11:45pm Friday night in Nanjing
Standing on the balcony of my hotel, I'm enjoying a lovely cool breeze. After a day of intermittent rain--sometimes quite heavy--the humidity has broken a bit and the air is realtively fresh.
Across the street, a construction site buzzes with activity. Spotlights glare as excavators, cranes, and dump trucks work the night away even though the nearby streets are calm. In the US, such late-night action would indicate a critical deadline having to be met, driven by a pressing public need or perhaps a fast-closing construction season window. Here in Nanjing, it's just another apartment complex going up and round the clock construction is business as usual.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
I Stumble Into Town Like A Sacred Cow
Late Tuesday night I arrived in Shanghai. Yesterday, I traveled by train to Nanjing. Despite the fact that this is my fourth visit to China, there are still a number of lessons that I've learned (or relearned) in the last few days:
- Always have RMB available if you take a cab. When we left the office in a taxi with a Chinese co-worker who was getting dropped off first at a different hotel, we failed to appreciate just how important this was. Even though though the tab was only 11 RMB (less than $2), our attempts to settle up with a credit card or US dollars were rebuffed with extreme prejudice. While my colleague ran inside our hotel for an emergency currency conversion, I tried my best universal sign and body language to explain the situation and apologize for the inconvenience the crabby cabbie to no avail. Note to self: learn how to say "I'm sorry" in Chinese.
- Never schedule an important business meeting for the afternoon of the day after you've just traversed a dozen time zones. You can drink as much coffee as you like, but at some point in the mid to late afternoon that jet lag is going to kick in and its going to kick your arse from a mental standpoint. Having your brain start powering down right when you need it most is not a pleasant experience. The only upside is that you're too damn tired to really care.
- If you're asked if you want your beer "ice" at dinner, say yes otherwise you're going to end up with a room temperature bottle. And room temp (to say nothing of humidity) in China in July is going to mean you're swilling an awfully warm Tsingtao.
- Abandon all previously held concepts of body space, queue etiquette, and general public politeness immediately after arriving. Otherwise, you're never going to get anywhere and you're going to be very irritated about it. Go with the flow (or lack thereof) and embrace the chaos.
- You can never start too low when you begin the bartering banter with street vendors. In hindsight, when the gentlemen offering to sell me a pair of genuine, officially licensed Oakley sunglasses (what, you think they ain't?) led off with 55 RMB, I should have come in with a much lower counter-offer than the 30 RMB price which he quickly (too quickly) agreed to.
More lessons learned will be passed on as needed. Meanwhile, I'm hearing rumors of some sort of big event unfolding in China in the next month or so. And I think it involves athletics. I'm going to do some more digging and if I'm able to confirm and clarify these rumors, you'll be the first to know.
- Always have RMB available if you take a cab. When we left the office in a taxi with a Chinese co-worker who was getting dropped off first at a different hotel, we failed to appreciate just how important this was. Even though though the tab was only 11 RMB (less than $2), our attempts to settle up with a credit card or US dollars were rebuffed with extreme prejudice. While my colleague ran inside our hotel for an emergency currency conversion, I tried my best universal sign and body language to explain the situation and apologize for the inconvenience the crabby cabbie to no avail. Note to self: learn how to say "I'm sorry" in Chinese.
- Never schedule an important business meeting for the afternoon of the day after you've just traversed a dozen time zones. You can drink as much coffee as you like, but at some point in the mid to late afternoon that jet lag is going to kick in and its going to kick your arse from a mental standpoint. Having your brain start powering down right when you need it most is not a pleasant experience. The only upside is that you're too damn tired to really care.
- If you're asked if you want your beer "ice" at dinner, say yes otherwise you're going to end up with a room temperature bottle. And room temp (to say nothing of humidity) in China in July is going to mean you're swilling an awfully warm Tsingtao.
- Abandon all previously held concepts of body space, queue etiquette, and general public politeness immediately after arriving. Otherwise, you're never going to get anywhere and you're going to be very irritated about it. Go with the flow (or lack thereof) and embrace the chaos.
- You can never start too low when you begin the bartering banter with street vendors. In hindsight, when the gentlemen offering to sell me a pair of genuine, officially licensed Oakley sunglasses (what, you think they ain't?) led off with 55 RMB, I should have come in with a much lower counter-offer than the 30 RMB price which he quickly (too quickly) agreed to.
More lessons learned will be passed on as needed. Meanwhile, I'm hearing rumors of some sort of big event unfolding in China in the next month or so. And I think it involves athletics. I'm going to do some more digging and if I'm able to confirm and clarify these rumors, you'll be the first to know.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Stop Oil Stupidity Now
Got an e-mail today from Northwest Airlines signed by a number of other airline presidents and CEOs urging me to visit a site called Stop Oil Speculation Now:
The oil price bubble is unfairly taxing American families and restricting our nation's economic potential. While everyone is aware that supply and demand constraints contribute to price increases, there's another force at work that, like gravity, is invisible yet powerful. This force is rampant speculation.
Every time you buy products such as food or gas, you are impacted by unregulated, secretive and often foreign commodities futures markets. Speculators in these markets are increasingly buying and selling commodities such as oil even though they have no intention of using the product. As unregulated speculators pocket billions of dollars at your expense, the price of commodities has increased out of proportion to marketplace demands.
Yes, those bastions of the free market who run our airlines are crying for the clumsy hand of government to step in and help them once again. One obvious question is how the UNITED STATES CONGRESS plans to "act" to do something about these "foreign" commodities futures markets. The arrogance and ignorance that leads these bozos to believe that global oil markets will bow to the whims of Congress is rather astounding.
The oil price bubble is unfairly taxing American families and restricting our nation's economic potential. While everyone is aware that supply and demand constraints contribute to price increases, there's another force at work that, like gravity, is invisible yet powerful. This force is rampant speculation.
Every time you buy products such as food or gas, you are impacted by unregulated, secretive and often foreign commodities futures markets. Speculators in these markets are increasingly buying and selling commodities such as oil even though they have no intention of using the product. As unregulated speculators pocket billions of dollars at your expense, the price of commodities has increased out of proportion to marketplace demands.
Yes, those bastions of the free market who run our airlines are crying for the clumsy hand of government to step in and help them once again. One obvious question is how the UNITED STATES CONGRESS plans to "act" to do something about these "foreign" commodities futures markets. The arrogance and ignorance that leads these bozos to believe that global oil markets will bow to the whims of Congress is rather astounding.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Ya know when that shark bites, with his teeth, babe
A couple of e-mails on my Mac battery problem.
Jack offers some solace:
I squeaked in just under the wire. My MacBook battery died just before the one-year anniversary. So I got a new one for free.
I only waited about five minutes at the Genius Bar. The replacement battery has not died yet. Is this evidence that Packer fans are God's chosen people and Vikings fans are cursed, Godless heathen? That's a tough one. I'm going to recuse myself.
At least you're using the right computer. The battery may die. But that laptop will last you five good years before you think about retiring it. The Genius guy recommended against putting the computer to sleep for long periods of time. So now I shut down the computer and start it back up a lot more.
Even after two years this computer boots up in less than a minute and shuts down in about 15 seconds. If you buy any additional chargers, get the 85 watt MacBook Pro charger. It charges your battery much quicker with no adverse effects.
While Mike channels JB by twisting the knife:
My MacBook Pro battery did the same thing after about 1.5 years. Would never fully charge and the machine would just shut down without warning. I mentioned this to a freelancer in our office who uses a Mac and she said she had the same problem. The guys at the Genius Bar gave her a free replacement.
Her husband, who works for Apple said the problem is fairly common and they should have done a recall. I took mine in after spending probably 20+ hours trying various things to charge it, downloading several patches and updates and visiting chat rooms trying to find a solution. I told the Genius that I know someone who works for Apple who told me its common and they should have done a recall. He replaced it, well after the warranty expired, no questions asked and no charge.
Learning the Elder shelled out 99 big ones for something he could have received free had he been armed with this knowledge--priceless.
No one mentioned any of this when I was debating whether to get a Mac last year and now you're all screwin' me!
Jack offers some solace:
I squeaked in just under the wire. My MacBook battery died just before the one-year anniversary. So I got a new one for free.
I only waited about five minutes at the Genius Bar. The replacement battery has not died yet. Is this evidence that Packer fans are God's chosen people and Vikings fans are cursed, Godless heathen? That's a tough one. I'm going to recuse myself.
At least you're using the right computer. The battery may die. But that laptop will last you five good years before you think about retiring it. The Genius guy recommended against putting the computer to sleep for long periods of time. So now I shut down the computer and start it back up a lot more.
Even after two years this computer boots up in less than a minute and shuts down in about 15 seconds. If you buy any additional chargers, get the 85 watt MacBook Pro charger. It charges your battery much quicker with no adverse effects.
While Mike channels JB by twisting the knife:
My MacBook Pro battery did the same thing after about 1.5 years. Would never fully charge and the machine would just shut down without warning. I mentioned this to a freelancer in our office who uses a Mac and she said she had the same problem. The guys at the Genius Bar gave her a free replacement.
Her husband, who works for Apple said the problem is fairly common and they should have done a recall. I took mine in after spending probably 20+ hours trying various things to charge it, downloading several patches and updates and visiting chat rooms trying to find a solution. I told the Genius that I know someone who works for Apple who told me its common and they should have done a recall. He replaced it, well after the warranty expired, no questions asked and no charge.
Learning the Elder shelled out 99 big ones for something he could have received free had he been armed with this knowledge--priceless.
No one mentioned any of this when I was debating whether to get a Mac last year and now you're all screwin' me!
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
They Didn't Raise This Bar
AK e-mails with the good news that Barack Obama was not one of those people who was "tricked" into buying a house he couldn't afford.
Just thought I'd give you my take as a mortgage banker on the Washington Post article about Mr. Obama's mortgage.
Leave alone for the moment the actual purchase of Barak "Barry" H. Obama's personal mansion, a $2.3 million dollar property he purchased for $1.65 million assisted by financier Tony Rezko, now a convicted felon. Forget even the unique financial circumstances under which Mrs. Rezko "qualified" to finance the purchase of the adjacent $625k vacant dirt lot on a salary of thirty-seven grand a year.
Rather, I am fascinated by the "in depth and detailed" story printed by the Washington Post (A3), regarding how the shrewd and astute Mr. B.H. Obama was in securing below market interest rate financing on his mortgage.
To me it appears that the "reporter" simply regurgitated the official position of the Obama campaign's "(Spare) Change You Can Believe In!" press release. I don't know what was actually researched, but my analysis raises several distinct issues.
After almost thirty years in the mortgage business, it's not the answers the client gives that matter, it's the questions those answers raise. With the proviso that current market conditions are skewed and severely distorted by the on-going credit-crisis/credit-crunch, here are some of the issues.
1. May, June and July of 2005 average Conforming (not Jumbo) mortgage rates ranged from 5.625%-5.875%. These rates ASSUME a 1.0% "origination fee" included in revenue stream. Eliminating (i.e. waiving) that revenue or fee, would result in at least a .25% higher rate.
2. Jumbo interest rates traditionally run about .25%-.375% above conforming rates. That would mean a 30yr fixed Jumbo from as low as 5.875%, and up to 6.25%. Again, this supposes origination fee revenue. Waiving 1% in fees would result in a rate between 6.125% and 6.375%. The expert(s) cited in the article claim 5.93-6.0% as comparable rates in that time-frame. No indication if those rates were available without origination fees, but the range is consistent with my hypothesis.
3. Jumbo and Super-Jumbo and Super-Super-Jumbo are names for categories of loan risk. Generally speaking, the higher the risk, the higher the price, or greater the down-payment, or a combination of both. Sen. Obama made a twenty-percent down-payment and borrowed 80%. More typical and appropriate down-payments would have been twenty-five to thirty percent, with 75% to 70% maximum loan-to-value. Even with the requisite larger down-payments, loans in excess of $1,000,000 will typically carry additional cost either in the form of discount points or slightly increased yield, suggesting a rate between 6.25% and 6.50%.
4. The standard 1% Origination fee is income to the lender, and a closing cost for the consumer. Under current tax code, origination fee is considered a finance charge and is 100% deductable on the purchase of your principal residence. Senator Barak appears to have passed on that $13,200.00 opportunity, preferring apparently to keep the extra cash in his pocket, in combination with a significantly reduced interest rate.
In summation: the Honorable Barak Hussein Obama - junior Senator from Illinois, using his God-given talents and negotiating skills secured mortgage financing at least one-half percent below, and maybe as much as seven-eights below market-rate. That's not $300 per month, that's up to $30,000+ during his first six-year term. Moreover, permanently "buying-down" an interest rate 1/2% would typically cost about 1.5-2.0% discount points (also tax deductible. 1 point = 1 percent of loan).
At 5.625% on a super-jumbo, 80% loan-to-value loan with no points and no origination fees, Illinois'' fiscally conservative representative saved somewhere between $13,200 and $39,600 on lender charges, another $100,000-$200,000 in cash up-front on reduced down-payment requirements, and $422 each and every month on his mortgage payment. Anyway you slice it, that's up to $250,000 "savings" for the up and coming Senator.
Now none of this proves wrong-doing, or favoritism. It is perfectly legal for a lender to originate a loan for no income, or even at a loss depending on the circumstances of the loan or the characteristics of the borrower and property. That would be a straight forward business decision to deliver a higher level of customer service and client benefit in the interests of a future business opportunity or future relationship.
One thing is for sure. He did get one hell of a deal! It's not the type of deal you or I could get, unless you had ACORN and Barney Frank on your side. And it directly contradicts Senator Barak's cover story about "competing offers". Nobody in my business competes to lose money, or pay to fund a loan. That's what appears to have happened in this instance, and the beneficiary appears to be the Democrat nominee for President of the United States.
Just thought I'd give you my take as a mortgage banker on the Washington Post article about Mr. Obama's mortgage.
Leave alone for the moment the actual purchase of Barak "Barry" H. Obama's personal mansion, a $2.3 million dollar property he purchased for $1.65 million assisted by financier Tony Rezko, now a convicted felon. Forget even the unique financial circumstances under which Mrs. Rezko "qualified" to finance the purchase of the adjacent $625k vacant dirt lot on a salary of thirty-seven grand a year.
Rather, I am fascinated by the "in depth and detailed" story printed by the Washington Post (A3), regarding how the shrewd and astute Mr. B.H. Obama was in securing below market interest rate financing on his mortgage.
To me it appears that the "reporter" simply regurgitated the official position of the Obama campaign's "(Spare) Change You Can Believe In!" press release. I don't know what was actually researched, but my analysis raises several distinct issues.
After almost thirty years in the mortgage business, it's not the answers the client gives that matter, it's the questions those answers raise. With the proviso that current market conditions are skewed and severely distorted by the on-going credit-crisis/credit-crunch, here are some of the issues.
1. May, June and July of 2005 average Conforming (not Jumbo) mortgage rates ranged from 5.625%-5.875%. These rates ASSUME a 1.0% "origination fee" included in revenue stream. Eliminating (i.e. waiving) that revenue or fee, would result in at least a .25% higher rate.
2. Jumbo interest rates traditionally run about .25%-.375% above conforming rates. That would mean a 30yr fixed Jumbo from as low as 5.875%, and up to 6.25%. Again, this supposes origination fee revenue. Waiving 1% in fees would result in a rate between 6.125% and 6.375%. The expert(s) cited in the article claim 5.93-6.0% as comparable rates in that time-frame. No indication if those rates were available without origination fees, but the range is consistent with my hypothesis.
3. Jumbo and Super-Jumbo and Super-Super-Jumbo are names for categories of loan risk. Generally speaking, the higher the risk, the higher the price, or greater the down-payment, or a combination of both. Sen. Obama made a twenty-percent down-payment and borrowed 80%. More typical and appropriate down-payments would have been twenty-five to thirty percent, with 75% to 70% maximum loan-to-value. Even with the requisite larger down-payments, loans in excess of $1,000,000 will typically carry additional cost either in the form of discount points or slightly increased yield, suggesting a rate between 6.25% and 6.50%.
4. The standard 1% Origination fee is income to the lender, and a closing cost for the consumer. Under current tax code, origination fee is considered a finance charge and is 100% deductable on the purchase of your principal residence. Senator Barak appears to have passed on that $13,200.00 opportunity, preferring apparently to keep the extra cash in his pocket, in combination with a significantly reduced interest rate.
In summation: the Honorable Barak Hussein Obama - junior Senator from Illinois, using his God-given talents and negotiating skills secured mortgage financing at least one-half percent below, and maybe as much as seven-eights below market-rate. That's not $300 per month, that's up to $30,000+ during his first six-year term. Moreover, permanently "buying-down" an interest rate 1/2% would typically cost about 1.5-2.0% discount points (also tax deductible. 1 point = 1 percent of loan).
At 5.625% on a super-jumbo, 80% loan-to-value loan with no points and no origination fees, Illinois'' fiscally conservative representative saved somewhere between $13,200 and $39,600 on lender charges, another $100,000-$200,000 in cash up-front on reduced down-payment requirements, and $422 each and every month on his mortgage payment. Anyway you slice it, that's up to $250,000 "savings" for the up and coming Senator.
Now none of this proves wrong-doing, or favoritism. It is perfectly legal for a lender to originate a loan for no income, or even at a loss depending on the circumstances of the loan or the characteristics of the borrower and property. That would be a straight forward business decision to deliver a higher level of customer service and client benefit in the interests of a future business opportunity or future relationship.
One thing is for sure. He did get one hell of a deal! It's not the type of deal you or I could get, unless you had ACORN and Barney Frank on your side. And it directly contradicts Senator Barak's cover story about "competing offers". Nobody in my business competes to lose money, or pay to fund a loan. That's what appears to have happened in this instance, and the beneficiary appears to be the Democrat nominee for President of the United States.
Freedom Of The Skies
In yesterday's WSJ, Philippe Reins shows that when it comes to air travel, good plans can bridge the partisan divide:
After logging nearly 150 flights on every major domestic airline, and racking up almost 100,000 miles over and between dozens of states, I have a few suggestions for Gerard Arpey, chief executive of American Airlines. Mr. Arpey introduced the latest fad of charging passengers $15 per checked bag, and recently said: "If we are going to have an airline business, our customers must ultimately compensate us for the cost of flying them around the country."
But why stop at checked bags, Mr. Arpey? Here are some more ways to make a few extra dollars:
- You could charge an extra $1.99 for the option of boarding the plane from the middle or back doors, rather than parading coach passengers through first class, only to be sneered at by people sipping Mimosas.
- When the plane is on the ground, the lights work, the brakes work, the TVs work – but not the air conditioning. The plane costs some $100 million and includes some of the most sophisticated technology known to man--surely the engineers at Boeing can devise a way to cool the plane at sea level. I'd shell out an extra $9.99 for that amenity alone.
- I'd happily throw in 99 cents for someone to explain to me what the refrain "1L 1R . . . 2L 2R" signals and why it has to be done via the PA.
Flight crew prepare for cross-check and all-call...
- Passengers don't want to hear how we're going to be delayed "a bit" because the starboard engine is a "little broken," or told at 8 a.m. Saturday that the "pilots haven't shown up yet" from wherever they were Friday night. Or how there are "Fifty ways to leave your lover, but only 10 to get off this aircraft." I'll cough up another $4.99 if we keep the cabin communications professional, concise and mundane.
- I like kids, I swear. But I'd pay almost anything not to sit in close proximity to one who is misbehaving. I will fork over 15 cents for every year of age over 10 for each passenger sitting directly next to me, in front of me, and behind me. So if I'm in a window seat, and the three passengers closest to me are each 50 years old for a combined 150 years, that's an extra $18. And I'd tack on another $5 to have my row and the rows in front and behind me completely child-free. That's another $23 right there.
- C'mon. My BlackBerry is not going to bring the plane down. I don't know of a single documented case of a consumer electronic device interfering with a plane's avionics. If they did, al Qaeda would just fly around with iPods. Since we don't fear an iBomber, why not just let me use my BlackBerry as much as I want, whenever I want. (I do anyway.) This one would be free, because it would be offset by negating the need for the flight attendant to expend energy cruising the aisle before takeoff searching for perps, like a prison guard working the tiers of Sing Sing.
This last complaint has long been a major point of contention with me. How is it possible that whether my iPod is on when we takeoff and land is a concern for the flight crew? I once raised the ire of one of Northwest's attendants when I dared to break out my iPod while the plane was boarding. "You can't use that now," she hissed, "If you want to listen to music, you can listen to the music we play for you." Yeah, can't get enough of that repetitive wuss jazz loop or Vivaldi's Four Seasons, the only musical selections that Northwest has offered in bidness class for the last five years.
My sharp-as-a-tack six-year old niece recently flew from Miami to Minneapolis. I asked her how the flight was and she said good, expect she couldn't figure out why she couldn't use their portable DVD player until about half an hour after takeoff. I half-heartedly tried to explain that it could possibly interfere with the navigation or communications systems on the aircraft, but judging by the incredulous look she gave me it was pretty clear that she wasn't buying it either.
After logging nearly 150 flights on every major domestic airline, and racking up almost 100,000 miles over and between dozens of states, I have a few suggestions for Gerard Arpey, chief executive of American Airlines. Mr. Arpey introduced the latest fad of charging passengers $15 per checked bag, and recently said: "If we are going to have an airline business, our customers must ultimately compensate us for the cost of flying them around the country."
But why stop at checked bags, Mr. Arpey? Here are some more ways to make a few extra dollars:
- You could charge an extra $1.99 for the option of boarding the plane from the middle or back doors, rather than parading coach passengers through first class, only to be sneered at by people sipping Mimosas.
- When the plane is on the ground, the lights work, the brakes work, the TVs work – but not the air conditioning. The plane costs some $100 million and includes some of the most sophisticated technology known to man--surely the engineers at Boeing can devise a way to cool the plane at sea level. I'd shell out an extra $9.99 for that amenity alone.
- I'd happily throw in 99 cents for someone to explain to me what the refrain "1L 1R . . . 2L 2R" signals and why it has to be done via the PA.
Flight crew prepare for cross-check and all-call...
- Passengers don't want to hear how we're going to be delayed "a bit" because the starboard engine is a "little broken," or told at 8 a.m. Saturday that the "pilots haven't shown up yet" from wherever they were Friday night. Or how there are "Fifty ways to leave your lover, but only 10 to get off this aircraft." I'll cough up another $4.99 if we keep the cabin communications professional, concise and mundane.
- I like kids, I swear. But I'd pay almost anything not to sit in close proximity to one who is misbehaving. I will fork over 15 cents for every year of age over 10 for each passenger sitting directly next to me, in front of me, and behind me. So if I'm in a window seat, and the three passengers closest to me are each 50 years old for a combined 150 years, that's an extra $18. And I'd tack on another $5 to have my row and the rows in front and behind me completely child-free. That's another $23 right there.
- C'mon. My BlackBerry is not going to bring the plane down. I don't know of a single documented case of a consumer electronic device interfering with a plane's avionics. If they did, al Qaeda would just fly around with iPods. Since we don't fear an iBomber, why not just let me use my BlackBerry as much as I want, whenever I want. (I do anyway.) This one would be free, because it would be offset by negating the need for the flight attendant to expend energy cruising the aisle before takeoff searching for perps, like a prison guard working the tiers of Sing Sing.
This last complaint has long been a major point of contention with me. How is it possible that whether my iPod is on when we takeoff and land is a concern for the flight crew? I once raised the ire of one of Northwest's attendants when I dared to break out my iPod while the plane was boarding. "You can't use that now," she hissed, "If you want to listen to music, you can listen to the music we play for you." Yeah, can't get enough of that repetitive wuss jazz loop or Vivaldi's Four Seasons, the only musical selections that Northwest has offered in bidness class for the last five years.
My sharp-as-a-tack six-year old niece recently flew from Miami to Minneapolis. I asked her how the flight was and she said good, expect she couldn't figure out why she couldn't use their portable DVD player until about half an hour after takeoff. I half-heartedly tried to explain that it could possibly interfere with the navigation or communications systems on the aircraft, but judging by the incredulous look she gave me it was pretty clear that she wasn't buying it either.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Smashing through the boundaries, lunacy has found me
If there's one thing that TV has taught us it's that Macs are cool.
Having your MacBook battery refuse to take a charge after it gets run down? Not cool.
Not being able to solve the problem online and having to take your MacBook in for service? Not cool.
Having to make an appointment for said service at the "Genius Bar" at the Apple store? Not cool.
Having to wait forty-five minutes for a "Genius" while eighteen other Apple associates wander around aimlessly and your wife tries to keep the kids from destroying said store? Not cool.
After finally being called forward by a long-haired "Genius," being told that the battery in your machine--not much over a year old--needs to be replaced? Not cool.
Being told by said "Genius" that since the battery only has a one year warranty, you will have to shell out NINETY-NINE NINETY-NINE for a new one? Not in any way shape or form cool.
But hey it still looks cool, right?
UPDATE-- Stephen from Brooklyn e-mails:
Only $99.99? I'm used to paying about $20 more. Mac batteries last about a year in full-time service. It's just part of the deal...
I was not aware of that "deal."
Having your MacBook battery refuse to take a charge after it gets run down? Not cool.
Not being able to solve the problem online and having to take your MacBook in for service? Not cool.
Having to make an appointment for said service at the "Genius Bar" at the Apple store? Not cool.
Having to wait forty-five minutes for a "Genius" while eighteen other Apple associates wander around aimlessly and your wife tries to keep the kids from destroying said store? Not cool.
After finally being called forward by a long-haired "Genius," being told that the battery in your machine--not much over a year old--needs to be replaced? Not cool.
Being told by said "Genius" that since the battery only has a one year warranty, you will have to shell out NINETY-NINE NINETY-NINE for a new one? Not in any way shape or form cool.
But hey it still looks cool, right?
UPDATE-- Stephen from Brooklyn e-mails:
Only $99.99? I'm used to paying about $20 more. Mac batteries last about a year in full-time service. It's just part of the deal...
I was not aware of that "deal."
Saturday, July 05, 2008
You're Either For False Reporting Or You're Against It
Pet peeve: Ignorant and/or drama queen liberals in the media misrepresenting George Bush's words to reinforce their delusions of his evilness and their own righteous victimhood.
Case study: Former Star Tribune editorial writer Steve Berg, now employed at the liberal web site MinnPost. He included this observation in his musings on patriotism for July 4:
[George W. Bush] picked up the theme in 2002-03 by suggesting that if you were against attacking and occupying Iraq you weren't a very good American. Either you're for us or you're against us, he said, which led to the idea that someone not wearing a flag lapel pin or not displaying a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker was suspect.
This notion that George Bush questioned the patriotism of those opposing the invasion of Iraq by saying "either you're for us or you're against" has been floating around in the cesspools of righteous dissent for quite some time. In fact, when it was brandished by Ted Turner at a National Press Club Speech it earned him the honor of Loon of the Week for October 15, 2006.
Even that stinging rebuke wasn't enough to stop the use of this false assertion in the popular media.
Editors of the world, please take note, the historical record shows that George Bush used such terminology in only one context. It was a warning to other nations that they would be held accountable for providing material support or sanctuary (active or passive) for terrorist organizations threatening America with acts of mass destruction. It was a necessary statement that this new enemy operating outside the norms of the nation-state would not be immune from the standards of deterrence and retaliation. There would be no safe haven based on the plausible deniability of their hosts alone.
Now those magic words, in their appropriate context. From George Bush's address to Congress on September 20, 2001:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Another example, during the Q&A portion of a joint press conference with French President Jacques Chirac on November 6, 2001:
Q. Mr. President, you said this morning that you wanted more than sympathy or words from other countries. What nations were you specifically talking about, and what do you want from them?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I am going to the United Nations to give a speech on Saturday. And I am going to praise those nations who have joined our coalition. But a coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy; a coalition partner must perform. And our coalition partner here has performed; we work together.
And that means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops, and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing, and for that we're grateful. But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something. It is time for action. And that's going to be the message of my speech at the United Nations.
I have no specific nation in mind, at least as I stand here now. Everybody ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. But over time, it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror. And that's going to be part of my speech at the United Nations.
Contrary to Berg's assertions, there is no record of anything George Bush said approximating: "if you were against attacking and occupying Iraq you weren't a very good American. Either you're for us or you're against us, he said"
As far as I can discern, there are zero news reports testifying to this. Even the other leftist blogs and web sites take the MiinnPost style and just use it as a paraphrase of common knowledge.
On the other hand, you can find George Bush saying things like this about Iraq war critics:
One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it.
Liberals of MinnPost and elsewhere, please remove this canard from your reasons to hate George Bush. Go back to using the other canards until they are removed, as opportunities warrant.
Case study: Former Star Tribune editorial writer Steve Berg, now employed at the liberal web site MinnPost. He included this observation in his musings on patriotism for July 4:
[George W. Bush] picked up the theme in 2002-03 by suggesting that if you were against attacking and occupying Iraq you weren't a very good American. Either you're for us or you're against us, he said, which led to the idea that someone not wearing a flag lapel pin or not displaying a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker was suspect.
This notion that George Bush questioned the patriotism of those opposing the invasion of Iraq by saying "either you're for us or you're against" has been floating around in the cesspools of righteous dissent for quite some time. In fact, when it was brandished by Ted Turner at a National Press Club Speech it earned him the honor of Loon of the Week for October 15, 2006.
Even that stinging rebuke wasn't enough to stop the use of this false assertion in the popular media.
Editors of the world, please take note, the historical record shows that George Bush used such terminology in only one context. It was a warning to other nations that they would be held accountable for providing material support or sanctuary (active or passive) for terrorist organizations threatening America with acts of mass destruction. It was a necessary statement that this new enemy operating outside the norms of the nation-state would not be immune from the standards of deterrence and retaliation. There would be no safe haven based on the plausible deniability of their hosts alone.
Now those magic words, in their appropriate context. From George Bush's address to Congress on September 20, 2001:
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
Another example, during the Q&A portion of a joint press conference with French President Jacques Chirac on November 6, 2001:
Q. Mr. President, you said this morning that you wanted more than sympathy or words from other countries. What nations were you specifically talking about, and what do you want from them?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I am going to the United Nations to give a speech on Saturday. And I am going to praise those nations who have joined our coalition. But a coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy; a coalition partner must perform. And our coalition partner here has performed; we work together.
And that means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops, and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing, and for that we're grateful. But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something. It is time for action. And that's going to be the message of my speech at the United Nations.
I have no specific nation in mind, at least as I stand here now. Everybody ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. But over time, it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror. And that's going to be part of my speech at the United Nations.
Contrary to Berg's assertions, there is no record of anything George Bush said approximating: "if you were against attacking and occupying Iraq you weren't a very good American. Either you're for us or you're against us, he said"
As far as I can discern, there are zero news reports testifying to this. Even the other leftist blogs and web sites take the MiinnPost style and just use it as a paraphrase of common knowledge.
On the other hand, you can find George Bush saying things like this about Iraq war critics:
One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it.
Liberals of MinnPost and elsewhere, please remove this canard from your reasons to hate George Bush. Go back to using the other canards until they are removed, as opportunities warrant.
Friday, July 04, 2008
Jumping Jack Flash
If just isn't the Fourth without fireworks or a post about them.
JB and I had more than our fair share of experience with fireworks growing up. Our father used to regale us with tales of the various explosives that he and his siblings put to use on their farm in Northern Wisconsin. They had access to just about anything you could imagine up to and including certain pieces of US Army ordinance. These stories sparked an interest in fireworks that we itched to ignite.
However, since fireworks were strictly banned in Minnesota during our childhood years, we could only wistfully dream of what it might be like to get our hands on any and had to be content to amuse ourselves instead with rolls of caps.
Yeah, right. We quickly learned that although fireworks were illegal in Minnesota, they were not restricted in certain neighboring states. God bless federalism.
Every year, we would find a connection who was making a trip to one of the Dakotas and gather up every nickel and dime we could squeeze together for our fix. Our wish list usually included a variety of items: Black Cats, bottle rockets (whistling and regular), Saturn missile batteries, Roman candles, larger payload rockets, smoke bombs, etc.
One other thing we always got as well was Jumping Jacks. They didn't make much noise or explode, but their unpredictable movements and last second flame out made them a lot of fun (especially in water.)
Because they were not particularly loud, we often used them quite openly without fear of attracting much attention. One pre-July Fourth summer day, we were doing just that in the woods behind our house with our neighbor. The woods weren't particularly thick or deep, but they did provide a nice area for us to romp around in.
Our neighbor used to drag his leaves back into the woods every fall, so it was quite thick with them. It must have been a drier than usual summer. After tossing Jumping Jacks into the woods for some time, we suddenly noticed that the last gasp from one (or maybe more) of the 'works had ignited a blaze. Not a small one either.
We tried to stamp it out without success. It was spreading and spreading fast. We were out of the reach of hoses from our homes, so we sprinted off and returned with shovels. We cleared a fire line around the inferno and eventually threw enough dirt to extinguish it. But it was a close call. Too close. There was a decent sized area with blackened, smoldering remains.
In order to cover our tracks and avoid the wrath of our parents, we covered everything with dirt and then, when we were satisfied that no spark remained, we brought in more leaves to give no hint of what had just transpired. It was far from the perfect crime and I don't think we ever took the humble Jumping Jack for granted after that.
Have a happy (and fire-free) Fourth of July.
JB and I had more than our fair share of experience with fireworks growing up. Our father used to regale us with tales of the various explosives that he and his siblings put to use on their farm in Northern Wisconsin. They had access to just about anything you could imagine up to and including certain pieces of US Army ordinance. These stories sparked an interest in fireworks that we itched to ignite.
However, since fireworks were strictly banned in Minnesota during our childhood years, we could only wistfully dream of what it might be like to get our hands on any and had to be content to amuse ourselves instead with rolls of caps.
Yeah, right. We quickly learned that although fireworks were illegal in Minnesota, they were not restricted in certain neighboring states. God bless federalism.
Every year, we would find a connection who was making a trip to one of the Dakotas and gather up every nickel and dime we could squeeze together for our fix. Our wish list usually included a variety of items: Black Cats, bottle rockets (whistling and regular), Saturn missile batteries, Roman candles, larger payload rockets, smoke bombs, etc.
One other thing we always got as well was Jumping Jacks. They didn't make much noise or explode, but their unpredictable movements and last second flame out made them a lot of fun (especially in water.)
Because they were not particularly loud, we often used them quite openly without fear of attracting much attention. One pre-July Fourth summer day, we were doing just that in the woods behind our house with our neighbor. The woods weren't particularly thick or deep, but they did provide a nice area for us to romp around in.
Our neighbor used to drag his leaves back into the woods every fall, so it was quite thick with them. It must have been a drier than usual summer. After tossing Jumping Jacks into the woods for some time, we suddenly noticed that the last gasp from one (or maybe more) of the 'works had ignited a blaze. Not a small one either.
We tried to stamp it out without success. It was spreading and spreading fast. We were out of the reach of hoses from our homes, so we sprinted off and returned with shovels. We cleared a fire line around the inferno and eventually threw enough dirt to extinguish it. But it was a close call. Too close. There was a decent sized area with blackened, smoldering remains.
In order to cover our tracks and avoid the wrath of our parents, we covered everything with dirt and then, when we were satisfied that no spark remained, we brought in more leaves to give no hint of what had just transpired. It was far from the perfect crime and I don't think we ever took the humble Jumping Jack for granted after that.
Have a happy (and fire-free) Fourth of July.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Keep Blood Between Brothers (redux)
One of the many interesting aspects of having kids is watching their growth and development play out in everyday life. It's like your own little human lab experiment unfolding in your living room. Nature versus nurture, genetic dispositions, birth order, gender differences, etc. it's all happening right in front of your eyes. If only my wife was more open to my idea of raising the next one in a box...
Anyway, after recent close observation of my particular subjects interacting in said environment, I've been able to confirm a theory that I first postulated more than thirty years ago:
Little brothers are annoying.
It would actually be more accurate to say, little brothers are incredibly annoying. Given all the frustration and pain they cause their older siblings, it's a wonder that they survive long enough to reach adulthood. From the moment they first achieve mobility, they're into everything and anything of their brother's. Their time, their space, their food, their drink, and most egregiously of all, their toys.
The older brother had become accustomed to a world of order and routine. Now, in the form of his younger sibling, utter chaos has entered it. His understandable reaction is to resist this intrusion, but he quickly discovers that his ability to effectively respond is limited by the parameters of allowable physical contact imposed by his parents. He also learns--much to his dismay--that despite his relative inexperience, the younger brother has a cunning appreciation of said limits which he plays to his maximum advantage. A mere inadvertent touch on the arm will cause his brother to flail about wildly before crashing to the ground in order to feign injury in a dramatic performance most reminiscent of an Italian soccer player (only with less crying).
So he has little choice but to come to recognize his brother's right to not only exist but also to annoy. It really doesn't seem fair. Then or now
Anyway, after recent close observation of my particular subjects interacting in said environment, I've been able to confirm a theory that I first postulated more than thirty years ago:
Little brothers are annoying.
It would actually be more accurate to say, little brothers are incredibly annoying. Given all the frustration and pain they cause their older siblings, it's a wonder that they survive long enough to reach adulthood. From the moment they first achieve mobility, they're into everything and anything of their brother's. Their time, their space, their food, their drink, and most egregiously of all, their toys.
The older brother had become accustomed to a world of order and routine. Now, in the form of his younger sibling, utter chaos has entered it. His understandable reaction is to resist this intrusion, but he quickly discovers that his ability to effectively respond is limited by the parameters of allowable physical contact imposed by his parents. He also learns--much to his dismay--that despite his relative inexperience, the younger brother has a cunning appreciation of said limits which he plays to his maximum advantage. A mere inadvertent touch on the arm will cause his brother to flail about wildly before crashing to the ground in order to feign injury in a dramatic performance most reminiscent of an Italian soccer player (only with less crying).
So he has little choice but to come to recognize his brother's right to not only exist but also to annoy. It really doesn't seem fair. Then or now
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Chicken Little Religion For The Sick Soul
In today's WSJ, Bret Stephens looks at the three motives for belief in global warming:
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore--population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations--and global warming provides a justification.
*****
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
*****
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore--population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations--and global warming provides a justification.
*****
A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.
*****
Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?
As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.
In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.
Lightning The Lamp
Wild trade Brian Rolston to Lightning:
Knowing they had no shot to sign Brian Rolston before he becomes a free agent on Tuesday, the Minnesota Wild traded him late Sunday to the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Rolston and the Wild had been talking about a deal since the season ended in late April with a first-round playoff loss to Colorado. But the Wild had made three offers without a counteroffer from Rolston's agent, Steve Bartlett, and talks unofficially died last week.
Not welcome news for Wild fans. Rolston was one of the few Wild players who has an established track record as a legitimate scorer. Yes, he was inconsistent at times, but you don't find many players with his skills and ability to finish. The only bright side of the deal is that at least he wasn't traded to Boston.
Knowing they had no shot to sign Brian Rolston before he becomes a free agent on Tuesday, the Minnesota Wild traded him late Sunday to the Tampa Bay Lightning.
Rolston and the Wild had been talking about a deal since the season ended in late April with a first-round playoff loss to Colorado. But the Wild had made three offers without a counteroffer from Rolston's agent, Steve Bartlett, and talks unofficially died last week.
Not welcome news for Wild fans. Rolston was one of the few Wild players who has an established track record as a legitimate scorer. Yes, he was inconsistent at times, but you don't find many players with his skills and ability to finish. The only bright side of the deal is that at least he wasn't traded to Boston.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)