About six weeks ago, a friend of mine and his family was flying to Europe. As he neared the airport he had a horrible sinking feeling as he realized his wallet and passport was at home. He dropped of the wife and two kids and headed home. He knew he was going to miss the flight but arranged for the airline to get him on the next flight with the hope of connecting with his family at the airport from which they would go to Europe. He got on the next flight, but it would only give him less than fifteen minutes to make his connection, which he did make thanks to airline attendants and passengers who allowed him to be the first off.
Tuesday I had a flight to Atlanta. I grabbed my luggage and kissed Evie goodbye. As she is pulling out I reached for my wallet….and the sinking feeling hit. I immediately called Evie…her cell was off. My initial thought was to get a cab, go home get the wallet….but Evie was driving my car and had my house keys. I called Jonathan and left a message for him to call me when he got off work (he does a split shift) and I called Evie’s work left a message for her to call me when she got to the office.
When Evie received the message that I had an emergency, she knew what happened. She drove home, got my wallet and got back to the airport 8 minutes after my flight left. After paying $50 a change of flight fee, I caught the flight an hour later (fortunately there is flight to Atlanta every hour) and made my meeting with 5 minutes to spare.
Will I forget my wallet again….not likely. I am sure that every time I am walking out the door, whoever in the family is driving me to the airport will ask as I walk out the door for me to do a wallet check.
Reflective Wanderings - Reflections on various topics that arise out of my personal, life and professional experiences. There are also are some family related news, travels and pictures.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Talent Searches
I am not a big fan of American Idol and other such talent searches. Too often individuals are encouraged by friends and family to try out even when they have no talent. For the public show and to the person's humiliation the "talent scouts" often put forward individuals onto the national stage who at the regional contests clearly lacked talent. If the show started with the best, I would likely watch but the mingling in of individuals who lack talent, and even advancing a few marginal individuals to the second round keeps me from watching. I know friends and family who like the show, but for me I cannot enjoy it.
That said, you really need to watch this show from Great Britain's version of American Idol. Simon Cowell was one of the judges. As you see this lady, Susan Boyle, before she performs, what do you think Simon, and the other judges are going to do to this lady? What do you think the audience would think about her? Simon's reaction as well as the other judges becomes evident in short order. Our understanding of perception and reality is challenged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnmbJzH93NU
That said, you really need to watch this show from Great Britain's version of American Idol. Simon Cowell was one of the judges. As you see this lady, Susan Boyle, before she performs, what do you think Simon, and the other judges are going to do to this lady? What do you think the audience would think about her? Simon's reaction as well as the other judges becomes evident in short order. Our understanding of perception and reality is challenged.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnmbJzH93NU
Monday, April 13, 2009
Waning of the Church?
This past weekend while in Leola visiting Evie’s mother I read in Newsweek an article stating that the percentage of Americans identifying themselves as Christians has decreased from 86% to 76% since 1990. That 10 point decline is nearly a 12% in an eighteen year period, or about .6% per year.
The decrease is not a result of immigration from the Far East of Islamic countries as the influx of Roman Catholics from Central America has been at a much higher rate. The Latino population is strongly church focused. What would have been the decrease if the Latino immigrants were not included in the calculation? The study has not examined that factor, but it does not take much to realize that the decrease is much more significant if one took out the Latinos population which has boomed in the last two decades. It may well be that decrease could be another 2 points lower.
The number of people who are not affiliated with any faith tradition has grown from about 8% to 16% of the population. Any observer of church attendance should not be surprised by the decline. As noted in prior blogs, church attendance has been declining, particularly in the mainline churches. The evangelical churches, particularly the Pentecostal and Southern Baptists streams, have not evidenced the same decrease but even there a close examination reveals that much of their new membership is drawn from people who have left the mainline churches. The demographics of the evangelical churches are also changing in that the ratio of the younger membership between the ages of 18 and 30 has been in decline.
The article notes that church attendance has not increased as anticipated during the economic crisis.
It is interesting that the decline has taken place during a period where the Moral Majority and the Christian Right has had a greater influence is American political life than it has ever had. The decline has also taken place during a period where the nation has had its most strident evangelical Christian.
The church is still a major factor in shaping society, but its influence upon the society as a whole is waning.
The decrease is not a result of immigration from the Far East of Islamic countries as the influx of Roman Catholics from Central America has been at a much higher rate. The Latino population is strongly church focused. What would have been the decrease if the Latino immigrants were not included in the calculation? The study has not examined that factor, but it does not take much to realize that the decrease is much more significant if one took out the Latinos population which has boomed in the last two decades. It may well be that decrease could be another 2 points lower.
The number of people who are not affiliated with any faith tradition has grown from about 8% to 16% of the population. Any observer of church attendance should not be surprised by the decline. As noted in prior blogs, church attendance has been declining, particularly in the mainline churches. The evangelical churches, particularly the Pentecostal and Southern Baptists streams, have not evidenced the same decrease but even there a close examination reveals that much of their new membership is drawn from people who have left the mainline churches. The demographics of the evangelical churches are also changing in that the ratio of the younger membership between the ages of 18 and 30 has been in decline.
The article notes that church attendance has not increased as anticipated during the economic crisis.
It is interesting that the decline has taken place during a period where the Moral Majority and the Christian Right has had a greater influence is American political life than it has ever had. The decline has also taken place during a period where the nation has had its most strident evangelical Christian.
The church is still a major factor in shaping society, but its influence upon the society as a whole is waning.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Roots of Financial Crisis
The other day a talk radio host state that the economic crisis was solely the blame of the Democrats and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. I will wade into the matter by noting the argument starts blaming Clinton for changing the lending rules to make it possible for more loans to be made to low income families and in marginal communities. The argument continues that Fannie and Freddie “forced” the banks to make hundreds of thousands of bad loans to these people who in the past they banks would have disqualified. The implication is that the banks were “forced” to make these loans and these loans going unpaid are at the heart of the financial crisis.
No bank was forced or required to make loans they it did not want to make. The changes allowed banks to modify their policy. Thousands of banks and credit unions, primarily small local or regional banks, never made these loans. They felt uncomfortable about increasing their risk. Many other banks made the loans sparingly and thoughtfully as a way to help more people to become homeowners. Coupled with subprime loans a large number of regional and national banks strongly promoted the loans. The choice was the banks’. Some did not take the risk whereas others recklessly issued as many loans as possible.
Second, Fannie and Freddie are purchasers of the loans from the banks. They did not make the loans. Banks issued loans that Fannie and Freddie would purchase from the banks via prescribed terms. It was the banks who skewed the process when they did not verify the income information was correct (or in some cases noted to the borrower that the bank was trusting the income was correct…thereby hinting they were not verifying the information on the forms). The banks pushed on a good number of marginal loans to Fannie and Freddie for which the bank had not done due diligence.
Third, the bulk of “troubled” loans are loans that the banks were making before the changes and had more to do with the banks decisions the subprime loans that the changes signed into law by Clinton.
Fourth, the argument should not be accepted a face value. It is clearly an oversimplification and put forward by political operatives with a political agenda of seeing their party as noble and the other as ignoble. What is not articulated in the argument against Clinton is that it was a Republican Congress that promoted, pushed through the changes, and prevailed upon Clinton to sign them into law.
Fifth, we should keep a balanced view by remembering that there are multiple causes that flowed together. Fannie and Freddie are factors, but there are many more significant causes than Fannie and Freddie changing their policies and purchasing a large number of subprime loans. Amongst those factors are:
- The defining of swaps as being investment vehicles rather than defining them as insurance vehicles (swaps regardless of the title they were given were insurance vehicles). The change was pushed through a Republican Congress so as to avoid the higher cash reserve requirements required to back-up insurance vehicles. The prime advocates, including the authors of the bill allowing the change, were Republicans. Various Democrats too supported the change.
- Subprime loans. These loans eliminated the requirement to have a down-payment to secure a mortgage. Subprime loans were based upon the assumption that prices of homes would keep going up.
- The false assumption that housing prices will keep increasingly and the real estate/mortgage industry encouraging potential home buyers do buy now/upgrade now or they will not be able to afford to buy it later.
- Eliminating various regulations that allowed banks to merge and to have investment arms that in some cases engaged in questionable investment practices.
- The rosy view by the Fed Chair and Congressional leadership of financial executives. They held that they executives would never do anything to put their firms at risk. Yah, right.
- Overheated housing market driving prices increasingly higher. Demand being higher than supply of modest priced homes pushed prices higher.
No bank was forced or required to make loans they it did not want to make. The changes allowed banks to modify their policy. Thousands of banks and credit unions, primarily small local or regional banks, never made these loans. They felt uncomfortable about increasing their risk. Many other banks made the loans sparingly and thoughtfully as a way to help more people to become homeowners. Coupled with subprime loans a large number of regional and national banks strongly promoted the loans. The choice was the banks’. Some did not take the risk whereas others recklessly issued as many loans as possible.
Second, Fannie and Freddie are purchasers of the loans from the banks. They did not make the loans. Banks issued loans that Fannie and Freddie would purchase from the banks via prescribed terms. It was the banks who skewed the process when they did not verify the income information was correct (or in some cases noted to the borrower that the bank was trusting the income was correct…thereby hinting they were not verifying the information on the forms). The banks pushed on a good number of marginal loans to Fannie and Freddie for which the bank had not done due diligence.
Third, the bulk of “troubled” loans are loans that the banks were making before the changes and had more to do with the banks decisions the subprime loans that the changes signed into law by Clinton.
Fourth, the argument should not be accepted a face value. It is clearly an oversimplification and put forward by political operatives with a political agenda of seeing their party as noble and the other as ignoble. What is not articulated in the argument against Clinton is that it was a Republican Congress that promoted, pushed through the changes, and prevailed upon Clinton to sign them into law.
Fifth, we should keep a balanced view by remembering that there are multiple causes that flowed together. Fannie and Freddie are factors, but there are many more significant causes than Fannie and Freddie changing their policies and purchasing a large number of subprime loans. Amongst those factors are:
- The defining of swaps as being investment vehicles rather than defining them as insurance vehicles (swaps regardless of the title they were given were insurance vehicles). The change was pushed through a Republican Congress so as to avoid the higher cash reserve requirements required to back-up insurance vehicles. The prime advocates, including the authors of the bill allowing the change, were Republicans. Various Democrats too supported the change.
- Subprime loans. These loans eliminated the requirement to have a down-payment to secure a mortgage. Subprime loans were based upon the assumption that prices of homes would keep going up.
- The false assumption that housing prices will keep increasingly and the real estate/mortgage industry encouraging potential home buyers do buy now/upgrade now or they will not be able to afford to buy it later.
- Eliminating various regulations that allowed banks to merge and to have investment arms that in some cases engaged in questionable investment practices.
- The rosy view by the Fed Chair and Congressional leadership of financial executives. They held that they executives would never do anything to put their firms at risk. Yah, right.
- Overheated housing market driving prices increasingly higher. Demand being higher than supply of modest priced homes pushed prices higher.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
NHL Rule Change Needed
This NHL season I have noticed again and again players who collide with a goaltender being given a penalty. Goalies need to be protected from players charging through the crease…I have no problem with rules to protect them. That said the current rule as framed and interpreted by referees needs to be examined. There are players who are being penalized for goalie interference who are should not be so penalized.
Last night during the Washington Capitals-Buffalo Sabers game during a scramble in front of the net a Caps defensemen literally body checked a Sabers’ winger into the Caps goalie. Seconds later, the Sabers scored but it was waived off for goaltender interference and the Sabers’ winger given a penalty. Later in the game, a Caps player is cutting in with the puck along an arch from the faceoff circle on the goalie’s right. As he shoots the puck, the Sabers’s defenseman rides the winger out and then body checks him upending him into the goalie. The Caps player was penalized for goaltender interference.
What gives with penalizing an offensive player who has been manhandled by a defensive player into the goaltender? The only way that an offensive player can avoid such penalties is to stay at least five feet away from the crease. Such an expectation is outrageous and the rule needs to be changed. If the defensive player is responsible for the propelling an offensive player into the goaltender, not only should the player be not penalized but the defensive team takes the consequences of their action. In the Caps game the Buffalo goal should have stood. Yes the goalie was knocked to the other side of the crease by the body of the Buffalo player, but it was the Cap player who drove him with a hard body check into the Caps goalie.
By nullifying goals and penalizing offensive players, defensive players are free to ride and body check offensive players into the goaltenders. Again, the rule must be changed.
Last night during the Washington Capitals-Buffalo Sabers game during a scramble in front of the net a Caps defensemen literally body checked a Sabers’ winger into the Caps goalie. Seconds later, the Sabers scored but it was waived off for goaltender interference and the Sabers’ winger given a penalty. Later in the game, a Caps player is cutting in with the puck along an arch from the faceoff circle on the goalie’s right. As he shoots the puck, the Sabers’s defenseman rides the winger out and then body checks him upending him into the goalie. The Caps player was penalized for goaltender interference.
What gives with penalizing an offensive player who has been manhandled by a defensive player into the goaltender? The only way that an offensive player can avoid such penalties is to stay at least five feet away from the crease. Such an expectation is outrageous and the rule needs to be changed. If the defensive player is responsible for the propelling an offensive player into the goaltender, not only should the player be not penalized but the defensive team takes the consequences of their action. In the Caps game the Buffalo goal should have stood. Yes the goalie was knocked to the other side of the crease by the body of the Buffalo player, but it was the Cap player who drove him with a hard body check into the Caps goalie.
By nullifying goals and penalizing offensive players, defensive players are free to ride and body check offensive players into the goaltenders. Again, the rule must be changed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)