One of the greatest responsibilities speakers and writers have is to keep it short. Words and the attention of the audience are sacred things.
This doesn't mean a lecture, speech, book, article, blog post, interview answer has to be short. One of the greatest lectures I ever sat through was two hours long, with maybe five or six picture slides in the days before PowerPoint, and it left the entire audience wanting more. The speaker respected his subject and his audience while also being confident enough in his material and himself that he didn't find it necessary to use fifty words to make a particular point when ten or twenty would do the trick.
The author/speaker is there to convey a story or information, not to attempt to impress.
I thought of this today as I heard a story this morning about John Kerry, Russia and the Ukraine on NPR's Morning Edition.
Regarding Russia's stance viz the Ukraine, Kerry had this to say:
"We will look to Russia for the choices that it makes in the next days for their confirmation of these statements. Statements are statements, words are words; we have all learned that it's actions and the follow-on choices that make the greatest difference."
I am going to concentrate on the highlighted sentence. The story played the tape of Mr. Kerry's remarks and the transcript is true to his words; there are no scrivener's errors. The second clause is an affront to the English language and syntactically appalling. But the major offense is that Kerry takes twenty-three words to say:
"Actions speak louder than words."
Five words. Nice. Pithy. Apropos. It conveys the exact same message without assaulting one's ears.
He could have stretched it a bit, gone biblical and said "You will know them by their fruits." Seven words, but this would still get the message through in 1/3d the words and perhaps even challenged the listener (but in a good way).
Twenty-three words to take a simple message and make it almost incomprehensible.
Kerry isn't the only politician afflicted with maddening logorrhea, nor is this limited to liberals or Democrats. It is entirely too symptomatic of people who either don't know what they are saying or attempting to appear more thoughtful that they really are or perhaps are capable of being.
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Events. Show all posts
28 February 2014
15 February 2011
Government and Home Ownership
I am reading Meltdown by Thomas Woods, an economist of the Austrian school. It is his take on the housing crisis. I am sympathetic to his line of argument.
By chance, I happened upon this piece by David Coates (professor of something called Anglo-American studies at Wake Forest) at the Huffington Post.
Mr. Coates uses the recently published ("long awaited") Treasury Department report on reforming America's housing finance market to lambaste both republicans for having the chutzpah to disagree with the reports main finding (that more rigorous regulations and enforcement are needed in the market) and also the Obama administration for doing nothing to, well, further interfere in the market.
Mr. Coates gives short shrift to the notion that agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and government policies had much to do with causing the "crisis." Apparently the report does so as well, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Perhaps these intervention exacerbated the situation, but the government certainly didn't cause anything.
Let's go over a few points:
- The Federal Reserve...as pointed out in this editorial in the Wall Street Journal, written as President W was leaving office, the Federal Reserve kept interest rates too low for too long. The created distortions in the market place, signaling to investors that money should be spent on long-range capital investments. Interest rates, when allowed to operate according to market rules, will be lower as more people save money. This increases the market for loanable funds. People are saving for future consumption. Lower interest rates tell industry that since people are saving for future consumption, they should borrow cheaper money to invest in longer-range investments to be able to provide more goods and services in the future.
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...forget, for a moment, collateralized debt obligations, credit-default swaps and "carving up mortgages" you may have heard about. The federal government set up ostensibly private institutions whose sole purpose was to purchase mortgage "debt" from banks in order to free up more money to lend. The age-old accounting equation states that assets must equal liabilities plus owner equity. So mortgages are not debt or liabilities to banks. They are assets. But so is cash. So the banks "trade" one asset for another with these GSEs, "freeing up" more money to lend. A simple supply and demand curve will show that the best way to drive the price of something up is to increase the amount of buyers out there. Buying the mortgages from banks with the explicit goal (mandate) of getting them to lend more money to more people to buy houses pushes up, artificially, the price of houses.
Now things are a bit more complicated than this and I'm certainly not saying that banks have no responsibility in the matter. But as one wag put it, blaming the crisis on greed is like blaming gravity for a plane crash. Too many people were given too much money to buy too many houses. Short- and long-term investment strategies were jumbled up with mixed messages from the deus ex machina of the federal government, spiced up with a dash of moral hazard, because everyone except elected officials and the talking heads at CNBC seemed to know that if (when) the poop hit the oscillator, the government was going to come in and pay the bad actors off.
So it boils down to this: where did the money come from? Bank of America can't print money. Washington Mutual had no control over where interest rates were set. No bank can force another bank to hold a note to free up more cash.
Sorry, Mr. Coates. Federal government policies were responsible for the genesis of the crisis. And as someone who works in the mortgage/real estate business, I can assure you or anyone else there is no problem from lack of regulation. The problem is that there are far too many. Too many, in fact, to make any kind of responsible enforcement completely impractical. Never mind the sticky issues of no regulators going into any of the big banks in certain congressional or senate bishoprics and ruffling any potential donors' feathers (calling Mr. Dodd, Mr. Chris Dodd!).
Stick to "Anglo-American studies," because you don't know jack about markets.
08 November 2010
NBC, Not a Political Operation
Keith Olbermann gets suspended for contributing to Democratic candidates. Yes, shocking.
It appears as though the brass wants to mantain an image of impartiality (seriously) and avoid the possible implication that guests show up in return for contributions either from the hosts or from the viewers.
After Captain Melodrama got suspended, his right-hand man, Rachel Maddow leaps to his defense. First, she pulls the moral equivalency card (while denying that she's doing just that) saying that the hosts at Fox do the same thing. Fine. But Fox, apparently, doesn't have the same policy as MSNBC. If you get fired from Burger King for violating some rule, you can't raise the defense that McDonald's doesn't have that regulation.
Anyway, she rests the thrust of her argument on the premise that Fox is a political operation and that NBC, and by proxy MSNBC, are (sniff) News organizations and therefore don't muddy themselves in such nastiness like helping particular candidates get elected. They are in search for the Truth.
Or, they are exactly like Fox news...
except Fox news doesn't pretend to be anything else (aside from that "Fair and Balanced" tagline bullshit).
Olbermann should not have been suspended. MSNBC is in the tank for the Democrats and are about as interested in objective analysis of current events as my wife is in hearing me talk about Austrian economics. But His Man Friday still pulling this line that MSNBC, or even NBC for that matter, is a home of detached, sober, reasonable objectivity is embarrassing.
UPDATE:
I saw this during the election returns and thought I imagined it. It comes right after Chris Matthews interviews Michele Bachman (you see, I was nodding off after flipping around at this point...there is no way I would willingly watch one idiot pretend to interview another). The absolute best part about this, especially in light of what happened with Olbermann and the defense of him by Maddow. At 4:12 of the below video Maddow says:
"With that sign, what they're trying to say MSNBC is in the tank, and NBC, is in the tank for Obama."
Yes, you are. Admit it. Honesty is the best policy and it will feel better. Or don't. But don't take umbrage or feign consternation when it is pointed out.
It appears as though the brass wants to mantain an image of impartiality (seriously) and avoid the possible implication that guests show up in return for contributions either from the hosts or from the viewers.
After Captain Melodrama got suspended, his right-hand man, Rachel Maddow leaps to his defense. First, she pulls the moral equivalency card (while denying that she's doing just that) saying that the hosts at Fox do the same thing. Fine. But Fox, apparently, doesn't have the same policy as MSNBC. If you get fired from Burger King for violating some rule, you can't raise the defense that McDonald's doesn't have that regulation.
Anyway, she rests the thrust of her argument on the premise that Fox is a political operation and that NBC, and by proxy MSNBC, are (sniff) News organizations and therefore don't muddy themselves in such nastiness like helping particular candidates get elected. They are in search for the Truth.
Or, they are exactly like Fox news...
except Fox news doesn't pretend to be anything else (aside from that "Fair and Balanced" tagline bullshit).
Olbermann should not have been suspended. MSNBC is in the tank for the Democrats and are about as interested in objective analysis of current events as my wife is in hearing me talk about Austrian economics. But His Man Friday still pulling this line that MSNBC, or even NBC for that matter, is a home of detached, sober, reasonable objectivity is embarrassing.
UPDATE:
I saw this during the election returns and thought I imagined it. It comes right after Chris Matthews interviews Michele Bachman (you see, I was nodding off after flipping around at this point...there is no way I would willingly watch one idiot pretend to interview another). The absolute best part about this, especially in light of what happened with Olbermann and the defense of him by Maddow. At 4:12 of the below video Maddow says:
"With that sign, what they're trying to say MSNBC is in the tank, and NBC, is in the tank for Obama."
Yes, you are. Admit it. Honesty is the best policy and it will feel better. Or don't. But don't take umbrage or feign consternation when it is pointed out.
28 November 2008
Because it is Important Information to Relay
28 November 2008
Uganda's police warned male bar-goers to keep their noses clean after a probe found a gang of robbers had been using women with chloroform smeared on their chests to knock their victims unconscious.(AFP/File)
This is an actual news story and this was the picture that accompanied it. I am posting this as a public service to the faithful followers of Sean.E.Boy.
You're welcome.
19 November 2008
Gay Marriage
Since the debate over whether gays & lesbians have a "right" to marriage started brewing several years ago, my thoughts on the matter took time to coalesce. But coalesce they did and here's what I came up with:
Marriage is a legal arrangement between parties that have attendant legal rights; the ability to take title to property as "tenants by the entirety," is one small example and the one with which I am most familiar.
State legislatures have the authority to define legal arrangements in their respective states. Other states, under Article IV (full faith and credit clause) must abide by these arrangements unless otherwise proscribed by congress. Which congress took care of with the absurdly named "Defense of Marriage Act." I think the name foolish, but the authority of the congress to do this is without question. So it was fine to me the way things were going. And I thought a constitutional amendment trying to define marriage was/is an asinine idea.
The libertarian in me doesn't care about who wants to marry whom, but the small conservative in me (getting smaller by the day) prefers that the arrangement be handled by the state legislatures. I didn't think this an area where judges have the authority to decide that now things are different, and we now think that marriage can be between people of the same gender.
The past tense in that last sentence probably gave me away.
I was in traffic tonight pondering this (there was a news update on NPR about the California Supreme Court hearing challenges to the recently passed Proposition 8). I was going through in my head, again, that the states are well within their rights to decide who can engage with whom in certain contracts when it hit me.
No, they can't.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for example only) can corporately dislike gay people and gay lifestyles and everything else gay. But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has certain rules set-up affecting the establishment of corporations/partnerships/legal arrangements. If two or more people join together to form a Limited Liability Company or a Corporation, following the proper guidelines established by the legislature (a legitimate, if overwrought, use of government authority) no state or commonwealth can proscribe a particular class of citizens (however defined) from assembly--not including criminals (it seems reasonable to me to prevent certain types of convicted felons from participating in certain activities).
In other words, if the people of Pennsylvania tried to say, via legislation, that gays could not form a General Partnership, the legislation would be promptly (& rightly) rent asunder by any court worthy of the name. The same holds true for licensing authority. There is no compelling reason for the state to deny a gay person a driver's license, an insurance license or a license to do any of the other things that the state in it's infinite wisdom deem requisite of licensing.
The argument that "marriage is different" fails in that the same argument could have been made to justify and perpetuate any social change that is now taken for granted that wasn't explicitly sanctioned by legislature. For example, women were able to own, purchase and transfer property without express statutory authorization. Cultural norms, of which I'm typically a fan, slowly evolved from only white, Christian men being allowed to take title to everyone being able to, regardless of gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. It fails the reasonableness test to claim that gays can participate in every other form of legal contract, save this one. You know, because they'd ruin it.
If marriage (or our culture) can't withstand the "assault" of gays wanting to be married, then what good is it?
None of the above changes the fact that this is still entirely a state issue and of no concern of the federal government in any context.
Marriage is a legal arrangement between parties that have attendant legal rights; the ability to take title to property as "tenants by the entirety," is one small example and the one with which I am most familiar.
State legislatures have the authority to define legal arrangements in their respective states. Other states, under Article IV (full faith and credit clause) must abide by these arrangements unless otherwise proscribed by congress. Which congress took care of with the absurdly named "Defense of Marriage Act." I think the name foolish, but the authority of the congress to do this is without question. So it was fine to me the way things were going. And I thought a constitutional amendment trying to define marriage was/is an asinine idea.
The libertarian in me doesn't care about who wants to marry whom, but the small conservative in me (getting smaller by the day) prefers that the arrangement be handled by the state legislatures. I didn't think this an area where judges have the authority to decide that now things are different, and we now think that marriage can be between people of the same gender.
The past tense in that last sentence probably gave me away.
I was in traffic tonight pondering this (there was a news update on NPR about the California Supreme Court hearing challenges to the recently passed Proposition 8). I was going through in my head, again, that the states are well within their rights to decide who can engage with whom in certain contracts when it hit me.
No, they can't.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (for example only) can corporately dislike gay people and gay lifestyles and everything else gay. But the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has certain rules set-up affecting the establishment of corporations/partnerships/legal arrangements. If two or more people join together to form a Limited Liability Company or a Corporation, following the proper guidelines established by the legislature (a legitimate, if overwrought, use of government authority) no state or commonwealth can proscribe a particular class of citizens (however defined) from assembly--not including criminals (it seems reasonable to me to prevent certain types of convicted felons from participating in certain activities).
In other words, if the people of Pennsylvania tried to say, via legislation, that gays could not form a General Partnership, the legislation would be promptly (& rightly) rent asunder by any court worthy of the name. The same holds true for licensing authority. There is no compelling reason for the state to deny a gay person a driver's license, an insurance license or a license to do any of the other things that the state in it's infinite wisdom deem requisite of licensing.
The argument that "marriage is different" fails in that the same argument could have been made to justify and perpetuate any social change that is now taken for granted that wasn't explicitly sanctioned by legislature. For example, women were able to own, purchase and transfer property without express statutory authorization. Cultural norms, of which I'm typically a fan, slowly evolved from only white, Christian men being allowed to take title to everyone being able to, regardless of gender, creed, race or sexual orientation. It fails the reasonableness test to claim that gays can participate in every other form of legal contract, save this one. You know, because they'd ruin it.
If marriage (or our culture) can't withstand the "assault" of gays wanting to be married, then what good is it?
None of the above changes the fact that this is still entirely a state issue and of no concern of the federal government in any context.
28 July 2008
It's Not Guns That Kill Lawnmowers...
Friday 25 July 2008, 18.17 ET
MILWAUKEE - A Milwaukee man was accused of shooting his lawn mower because it wouldn't start. Keith Walendowski, 56, was charged with felony possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle and misdemeanor disorderly conduct while armed.
According to the criminal complaint, Walendowski said he was angry because his Lawn Boy wouldn't start Wednesday morning. He told police quote, "I can do that, it's my lawn mower and my yard so I can shoot it if I want."
A woman who lives at Walendowski's house reported the incident. She said he was intoxicated [me: really?].
Walendowski could face up to an $11,000 fine and six years and three months in prison if convicted.
A call to Walendowski's home went unanswered Friday morning.
[me] Really, can you blame him?
17 July 2008
Atta Guy, II
This undated image provided by the Michigan attorney-general's office shows Daniel Allen Everett. The 33-year-old Clarkston, Mich. man faces two 20-year felonies after authorities say he arranged a meeting for sex with an online contact he believed was a 14-year-old girl and showed up wearing a T-shirt that read: 'World's Greatest Dad.' Everett was arraigned Tuesday, July 15, 2008 in Novi, Mich. district court on charges of child sexual abuse and using the Internet to attempt child sexual abuse.(AP Photo/State of Michigan, Department of Attorney General)
N.B.--Not just a "World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt, a "WWE World's Greatest Dad" t-shirt, for that extra touch of class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)