I have always lived here so it comes as no surprise to me that I have the basic skewed, snobbish and elitist view shared by my friends and fellow natives that Boston in particular and Massachusetts in general is the "Hub of the Universe."
There is no basis in fact behind this assertion other than perhaps a good deal of pride in our past history. Living 10 minutes from Lexington and Concord and growing up reading about all the sons and daughters of Massachusetts who contributed to the creation of our nation and the concepts of freedom and liberty drove home the idea that this was a special place.
In the present there is also a lot to be proud of. It seems as though around every corner there is a college or university here, some of which are world recognized names and indeed some are a destination for scholars the world over.
As with education, we have also carved out a spot in the area of medicine. When reading about advances in medical research or education it is common to see the names of doctors or hospitals that reside here.
These two areas have naturally spilled over into the business world. Many of the research advances that have occurred in our educational or medical institutions have found their way into the commercial sector and subsequently spawned many successful companies and provided high paying jobs for our residents and a solid tax base for our communities.
In the world of sports how can we not have a cocky attitude? Three Super Bowl wins, two World Series wins, and now the Celtics back in the NBA finals pretty much makes this a spectator paradise.
Politics is another area that is a source of pride. In our lifetime the state has seen a sitting president and two other candidates head the national ticket. On the legislative side we have instituted a health care plan as well as many other first in the nation programs.
One disturbing aspect of our political culture is how one sided it has become. Although Massachusetts is arguably a place where dissent originated in the nation, it is a place where it is tolerated and encouraged only if you are on the left side of the spectrum. Get a left winger up here to talk and free speech is the mantra. Bush hating, America as an imperialist warmongering nation, plundering the world's resources and oppressing people is a common theme here. If you deviate from those kinds of politically correct ideas then you are unlikely to be invited to be the commencement speaker at an institution of higher learning.
Even in the mainstream it is obvious that there is little tolerance for political diversity. How is it possible that in a nation with a two party system, we do not have a single member of the other party representing us in either our state constitutional offices or our congressional delegation?
I got to thinking about this because of an email I got from a friend who had read the following passage written by John Mauldin. Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC which is an investment advisory firm. He writes a regular newsletter on various investment topics. The following is a perspective that you rarely would read in anything coming from politicians or observers in Massachusetts.
Mauldin was in Switzerland speaking on behalf of Bank Sarasin to their institutional clients. Another speaker was a Swedish Economics professor named Dr. Kjell Nordstrom. Mauldin had the following comments regarding the professor's presentation.
"When I travel around the world, I am used to a certain amount of America and/or Bush bashing. It is just part of the background noise.
So, I was somewhat surprised to see the professor, in the middle of a talk on why some businesses succeed and others fail, put up a rather large flag of the United States and went on to say that the US would be the dominant developed country for his life, the life of his children and the life of their children's children. You could feel the surprise in the room. It is not what they were expecting to hear. I certainly did not.
He started out saying that someone could come to the US and within 3-5 years you could become a citizen. Making a long story short, in his native Finland it took 3-4 generations before you would be considered Finnish. He went on around the world. There are very few cultures where an immigrant can become a naturalized citizen and be accepted into the culture. China? No. Japan? No.
In Germany, the professor recently talked to the top 100 managers of Siemens. This is a company that employs 462,000 people doing business in 192 countries. In that room of the top management there were 99 Germans and one Austrian. Think of similar multi-national companies in the US. Such a room would be full of diversity.
A young lady Ph.D in physics in Lajore, Pakistan does not dream at night of immigrating to China or Germany, where opportunities would be very limited. No, she and millions more like her dream of coming to the US. He said that 85% of the people living in Silicon Valley were immigrants. The best and brightest in the world choose to go there.
Because for him, America is not a country, but an idea. It is the idea that any person can come and make a life for themselves as an equal. And it is that freedom to rise or fall that makes the US what it is."
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Combat Tested Ballplayers?
I have always been a follower of the Boston Red Sox. For whatever reasons of human foolishness, a baseball team can have a significant impact on our emotions. Where ever you go in the community at large and in "Red Sox Nation" you can always manage to find a person that you can strike up a conversation with regarding the the triumphs or travails of the club and share memories of team related events. Every now and then, however, it is necessary to put things in perspective.
Just such a perspective building moment happened for me Friday night when a friend of mine showed me a poster sanctioned by Major League Baseball and being handed out by Dunkin Donuts as a Memorial Day weekend Red Sox promotion. The particular poster can be partially seen in the upper right hand corner of this post and features Mike Lowell, Manny Ramirez and Tim Wakefield as "Combat Tested Veterans."
On a holiday specifically created to honor Americans killed in battle, it is particularly insulting to their memory to compare men playing a boys game for ridiculous amounts of money to soldiers serving the country. The Red Sox, Dunkin Donuts and Major League Baseball should have the brains to know better and pull this thing off the shelves.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Can Charles Really be this Dumb?
It was reported this week that a Las Vegas casino had filed a civil suit to recover a $400,000 gambling debt from Charles Barkley. The casino alleged in a civil complaint filed Wednesday in a Nevada state court that Barkley failed to repay four $100,000 casino loans, received last October.
"To date, and despite repeated demands, Barkley has refused to repay the $400,000," the complaint said. To make matters more pressing for Charles, Clark County District Attorney David Roger, said prosecutors would file a criminal complaint if he did not pay the debt cited by the Wynn Las Vegas resort.
In acknowledging the debt Charles is reported to have said "All they had to do is call and say, 'Hey, you owe us this money." Is it possible that it slipped Mr. Barkley's mind that he owed 400 large?
I guess the silver lining in this is that Vegas must be cleaned up a little. In the old days if you owed $400,000 they didn't file a civil suit, they were more likely to do some rather uncivil thing to you like break your legs or cut off a body part.
The $400,000 isn't the punchline in the story however, Mr. Barkley goes on to acknowledge that he has lost over 10 million dollars in his gambling career! On the subject, in an ESPN story Charles imparts this bit of nonsense, "Do I have a gambling problem? Yeah, I do have a gambling problem but I don't consider it a problem because I can afford to gamble. It's just a stupid habit that I've got to get under control."
This is going to turn out badly for Charles. It is one of those classic examples of the Peter Principle, where an individual has elevated themselves to their own level of incompetence. His own book gives you an indication of how this is all going to end, I May Be Wrong but I Doubt It explains in more detail, that left to his own devices, Charles might finish his life as a broke charity case.
In 1993, Charles was criticized for saying "sports figures should not be considered role models" apparently he is trying to make sure he is right.
"To date, and despite repeated demands, Barkley has refused to repay the $400,000," the complaint said. To make matters more pressing for Charles, Clark County District Attorney David Roger, said prosecutors would file a criminal complaint if he did not pay the debt cited by the Wynn Las Vegas resort.
In acknowledging the debt Charles is reported to have said "All they had to do is call and say, 'Hey, you owe us this money." Is it possible that it slipped Mr. Barkley's mind that he owed 400 large?
I guess the silver lining in this is that Vegas must be cleaned up a little. In the old days if you owed $400,000 they didn't file a civil suit, they were more likely to do some rather uncivil thing to you like break your legs or cut off a body part.
The $400,000 isn't the punchline in the story however, Mr. Barkley goes on to acknowledge that he has lost over 10 million dollars in his gambling career! On the subject, in an ESPN story Charles imparts this bit of nonsense, "Do I have a gambling problem? Yeah, I do have a gambling problem but I don't consider it a problem because I can afford to gamble. It's just a stupid habit that I've got to get under control."
This is going to turn out badly for Charles. It is one of those classic examples of the Peter Principle, where an individual has elevated themselves to their own level of incompetence. His own book gives you an indication of how this is all going to end, I May Be Wrong but I Doubt It explains in more detail, that left to his own devices, Charles might finish his life as a broke charity case.
In 1993, Charles was criticized for saying "sports figures should not be considered role models" apparently he is trying to make sure he is right.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Clinton options
The continued indecisiveness in the Democratic Party over choosing a clear cut winner of the nomination prior to the convention is likely to come back to haunt them in November. The one person who could change that scenario is Hillary Clinton and at this point it is unlikely that she will do anything to change the current situation and if you were in her shoes you probably wouldn't withdraw either.
Although the noise regarding a Clinton surrender has increased from the liberal wing of the party led by some of the media outlets, there has not been an outright stampede. Sen. Leahy and Dodd had called for her withdrawal in March but beyond that, not many party bigwigs will take her and Bill on in public at the moment.
Some of the reasoning may revolve around the idea that it might be a benefit to keep her viable as a fall back position. Although Obama has the numbers and what appears to be a thin but insurmountable lead it has also become increasingly apparent that he may not be quite the knight in shining armor that was originally thought.
The reasons that the race has tightened to this point are because the country is getting to know Sen. Obama more intimately and some of that knowledge has been disconcerting. The comments of Rev. Wright as well as his connections to former domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have been unsettling to moderate swing voters. Some of his own as well as his wife's comments have exposed them as out of touch academics with lofty but campus like elitist naivete. His record on legislation is not a negative primarily because he doesn't have one.
Is another stumble of minor or even major proportions possible? It would seem improbable but as Clinton likes to point out, all her heavy baggage is on the table and has been gone over with a fine tooth comb. Even with the yoke of Bill around her neck she still is defeating Obama in key states. Indiana was not a crushing victory but never the less it was a victory and there are still more that she will win before the convention.
National polls are also another reason why keeping Hillary warmed up in the driveway may be a sound strategy. In head to head polls Hillary seems to do much better against Republican nominee McCain than does Obama. Currently polls here at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ show McCain trouncing Obama in Florida by 9 points while Clinton leads by 1.7 in what is clearly a critical battleground state.
Hillary's strategy is both short and long term. She didn't double down with another 6 million of her own money because she was betting on an Obama stumble or unusual outcome between now and the convention on the presidential nomination. She was also investing that money in the possibility of a forced shot at the VP slot this year as well as looking forward to 2012.
It would seem that the VP option would be a long shot less because of her shared animosity with Obama but more because anyone on top of the ticket would be repulsed by the idea of Bill being in the administration as a loose cannon.
The longer range thinking might be that she could contest the race the rest of the way but in a more cordial fashion so as not to damage the party nominee and alienating party regulars. By racking up additional primary wins and continuing to build on her reputation as a formidable campaigner (grudgingly admitted to by even the most ardent Clinton foes) she sets herself up as the presumptive nominee in 2012 by merit instead of by media anointment as in 2008. This scenario only works if McCain defeats Obama and then has to run for re-election for a second term at 76 years old.
This is not long shot thinking. Obama is by no means a shoe in come November. The left wing of the Democratic Party has not had much success in winning the presidency and McCain is not going to be a push over.
Any Hillary opponents who think that an Obama nomination will drive a stake through the heart of Clintonism better rethink that idea. Hillary is going to be a big player on the national stage for a long time to come.
Although the noise regarding a Clinton surrender has increased from the liberal wing of the party led by some of the media outlets, there has not been an outright stampede. Sen. Leahy and Dodd had called for her withdrawal in March but beyond that, not many party bigwigs will take her and Bill on in public at the moment.
Some of the reasoning may revolve around the idea that it might be a benefit to keep her viable as a fall back position. Although Obama has the numbers and what appears to be a thin but insurmountable lead it has also become increasingly apparent that he may not be quite the knight in shining armor that was originally thought.
The reasons that the race has tightened to this point are because the country is getting to know Sen. Obama more intimately and some of that knowledge has been disconcerting. The comments of Rev. Wright as well as his connections to former domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have been unsettling to moderate swing voters. Some of his own as well as his wife's comments have exposed them as out of touch academics with lofty but campus like elitist naivete. His record on legislation is not a negative primarily because he doesn't have one.
Is another stumble of minor or even major proportions possible? It would seem improbable but as Clinton likes to point out, all her heavy baggage is on the table and has been gone over with a fine tooth comb. Even with the yoke of Bill around her neck she still is defeating Obama in key states. Indiana was not a crushing victory but never the less it was a victory and there are still more that she will win before the convention.
National polls are also another reason why keeping Hillary warmed up in the driveway may be a sound strategy. In head to head polls Hillary seems to do much better against Republican nominee McCain than does Obama. Currently polls here at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ show McCain trouncing Obama in Florida by 9 points while Clinton leads by 1.7 in what is clearly a critical battleground state.
Hillary's strategy is both short and long term. She didn't double down with another 6 million of her own money because she was betting on an Obama stumble or unusual outcome between now and the convention on the presidential nomination. She was also investing that money in the possibility of a forced shot at the VP slot this year as well as looking forward to 2012.
It would seem that the VP option would be a long shot less because of her shared animosity with Obama but more because anyone on top of the ticket would be repulsed by the idea of Bill being in the administration as a loose cannon.
The longer range thinking might be that she could contest the race the rest of the way but in a more cordial fashion so as not to damage the party nominee and alienating party regulars. By racking up additional primary wins and continuing to build on her reputation as a formidable campaigner (grudgingly admitted to by even the most ardent Clinton foes) she sets herself up as the presumptive nominee in 2012 by merit instead of by media anointment as in 2008. This scenario only works if McCain defeats Obama and then has to run for re-election for a second term at 76 years old.
This is not long shot thinking. Obama is by no means a shoe in come November. The left wing of the Democratic Party has not had much success in winning the presidency and McCain is not going to be a push over.
Any Hillary opponents who think that an Obama nomination will drive a stake through the heart of Clintonism better rethink that idea. Hillary is going to be a big player on the national stage for a long time to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)