there is no independence, and therefore no freedom.
This is also why a thriving competitive marketplace is the very essence of a free society, and why capitalism is the only moral basis for an economy. At the heart of it all is choice and freedom and independence.
Anytime that society allows the prevention of competition, it stifles the freedom for someone to create a business. This is why regulation can be immoral, and why it is used by some companies as means to limit the playing field.
Too many people have bought into the meme that competition-stifling, non-transparent corporations represent capitalism. They don't. Generally, these companies are in bed with the government itself, using regulation and zoning and other government constructs to create hurdles before would-be competition.
Consider sport, which is only as healthy and exciting as the competition is robust. Americans should crave "single payer" and other non-competitive solutions as much as they should crave a single-team National Football League. Who would be a fan of the singular team? Who would attend? Who would care? While I am sure there are those would relish the idea that no injuries can occur when there is no opposition, football would wither and die - just as commerce withers and dies when government fosters non-competition.
Competition allows for choice, and individual choice is at the heart of independence. When people are free to choose for themselves, they are independent.
On this Independence Day, celebrate competition - and crave freedom.
"We can't simply cut our way to prosperity," Obama said. "We need to do what's necessary to grow our economy; create good, middle-class jobs; and make it possible for all Americans to pursue their dreams."
He's more wrong than he knows.
While he advocates that cutting alone is no way to prosperity, we also can't simply spend our way to prosperity, and unfortunately for Tim Geithner, the super genius who was the only guy who could help our economy, as treasury secretary he saw the greatest increase in national debt ever.
Way to go, Tim. And way to go, Mr. President, for your, um, exceptional hiring prowess.
But back to the topic...
If we want more money, there are only two ways to achieve that:
Increase income.
Decrease expenses.
You can't become prosperous by spending more than ever you've ever spent. You'd think that was a no-brainer, but I guess they don't teach that math at Harvard.
It's much harder to increase your income than to cut your spending. Why? Because you have more control over what you spend than what you earn. Spending is your decision alone. Income requires at least the cooperation of one other person who is willing and able to pay you.
Therefore, the fastest way to become prosperous is to reduce your expenses. It's certainly better for you if you can increase your income at the same time, but not always in your control.
The government only makes money one way - by taking it from people. But you can't raise taxes to grow tax revenue. Why? Ours is an income tax. When you reduce a person's net income (via increased taxation), you reduce their ability to spend - and it's their spending that provides income to others. Less income means less income taxes collected. Whenever the government acts in a way that reduces individual or corporate net income, the economy suffers, and so do tax revenues.
Cutting taxes increases tax revenue, because people have more to spend and thereby provide more income to others, which increases tax revenue. The Congressional Budget Office showed that the Bush tax cuts improved tax revenue.
But Obama wants to do the worst of everything: he wants to raise taxes and he wants to continue spending at record levels.
Can you cut your way to prosperity? Yes. Cut taxes and cut spending and you can absolutely cut your way to prosperity.
ETC: I know some great places to cut...
Golf, flights, fundraisers, vacations... all of those could be greatly reduced, and maybe some actual work on the budget would be good.
But I guess that requires math, and math doesn't come easy at Harvard.
I'd help him figure this out, but it would be like, well... talking freedom to a communist.
Brutally honest, Bernanke admitted that he had no clue what was actually causing the current fragility in the U.S. economic recovery. While the FOMC statement assigned blame outside of the U.S., pointing at Japan along with rising food and oil prices, Bernanke was put on the spot by a reporter who noted the inconsistency behind that explanation and a lowering of long term forecasts. Bernanke took the hit, admitting only some of the factors were temporary and that he didn't know exactly what was causing the slowdown, but that it would persist. "Growth," said Bernanke, "will return into 2012."
I agree with his forecast. After Obama and his blundering policies are voted out of office, I expect a resounding 4th quarter rebound. But I imagine Bernanke is clueless as well about exactly why 2012 will bring growth.
As the Republicans test the presidential candidates running for nomination, there's a lot of talk about who can win.
Just to set it straight...
All this moderate / bi-partisan talk is utter crap. The President of the United States is a position of leadership. Leaders make decisions. They confidently blaze trails and everyone follows - if it looks like they're heading in the right direction.
Moderates, by definition, don't lead. They don't take positions decisively. They're rather renowned for not deciding and for waiting until the last minute to make a decision, and then usually half-heartedly.
The next Republican nominee needs to project confident leadership. Given the vast ideological difference between the two parties, being "bi-partisan" just means that you have no principles and that you haven't actually thought through where you stand on issues. Or it means that you want everyone to like you - which means you have no spine. That's not leadership.
Confidence attracts. Solidity of character attracts. Well-articulated leadership attracts. Proven principles that lead to success - they're attractive. Which is how to attract voters.
Not being able to make up your mind? Not attractive. Wanting everyone to like you? Not attractive.
As for any liberal who insists that bi-partisanship is critical, I'll ask them how much they spoke out against the Super Genius when he famously uttered, "I won."
There is no compromise to be made when national bankruptcy looms.
I don't write much about my personal life here - you don't hear about my daily interactions with my family - although occasionally I intersperse my content here with things going on in my personal life. But I'm making an exception in this case, and this is mostly about my relationship with Tamara's daughter, Tess.
I got a card from Tess yesterday. In it, she doesn't call me stepdad... she calls me Dad, and in it she tells me how important our relationship is in her life.
I met Tess almost from the beginning of my relationship with Tamara - about five years ago. A beautiful girl, both inside and out, who is, like her two brothers, a bit tortured by the crazy-making behavior of her father. He's not a reasonable man, and using yesterday as an example, he used his phone call with her on Father's Day to berate her about some trivial matter and made her cry.
In short, he's a selfish jerk, and regrettably, he's a selfish jerk repeatedly.
Fatherhood is many things. A dad is protector, guide, provider, sea-calmer, wife-adorer, etc. The role of "Dad" is chiefly about about lovingly being near your kids and helping them become the best adult they can become. Sometimes, you have to grab their attention to help them prevent hurt to themselves or to others... but you never leave them sitting alone wondering if they're okay with you.
It's a privilege to know my kids. I let them know that often. My family is my favorite people. I tell my children that I love being their dad and that I'm glad they're mine. Sometimes I have to tell them difficult things. Sometimes I have to let them skin their knees in life because only life is able to teach them the lesson that they need to learn. Hard to watch when that happens - even though it's necessary for that growth that they need - but they know how much I love them.
It bothers me that the selfish jerk who is her father doesn't think twice about hurting her and her brothers. I want to stand between him and them and keep them safe. I can't, so the best I can do is let them know that for me, as a man, I adore them and love them. I treat them as though I have always been their father. The function is always more important than the title. But when you earn the title, it's awfully special.
Reading Tess' card yesterday was a powerful moment for me. And I'll tell ya - it's a privilege to be her dad.
The prize for dumbest foot-in-the-mouth moment of the decade has found a strong contender in Barack Obama's commentary on ATMs and jobs. You watch the video at the link and see him in his own words.
That right there is the man that the majority of Americans entrusted in 2008 to enact job-creating policy.
As a refresher, from me the guy who didn't graduate from college, here's how the economy works:
A person decides to create or offer something that is attractive to others
He markets the product or service, taking a risk in fashioning what's offered and its marketing, with no guarantee of reward
People, once aware of it, decide whether or not to purchase it with their hard-earned money
As people are attracted to it and purchase it, they increase the velocity of money around the entrepreneur, thus enabling his acquired wisdom about product creation to be applied in other pursuits
FYI, Mr. President - people are attracted to ATMs, not to bank lobbies - otherwise ATMs would not be frequented as they are. Why? Convenience, speed. It was an improvement on the bank lobby.
Further, how many purchases take place because people have quick and easy access to cash through the ATM? Without that convenience and ease, those purchases don't take place.
Harvard education as an achievement is utterly unremarkable. If this is the intellectual product of Harvard, then the curriculum is handicapping its students. A basic understanding of the economy ought to be evidenced in Harvard graduates - but alas, it is not to be. Instead, abject embarrassment.
