Round 7

Just a quick update on the work front for me. Today, I found out I have be re-re-re-re-re-re-extended (or re^7). Yes, I know. It is hard for me to believe, too. This extension will be for another month, which may sound brief, but it is endlessly superior to the week long extensions. This last month has felt like a vacation, in comparison.

I am still working here on a very interesting project, in an area where I have very little knowledge. That is, until the last few weeks. It has been a bit of info overload, but it is fun to learn about this new market, and there is no shortage of info available.

I'm working for a friend, which has been great. It has been easy to work for him - he gives good direction, he doesn't like to micromanage, and he keeps me in the loop - all the things you want from a good boss. Plus - he has been a good guy to talk to about work, jobs, and what I want to do next. I can't say enough good things about him; this has been another example of how kind folks have been to me during this job transition period. I am very fortunate and appreciative.

Thanks to all for all the help

My pick for the 2016 Summer Olympics

In one week, the International Olympic Committee (in all its corrupt glory) will pick the host city for the 2016 Olympics. Dozens of cities entertained and considered the idea, but the decision will go to one of four cities: Chicago, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, and Tokyo.

The selection process for Olympic host cities ranks at the top of my list of favorite things, right up there with the "In Memory" section of the Oscars and the Scripts National Spelling Bee. It is one of those things I have a compulsion to read and learn about as much as possible. From the rebirth of the modern Olympic Games, choosing the host city has involved politics, human rights, intimidation and war - all those things that make life so interesting.

Within the IOC's charter, they modestly state their purpose is in part to "promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." Anyone who has studies the history of Olympic host locations knows this total excrement. The IOC favors dictatorships - plain and simple. Compare the inefficiency and incompetence of recent games run in democracies (e.g. Atlanta 1996, Athens 2004) versus the preparations for Beijing 2008, where they were ready over one year in advance. Promoting democracy may fill the seats, but they don't get the stadium built on time.

The Olympics for a long time were a money losing event. Montreal who hosted the games in 1976 did not pay off the accumulated debts until 2006, 30 years after the closing ceramonies. Financial difficulties were minor compared to how the Olympics could be used as a political venue, peacefully in Mexico City in 1968, tragically in Munich in 1972. Since WWII, it wasn't until Los Angeles in 1984 that the games could be (A) profitable, (B) safe and (C) hosted in a democracy.

Since then, the bidding for the games has grown intense. Voting is conducted in rounds, with the city with the lowest vote total being eliminated, until a winner remains. Allegations of bribery and corruption have surfaced in recent selections (Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics). All of this is backdrop, leading up to the voting on Oct 2nd in Copenhagen where one of four cities will be chosen to be the center of the world stage for two weeks in 2016.

Not that anyone cares, but it is my opinion that there is clearly only one choice for the Olympic Games in 2016: Rio de Janeiro.

I have no counter arguments or reasons to use against the other cities. I think Chicago would be interesting, but if it was to be in the US again, I would prefer a location with more dramatic natural beauty (San Francisco, Boston, Seattle...). Spain showed the world it could throw a party in 1992 (I think it is still going on), but there are a lot of other places in Europe which haven't held the games in a long time (it has been almost 90 years since they have been in France, and it was a Frenchman who revived the games). Tokyo put on a good games in 1964, and I am sure they would again. But it is not someplace new, and it isn't long enough to make it seem like we need to go back. I base my choice of Rio on two reasons:

1. Democracy: The IOC touts the granting of the games as a coming of age for developing countries. It is a reward, they claim, for progressing to a developed, functioning democracy, which respects human rights. Recent examples cast doubt on this claim (Soviet Union 1980, South Korea 1988, China 2008. Yes South Korea. Please note, South Korea was awarded the games on Sept 30, 1981, when it was under the despotic and violent rule of Chun Doo-hwan). The only instance where it has ever been remotely true that the games are a reward for democracy is with Barcelona in 1992, who hosted the games 17 years after Franco and his dictatorship died.

Like Spain, Brazil has managed to transition itself from a government of largely cruel and incompetent military dictators into a functioning, stable democracy. It managed a peaceful transition of power in 2002, to an extremely liberal government, who nevertheless kept sound financial policies in place. In 2008, for the first time ever, it became a net creditor to other nations. Problems of poverty and crime still exist in Brazil, but the accomplishments are worth celebrating. It would be nice when the IOC says they support the harmonious development of man, that they actually mean it.

2. Location: The original Olympics started in Europe, as did the Modern Olympic games. Since they were reformed, they have not left their ancestral continent very much. The 2012 games in London will be the thirtieth games scheduled. Of those games, three have been canceled do to World Wars (Berlin 1916, Tokyo 1940, London 1944). Of the 27 remaining games, nearly 60% will have been held in Europe. North America has the next most games (six of 27), Asia has had three, and Australia has had two. Australia: Less than 0.5% of the worlds population and they have had two games.

By contrast, the games have never been held in South America or Africa (or Antarctica). Yes, Antarctica, with no indigenous population has hosted the games as many times as South America. South America, with 6% of the worlds population has yet to host a game. They have tried many times in the past, unsuccessfully. Most of their bids have not gotten them to the final round, although Buenos Aires has been a bridesmaid on a few occasions. For the 31st games, I think it is time that the fifth most populist counties in the world, and one with a stable, functioning democracy, which has shown respect for human rights, be allowed to be at the center of the world stage.

Good luck in Copenhagen. I wish I could vote for you.

The Hangover Effect

One of my favorite things about this summer's movies was seeing washed out stars making cameo comebacks in comically misplaced rolls. Lou Ferrigno and Mike Tyson both made strong showings with their bit parts in "I love you, man" and "The Hangover". It took the public person of two well known, but off the main stream personalities and put them in comedic situations with great results. Imagine, trying to pick a fight with Lou and getting put in a sleeper hold, or getting a high five from Mike Tyson for stealing a cop car ("yeah, we've all done some crazy s#it!" - ha ha ha!) It was comedy GOLD!

This is a trend I would like to see continue. To help facilitate this process, I am suggesting five can't miss light-hearted, summer comedies, with comedic cameos.

"Address Unknown"
Seth Rogan is working in a post office, but wants to make it as a comedian. He is trying to do the right thing, earning a living at his day job so he can pursue his dream at night. He has a lot of coworkers who want him to success, and whom he tests his jokes out on every day. The only problem is he works with some of the dullest, most unfunny people on the planet. Each day is a new frustration as the jokes his coworkers like bomb in front of an audience. But in between this hilarity, he has to deal with unruly customers at his counter. Enter Steven Seagal. While Seth tries to explain a joke to a coworker at another booth, Steven Seagal gets more and more impatient as he waits his turn in line. When he finds out that they are out of a certain stamp, a quietly enraged Seagal, promises to send Seth "straight to hell!" as he pummels him through the window. Hilarity ensues.

"Rate of Return"
Vince Vaughn plays a fast talking, NYC, investment banker. He is a good guy at heart, but he works for a firm that engages in questionable behavior, which he never challenges. Vince finds himself out of work when his firm goes bankrupt; they were taking by the same scam that they had been perpetrating on their customers. Now, out of work, Vince must confront his own shortcomings and what he could have done to prevent this situation. Vince goes to a bar to try to get some perspective, talking to whoever will listen. Enter Sean Penn, circa his David Kleinfeld look in "Carlito's Way". As Vince tells him his story, Sean listens politely. As the story of Vince's misdeeds are shared, Sean realizes he is one of the customers who had been bankrupted by Vince. He then goes old school and attacks Vince like he is the paparazzi, and, well, hilarity ensues.

Period Piece with Gweneth Paltrow
This is one that would actually not be a light hearted comedy, at least not intentionally. The movie would be the latest installment or a Jane Austin novel, or some other period piece, which would star Gweneth Paltrow. It would be a serious movie, with an all star cast, with one special actor: Warren Sapp. He would play a minor role in the movie - Gweneth's man servant or something. No explanation would be made how a very large African American, with a US accent, would be in 18th century England. Sapp would play the role straight, but still, it would be very, very funny. Everyone in the audience would be wondering "What is Warren Sapp doing in the movie? Is this supposed to be a comedy? What is he doing- is he going to tackle someone?" It would be hilarious!

"Love Intervention"
The always funny Jeanne Garafolo is a personal dating coach, who can't get her own love life right. She gives people advice on dating and relationships all day long, and goes home to an empty apartment and spends the night trying to figure out what is wrong with her own love life. Until, that is, she meets her dream man, who just happens to be her patient. She has to figure out a way to turn this patient into her special friend, in a comedic way. In between her planning, she has appointments with others looking for help. Enter Linda Florentina, circa her character from "The Last Seduction". She is repentant now and trying to figure out why she can't hold onto a good man once she finds one. Comedy ensues!


"School of Rock 2"
Jack Black revives his role from School or Rock, for a sequel. It is seven years since the last movie, and Jack is trying to make it producing other musical acts. Enter Sylvester Stallone circa his country music singing character in "Rinestone". He is still trying to make it as a country western singer, and he is auditioning for Jack, hoping that he can finally take him to the big time. I have no idea how the rest of the movie will play out, but hilarity will ensue.

Why I don't support Obama's Health Care reform

For the past few months, I have kept silent on the topic of health care reform and the presidents proposals. I have felt his policies, while well intentioned, have been misguided and naive. Today he was in Minneapolis making his pitch for health care reform. Since he is coming to my town to state his views, I have decided to break my silence and share my views.

First off, I applaud Obama for addressing this very serious issue. Medical bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in this country. Too many folks are loosing their health insurance because they are being laid off, and there is a good chance they may not get them from their new employer. It is a serious issue which needs to be addressed.

What I disagree with is the way the new policies are being structured; specifically, there are three major flaws I see, which make his policies unacceptable. For those of you who doubt my any of my statements, I have included my sources for your reference:

1. Lack of tort reform for medical malpractice:

One reason health care costs are so high is that doctors often prescribe tests that are not necessary. This is done for two reasons. First, doctors are paid by the number of tests they perform, not the number of patience they see, and second, liability concerns. This results in unnecessary costs being added to the system. This is a cause of high health care, which is not be addressed in Obama's cure. The current proposed "cure" is to provide health care to everyone in its current, inefficient, expensive form. It is addressing a symptom, not the cause, of high health care costs. ("Life is Expensive", The Economist, May 28, 2009; "Heading for the Emergency Room", The Economist, June 25th, 2009)

2. No incentive to get healthy:

The best case scenarios for health care reform put the price at over $1 trillion. History suggests the true figure will be 5-10 times higher. By the best case estimates of $1 trillion, this will amount to a budget deficit of 5.5% of GDP in 2019, assuming the economy recovers next year. Yet for all this money, there appears to be no programs or funding designed to reward for healthy lifestyles, or programs to improve the public health. If health care becomes a "right" of all Americas, it is unlikely that folks will take better care of their health. Likely, it would get worse, knowing there is a safety net to protect and take care of them. Again, like the idea of tort reform, the proposed policy does not address the cause - Americans by and large lead unhealthy lifestyles; the proposed policy only attempts to provide an inefficient and expensive "cure". ("Will the Blue Dogs Bolt?", The Economist, June 18, 2009; "Falls the Shadow", The Economist, July 23, 2009)

3. The United States Postal Service vs. FedEx

Obama's policy provide for a government sponsored health insurance option. Nothing should strike fear into the hearts of Americans more. Our government has proved time and time again that it can not adequately deliver services that address the public's need. Anyone who doubts this need only look at one organization: The US Postal Service. If the USPS addressed the needs of the public, FedEx would not exist today. The USPS had the infrastructure, the people and the resources to establish an overnight delivery service, but they didn't. Private enterprise did. It identified a need and delivered a service which started with a concept in 1973 to a company that generates $35 billion in revenue today. All of this could have been the USPS's, but it is not. Public services do not face the pressure of market forces to adapt, evolve and change. Defenders of the USPS claim it was never intended to be an overnight delivery service; if that was really true, they would not be offering that service today (36 years too late).

The government needs to stick to its charter: establish the laws of the land. If the requirement is that all Americans need to carry some form of health insurance, pass the law which mandates this requirement; let private enterprise deliver the service. As with Auto Insurance, Progressive and Geiko have been able to deliver services, profitably, to those considered insurable. This is what the private sector does best; it is not what the US government has ever been able to do.