Random Thoughts

Greece and the Referendum

2011-11-02T07:26:00.000-07:00

Papandreou's decision to ask for a public referendum vote was a cold, calculated political move that may backfire for him and for Greece. It's nothing new, it's an old maneuver. Everything his government has tried over the past two years, hasn't worked. The people don't want the austerity measures, the international financiers are not happy with the results of his actions, the opposition is crucifying him every day, so he pulled the oldest trick in the book - if you are being criticized for a problem, then make those who criticize you part of the process and thus part of the problem.

The EU powers, Germany, France,... are worried about the outcome of this. Can you imagine if Portugal and Spain followed the example of Greece and had a referendum every 3 months to decide if they will accept a new monetary solution offered to them? Chaos!

Nothing wrong with referendums, but you can't have it both ways. If you believe that when the populous elects you in general elections, they provide you with the mandate of leading the country and representing them, than that's the only referendum you need. If you are not sure, then you need to have a referendum vote early on, not after your actions have led the country and its people to the abyss, and after you've turned EU and the international community upside down trying to find a solution for you, and have agreed to the solution they finally come up with.

German people were NOT happy about bailing out Greece, they have been saying that for the last 2 years. They claim Greeks are lazy, they don't want to work and always complain. So, what should Merkel do? Have a referendum to see if Germans wanted to bail out Greece? No, as a leader she did what she know was good for the country and the country's leading position in EU, knowing that Germans would not like that and she might pay for her actions in the next elections. That's what leaders that are interested in the good of their country (and not always in political benefit) do!

What will happen now? What if indeed the Greek people reject the "deal" the international economic community has put together and Papandreou accepted at 4:00 last Saturday? Is it back to the Drachma, with all Greek debt (~ 500 bn) in Euros? The Drachma will have to be devalued by 50% or more, the minute it is established, in order to increase the economic viability of Greece. So now, they will owe the equivalent of 1 trillion euros (in Drachmas). How do they get out of that one?

The whole world is watching. Somehow, Greece has managed to be the center of the storm, and in the headlines many times in the past few years. A glimpse of their past, where their actions influenced humanity? I doubt it.

Buying/Selling Stock Logic, or NOT

2011-10-24T18:59:00.000-07:00

I am not a big investor, heck I am not even a small investor, but I like to believe that if I were one, my decisions on when to invest and when to bail, would be a lot more logical. Sure, I understand that investment decisions are not always about logic, sometimes they are about how one feels about an investment, it sort of becomes "personal" for most investors.

But here is one thing I never understood. Someone buys a stock at $10 a share. They hold it for 5 years, and then something happens and the stock tanks within a very short period of time, let's say within a couple of months. SO, the peron finds themselves holding a stock that paif $10 for, being worth only $0.75. So what should thry do?

(a) for most of them, it's hard to seel it, because that's like admitting failure and and giving up hope that the stock may go up again (all humans need to have that hope).

(b) some rationalize that they have to seel it so that they can at least write off all the losses from their investment (though deep inside, they are sad they are selling it, because they are giving up on the hope of the stock coming back up).

Why couldn't they think about logically and,

(1) Sell the stock for $0.75, this way taking the full loss write-off and,

(2) taking the proceeds of teh sale and purchasing "SIMILAR" stock (one that was about $10 and has lost its value being about $0.75 now).

The get the best of both worlds. They get the write-off ans still have a stock that may perform well, if the economy recovers, thus making a profit.

What am I missing here?

Should Greece Fail?

2011-06-26T17:25:00.000-07:00

A day hasn't gone by, in the last 2-3 months, that we don't see dozens of articles about Greece's economic fate, the first, second, third loan bail-out, the revolt of the people in the streets, etc. Really, though, why are these Greek people in the street whining? Why do they think that the Eurozone or the IMF "owes" it to them to lend them the money they need? Or, are they right? The general thinking is that massive overspending on social programs; years of capitulation to union labor’s unreasonable demands; mind bending corruption at every level; and tax evasion on a grand scale is what had brought Greece to its knees. No-one can argue with all that, but the problem is much deeper than that. For example, why were the Greeks given all that money to spend (borrowed money) in the first place? Who helped them make all those investments in "junk" bonds, that made money for the "consultants", and why? BTW, parenthetically, Greece is NOT the only country that is in dire economic conditions, for the same exact reasons. Many other European countries, and the USA, are right there besides Greece. The culprit is called "deficit spending"! That's how they all got in trouble.

Back in 1967, Greenspan - a great economists before he became part of the establishment, said, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.It stands as a protector of property rights". And, that was only about 5 years before USA abandoned the gold standard, a sad day in its economic history.

Anyway, back to Greece. It should NOT have adopted the euro, ten or so years ago. Once they did that, control over their economy was handed over to the European regulators and they lost the freedom to deflate their currency, when needed, to increase tourism and improve their economic picture. Having said that, talk about dropping the euro now and moving back to drachma, is just that, talk - it doesn't make much sense. Their debt would still be in expensive euros, the drachma would de-valuate the day after they adopted it, based on their economic state, and thus their real debt would double overnight.

Plus, the European leaders would not allow that to happen, because it would signal that other countries in economic trouble could do the same thing. So, what is going to happen? Or, what should happen? Should Greece refuse the new aid package, that would force new austerity measures, and just go bankrupt?

The Europen Union will NOT allow that to happen. Once again, if they allowed Greece to default, that would signal that everyone in economic trouble could just default and face no consequences.

So, what will happen? It's not very clear, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Libya, War #3

2011-03-23T13:19:00.000-07:00

So, we are now involved in a third war, Libya, regardless of what our elected officials tell us. I mean, you must have heard it, "Exit Strategy", No Boots on the Ground", "Only establishing a no-fly zone",... and all the other malarkie...

Why are we doing this? Even the casual browser of the history of that area can tell that this is a no-win situation for the USA (and for other countries involved in this allied intervention. A no fly zone will NOT achieve anything other that prolong the pain and suffering and postpone resolution of the situation. But, they told us, Libya has a strategic importance to the USA (and the World) because of its oil. Come on, give me a break, it supplies 2% of the world's oil! Important? Maybe... Strategic? Go sell it to someone else.

Some bring up the example of how we used no-fly zones to give an opportunity to the Kurds of Northern Iraq who were being persecuted by Husein. Day and night!! Thu Kurds were a distinct group, different than the rest of the Iraqis and when isolated they could pool together their resources, and better themselves. This has nothing to do with the tribal system of Libya, which, by the way, none of our politicians understand :-( So, let's say the Quadhafi leaves, is overthrown, etc. Who takes over? What structure or group is ready and poised to take over? There is none, because of the country's tribal structure. This is a civil was, with multiple faction (you'll see them sprout as this progresses) fighting each other and we now game them a common enemy, the USA.

And what about the coalition? What a joke. The French are in today, well sort of, and may be out tomorrow, the Germans were i, but they don't want to play any longer, the British are in (don;t know how wholeheartedly), the Chinese and the Germans tried to block the coalition, and so on... I can see the writing on the wall. At the end, we may have to go this one alone, as well.

But our leaders keep telling us no boots on the ground, they have an exit strategy :-(

Japanese Accident and the US Media

2011-03-15T13:04:00.000-07:00

I have been following the news on the Japanese Nuclear problem very closely (well, as closely as I can) and I am disappointed in the media coverage of what is happening (yeah, I know, I shouldn't expect any better). What I cannot understand is "why?". I saw a half a dozen interviews on the major TV station (CNN, FOX, etc.) over the last couple of days, before I gave up and I think I finally realized that news is no longer news, it's opinion and agendas, whatever they might be. There is no other explanation, for example, for them having Jim Walsh as an nuclear expert commentator! Please, give us a break, PhD from MIT (in Political science), BS from Brown (in Philosophy), providing expert opinion on one of the most intricate engineering problems? They must take us for fools, but you know, most viewers probably saw "MIT" and that was enough for them, his opinion all of a sudden became "expert" opinion - very sad. No, I am not an expert, but I don;t pretend to be one, either.

Then, I've been reading the Drudgereport, NPR, BBC on-line, and just in case, some of other sites that may have an inkling of what's going on, like the National Energy Institute, IAEA's site, etc.

BBC (and Drudgereport) post that 500 bone marrow centers in the EU are on alert to receive Japanese exposed to radiation. What?? 500 centers on alert? So, they expect hundreds of people to get doses higher than 0.7 Gray? And, most of them to get the dose to the whole bod and to get it all in a matter of minutes, so they can develop acute radiation sickness and need a bone marrow transplant? (Check out the CDC site for Acute Radiation Syndrome, that's what one should do). Don't these "reporters" realize that when the site is reporting, lets say, 400 mSv levels at the plant, those are at radiation monitor levels, usually right next to the plant? And, if that is a direct dose, all one needs is to be a few tens of feet away, for that level to be reduced by factors of 10 to 100? Spending 10 minutes on line, I was able to fond that!

And Drudgereport (well, Yahoo news) reports,

RADIATION LEVELS SOAR AFTER 3RD NUKE EXPLOSION...

which starts with:

"

By ERIC TALMADGE and SHINO YUASA, Associated Press – 8 mins ago

SOMA, Japan – Dangerous levels of radiation leaking from a crippled nuclear plant forced Japan..."

As soon as I saw this, I checked the NEI site, which says:

"UPDATE AS OF 10:20 A.M. EDT, TUESDAY, MARCH 15:

The level of radioactivity at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has been decreasing, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

At 8 p.m. EDT March 15, a dose rate of 1,190 millirem per hour was observed. Six hours later, the dose rate was 60 millirem per hour, IAEA said.

About 150 residents near the Fukushima Daiichi site have been checked for radiation and 23 have been decontaminated.

At this point, I guess I just need to give up, rather than expecting any Yahoo, or BBC, or CNN reporter to understand the issue even just well enough to ask the right people to comment, or to make sure their information is corroborated. Silly me :-(

Bravo to the Resilient Japanese

2011-03-15T07:11:00.000-07:00

A 9.0 earthquake, a 30-ft tsunami, 4 unstable nuclear plants!

The Japanese have been hit hard, but one has to applaud their resolve. Waiting patiently in long lines for food, water, etc. 140,000+ people orderly evacuating a 30 km radius! Not screaming in the streets, killing each other, looting and demanding that the government "gives" them something that's owed to them. Compare that to what we saw on TV during Katrina :-( What has happened to our country?

And no, I am not putting all the blame on the people, it also has to do with "how" governments treat their citizens, but now matter how I look at it, I come away with nothing but respect for the Japanese, and bitterness knowing that's now how we would respond (or have responded) to similar calamities.

I hope all of us take a page from their book!!

When taxing is too much...

2010-12-16T12:42:00.000-08:00

I was driving, the other day, listening to NPR and they were discussing the estate tax proposed modifications, which got me to thinking.

I work 60 hrs a week and make $100K (my money) and pay income taxes on that, both to the Feds and the State.
Using the remaining of my money (which I've already paid taxes on), I buy clothes, a car, etc. and I pay sales taxes on that.
I also need to buy gas for my car, and I pay sales and gasoline taxes on that.
Since I am privileged to own a car, I also have the privilege of paying annual excise tax on the car.
From the remaining balance of my money I put some aside and bought a house. I get rewarded by having to pay real estate taxes on that.
There was just a bit of money left, so I decided to take my wife away for 2 days, I had to pay all sorts of government fees (taxes) on the airline tickets and again a number of taxes on my hotel bill.
During the weekend we went out to eat.... you guessed it, I had to pay meals taxes.

All these taxes (and many others I can't think of, at this moment) are levied against my $100K a year. Then, a few years from now (hopefully, many years from no), I die and leave this nice house and whatever money I had saved to my children. Aha, not so fast, they have to now pay estate tax. So, I am being penalized for leaving something to my children? How does that make sense?

And I know, people will say, not the first $500K or whatever, or it's meant to catch people leaving tens of millions, but that is so irrelevant! I can see if the house was stolen or the government gave it to me, of somehow I had found the money in my savings account, but darn it, I worked very hard for it and paid taxes on what I made along the way. Why this additional estate tax? Doesn't make sense.

USA dealt a blow at the G20 Meeting

2010-11-12T09:16:00.000-08:00

I can still hear the echo. The USA was told in no uncertain terms that (a) we don't know how to manage our own finances - never mind helping the rest of the world manage theirs, and (b) we have to stop whining about being shut out of world markets and blame currency manipulation, and start building better products, that would be attractive to those foreign markets.

Analysts have been telling us for months (years ?) that the US hegemony of the world finance is pretty much finished and China may be the next likely leader, and now it looks as if that's eminent.

I can't really blame the other countries for telling us that we destroyed our economy and we are now asking them to pay for fixing it. They are right. Not only did we destroy ours, we almost took a number of other economies down with us (our only defense may be that their greed helped, as well).

And, our delegation went to the G20 complaining about the Chinese illegally or unethically manipulating their currency value to take advantage of us. We did that about a week and a half after the Fed announced dumping another $600 Billion (actually closer to $900 Billion) into out economy. What is that? Isn't that currency manipulation/devaluation? How do we expect anyone to take us seriously? What are the Chinese supposed to do? Think about it. They hold close to 2 trillion dollars of US Treasure bonds, and the Feds just made sure they lost some of that value. If I were them, I'd be pissed too.

I don't know what the solution is, but what I *do* know is that always blaming someone else doesn't work. The Chinese are not to blame for our current situation. The tax system, the ever-increasing size of government, the ever-decreasing productivity of the American worker, the ever-decreasing quality of American products, big Unions, much higher wages than other countries, etc. All these, and many others, may be contributors to bringing us to the brink we are today. And convincing the Chinese not to manipulate their currency will not solve our problems. Let's be realistic. A auto-factory worker in China makes the equivalent of $1.20 and hour. So, we'll convince the Chinese to stop their currency games and that may increase by 20%, 30%, even 50%. So, now the Chinese auto-factory worker hourly rate will be $1.80. Do you think we will all of a sudden become competitive, when the US auto-factory worker hourly rate is $39.00. Dream on...

How about we build a car that is of such quality that Germans import it and make it their top-of the line, luxury vehicle, much more expensive than their Mercedes? Now there is a concept - compete on quality! But that is not our mentality. We have all become accustomed to the Walmart mentality, i.e., "I don't care about the quality, as long as it's cheap and I can get lots of it". Sure, the Chinese may have adopted a similar paradigm, but guess what, *we* are the ones stocking Walmart's selves with "Made in China" products. The reverse is not true, and it couldn't be, since we don't have a manufacturing based economy in America, not any longer.

I hope the way the US was shot down at the G20 becomes a wake-up call, but I am not holding my breath.

2010-11-05T07:48:00.000-07:00

I know that posting these thoughts here don't change anything, but at least it helps me vent some of my frustration. So the Fed decided to issue another 600 billion dollars (oops, make that ~ 900 billion) into the economy. How is that backed up, you ask? It's not, it's phony money, monopoly money, only this is *NOT* a game! Brazil, China, Germany,... they are all complaining and for good reason. Since releasing this money into the economy will further devaluate the dollar, all their holding in US bonds, the ones they were convinced to buy in order to the help the US and world economy, all of a sudden are less valuable! So what if they decide to do the same with their economy? How will that impact the US? You don't really want to know :-(

But it's not just other countries that are being affected. Watch for an almost immediate raise in prices of most commodities, in this country. Watch for a quick jump in gas prices. Watch for another increase in unemployment. What are these people thinking? Who is advising them? They tried it, they've already pumped almost 2 trillion dollars of stimulus and bailout money into the economy and it didn't work! And, that's because they are not addressing the real problem. Small and medium size companies will not invest in creating more jobs, not in this climate of uncertainty, of looming tax increases at the beginning of the year, etc. Why should they?

But, don't worry, the government may extend unemployment benefits again, so where are we at now, three years, or so? I am all for helping people who were hit by bad times, but extending the unemployment benefits doesn't do much to solve their problem, all it does is increase their dependence on the government hand-outs. Use the money to create jobs, instead. Where are the millions of new jobs that would be created, updating the country's infrastructure?

Oh, yeah, another 900 billion of fake money will magically solve all problems. Strap-in, we are in for a very bumpy ride :-(

Don't kill the language

2010-11-04T21:09:00.000-07:00

Like everyone else, I have many pet peeves regarding the language. Here are some of my favorites...

1. "its" .vs. "it's" - Why is it so hard to understand? "It's" is the abbreviated form for "it is" and "its" is the possessive. Yet, how many times do we see (even in newsprint) phrases like, "The city has it's own lawyer..."

2. Using the word "amount" for everything, like "the amount of people" or "the amount of time". Amount can only be used within a collective context. It cannot be used for items that can be counted! So, it's "amount of time", but "number of hours", not "amount of hours". It's "amount of money", but "number of dollars". It's "number of people" not "amount of people". It's "length of time" not "amount of time", and so on.

3. "Their" is not the same as "there" and "theirs" is not "there's". It's not "their is a house", it is "there is a house". It's not "the house is there's" it's "the house is theirs".

Obama to lay out Afghanistan plans

2009-12-01T07:19:00.000-08:00

So, president Obama will lay out our war plans tonight, so that the American public will be informed and he may get a bump on his quickly declining rating. That's just great. Did the White House make sure to ask the enemy not to listen in? I mean after all we are in a war in Afghanistan, and we don't want the enemy to know our plans, right? But wait, may be the war plans are being broadcast so that the war will be fair. We don't really want to surprise the enemy, that wouldn't be fair, now would it? Or may be this is the real manifestation of the "fifth column".

It was really interesting to read some comments in various blogs this morning, like... "Our tactics won't be compromised by discussing his vision for the war,... this is better that the previous administration that kept us in the dark..." I don't think I have ever heard a more moronic assessment :-( So, providing information about the war , *ANY INFORMATION* does not help the enemy? These bloggers are probably the same people that feel all information should be available, and something like inside trading is not really a problem - it's just releasing information about the plans of a company, right? No crime in that. Nobody will use that information to their advantage

And, to make things even worse, the President's speech is bumping Charlie Brown's Xmass Classic, which was scheduled to air at 8:00 pm. Whoever ever heard of something like this before!

As another blogger put it, "It's Obama's world, we're just living in it."

Santelli is right, No bail out for bad behavior!

2009-02-21T09:11:00.000-08:00

This past Thursday, on CNBC, Rick Santelli accused the Obama administration of "promoting bad behavior" with its $75 billion lifeline to millions of Americans who are on the brink of foreclosure. And, White House Robert Gibb's comeback was that he'd buy Santelli a cup of coffee if he goes to the White House to read the details of the Obama plan. Indeed, this is the same White House that quickly pushed through the stimulus 1000+ page stimulus package that no Congressman, Senator read! (Anybody taking bets as to whether Obama read it ).

The white house claims that the goal of Obama's plan is to help millions of homeowners from being evicted and stabilize the flailing housing market. Santelli says responsible homeowners will end up subsidizing other people's bad behavior. He made his point on the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, when he turned to traders and said: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders booed that notion, as would any logical person.

I'm with Santelli (is that a surprise?). You want to help those people that are in danger of foreclosure? Don't subsidize their mortgage, create jobs and put them to work (may be even 50, or 60 hrs a week at the beginning) so they can pay for that mortgage. How am I going to teach my kid responsibility? How am I going to teach him that when he grows up he should ONLY buy what he can afford? He'll just turn around and tell me... "Don't worry dad, if I can't afford it, the government will pay for it..."

This bailout is just another form of entitlement, and a slap to those of us who have worked hard to meet our obligations. Santelli is right!

Stimulus and Mortgage Help

2009-02-20T05:05:00.000-08:00

Stimulus package? Sure, it sounds good. Mortgage help to millions of homeowners defaulting on their loan? And that somehow is going to help ease the real estate crisis? Who are we kidding?

So, the government will subsidize people's mortgages. They want homeowners in distress to renegotiate a lower payment and the government will make up the difference to the bank. Lots of things wrong with this idea.

First, let me say that there may be *some* homeowners that are in distress through no fault of their own. But, let's look at the most likely scenario of how most of them got in trouble.

I make $35K year, and after many years, I save $20K as a down payment, and go to the bank to get a loan for a $200K home, which is about the most I can afford. The slimy loan officer tells me, "...you know what, I can set up the papers so that I can show you can afford that new $450K house they just built, up on the hill". My heart is pounding,... "what that beautiful 3-car garage home, are you serious?" "Yes, don't worry, we'll set it up so you only pay the interest for a the first two years, and then we'll re-negotiate a term at that time, it'll be O.K." I'm so excited, of course, "go ahead, draw up the papers,...." that beautiful house on the hill... it will be mine, oh my God. Of course, it doesn't cross my mind that I am only making $35K a year, that I can't even afford to keep-up the house, never mind pay the real mortgage. So, here we are a few years later, and I want the government to help me, I am screaming bloody murder, I was misled by the loan officers, the government has to do something about it. Give me a break! What, I didn't know that I was only making $35K a year? I didn't know that all I could afford was a $200K home? Who are we kidding here. And, even if we assume for a second that I didn't know, is that an excuse? Shouldn't I know? Can you imagine going to court for having bought a stolen car, and trying to use the excuse... "Your honor, it's not my fault, I didn't know that when I was paying $5K for that brand sparkling new $80K Mercedes, there was something wrong". And what, do you expect the judge to say, "...Oh, don't worry... it's not your fault, we'll just help you pay for the difference so you can keep it".

Doesn't that sound like what's going on here?

And then, there is another issue. The government is going to supplement these mortgages, and the want people to keep making payments on a property that keeps losing value? Now, how much of a business sense does that make?

Oh, I forgot, the government will only help those families in distress. So, let's see. Finally, three years ago, after working long hours for many years, my wife and I were able to save enough money to put as a down payment to build a home the way we wanted it. Last year, my wife lost her job, and is now working part time, that's the only thing she could find. To make enough to carry our new home mortgage, I am working an average of 65 hours a week in a descent paying job (thank God I have this job). We are just able to stay above water. But guess what, we do not qualify as a "family in economic distress". If I go back to working just 40 hours a week, we would. Talk about an incentive to become state-dependent.

Britons prisoned in Dubai

2008-10-16T06:22:00.000-07:00

I just read "Britons get jail sentence for having sex on a public beach." It sounds like too harsh a punishment, on the face of it. But is it, really? Let's briefly look at the details that have been published about the story in the past few months. They got drunk, started making out on the beach, were warned to stop that behavior by a police officer twice, and then proceeded to have sex on the beach, anyway.

There are laws against that behavior in that country. These Britons don't have to agree with those laws, but they were "guests" in that country and "had" to play by their rules.

Oh, I know, I know. "Individual freedom, freedom of expression, how can they dictate behavior, why can't they bring themselves to the 21st century, what's wrong with two consenting adults having sex,..." and more such thinking... We've all heard it all before.

I may not agree with all the laws of Dubai (well, the ones I've heard and read about, anyway), they are *their* laws, and as such every visitor has to obey them. Furthermore, putting Dubai laws aside for a moment, why do these Britons think that a public beach is O.K. to have sex on? Why would that be O.K., even in a place different than Dubai, let's say in the U.K.? It shouldn't be! And, being drunk is NOT an excuse. If anything, it should increase the sentence they got as one more violation of their laws.

Now look, I may sound harsh and inflexible, but I am getting tired of always making excuses for people's bad behavior, not allowing them (or forcing them) to take responsibility for their action, and always having to be "understanding". Understanding, yes, how does all that babying and understanding help people realize when they have made a mistake and make them want not to make the same mistake again? It doesn't. If anything, it makes them feel that whatever bad behavior we are condoning, is O.K., which simply propagates the problem.

Let's tale a step back, lets make some simple rules, or better yet, let's just use common sense and apply rules and laws we already have. Let's respect other people's laws and generally accepted rules of behavior, when we are in their home/country. And above all, Let's respect ourselves, because if we don't, nobody will respect us.

No Bail-out for Wall street

2008-09-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

Eventually, as we all know, the s*it hits the fan. And it did! Wall street came to a screeching halt, that totally messed up the UK and other European markets, banks stared to fold right and left, and just like a few weeks ago (which I think it might have been testing the waters), the government proposed to step in and save the day using someone else's money - yours and mine.

So, you figure, well, sometimes governments need to do that, for the common good. They step in, infuse all sorts of (*our*) capital, end up with all sorts of equity (on *our* behalf) and then, if things work out, they (and *we*) get something in return. But no, the original version of this ingenious plan didn't call for any equity or any other ownership. It would simply buy the *bad debt* from those failing institutions... and the what? Oh, I forgot, in 5 years the government would re-evaluate the situation and see if there was any windfall to collect, and *at that time* come up with a plan for repayment. Are you kidding me?

I think the American people are waking up to what is going on, which transcends political party affiliations... They (politicians and big wigs on Wall street) are all interested in a free ride. All willing to take the credit for something going well, and nobody willing to accept responsibility. Sounds all too familiar? Well, it is. It's happening every day.

I don;t want to bail out the investment banks. I don't want to bail out a million people that got mortgages way higher than they could afford and are now having their homes foreclosed. Most of them knew they were getting into something they could afford. And, if they didn't they should have. Why is it that "ignorance of the law" is no excuse in any legal setting, but in this instance "claimed" ignorance needs to be excused? Why should I and the next persion have to work harder to now bail them out.

Here is the Oxymoron... A bail-out plan is proposed by Bush and his administration, Democrats are all for it and are pushing for its passage and republicans vote it down. Is this ironic, or what...

And, the day after that, the dollar goes up against the euro by the highest percentage since its inception.

This is a weird world we live in.

Pamela Anderson doesn't like Palin

2008-09-11T19:31:00.000-07:00

So, Pamela Anderson was asked about Palin and she said she can't stand Palin and "she can suck it". And, Matt Damon thinks that Palin becoming president, in case something happens to McCain, is "scary". Oh, man, where do these people come off acting as if their notoriety makes qualified to comment on thiese issues? Why were they even asked by the press in the first place? I mean, give me a break, why would anyone care what Pamela Anderson thinks about anything, especially about politics or who should run this country?

You've got to hand it to the Hollywood types (I don't think some of them should be called actors, since they can't really even act), who have such high opinions of themselves that believe we should value their take on serious issues.

The Entitlement Generation

2008-09-05T10:17:00.000-07:00

No, that's not a term that I made up, it's been used lately to describe today's 20's generation. Other descriptions have been arrogant, lazy, ego-centric, etc.

One has to wonder why all this name-calling, and how true it is. Well, name-calling is not good and doesn't help, but sometimes you have to call things the way you see them, however painful that may be.

What brought the subject to mind was a report that there are 25% less jobs available than college graduates looking for jobs. And, how college graduates are disappointed, some of them have to still live at home with their parents, etc.

This is the generation that has grown up being congratulated and given accolades for things like learning how to read, or passing a class in college. Mind you, we are not talking about excelling in a class, just passing it. Something that they are *expected* to do, if they are in college. That's like congratulating someone for telling the truth! *You are supposed to tell the truth!*, why do you need to be congratulated for doing what you are supposed to do? I don't get it.

This is the same generation that grew up playing youth baseball and youth soccer in games where they didn't keep track of the score, so us not to upset the losing team. Come on, if there are no winners and losers, what is the reason for a kid to try to excel? And how does that prepare them for life, later on? So, an employer should give everyone the same raises, so as no to upset those who don't pull their eight? Isn't that punishing those who really work hard? And how does all this pampering and cajoling help kids prepare for what to expect, and what they are expected to do, in real life?

We can't, however, put all the blame on the young generation. Parents are also to blame for bringing up their kids teaching them that they are indeed *entitled* to things. No, I don't know why, I don't know how it started, but I know it's happening. I see it every day. In addition to that, you have parents that has spent $100,000+ (sometimes closer to $200,000) for their kid's education, and they expect them to have a job, a good paying one at that, with a degree from such a high cost institution. There goes the entitlement, again... "expect them to have...". This rubs off on the kid who now goes to the interview with the attitude... "I spent 4 years and $150,000 to get a degree from Harvard, what can you do for me?"

People, you got it all wrong. The prospective employers do not have to do anything for you. They don't owe you anything. Snap out of it! If they think you are good and you can help their company and *their* goals, they may offer you a job. And then, you have to show that you are worth that job to keep it. They shouldn't hire you *simply* to help someone out of school. Nine times out of them, if that's the reason they hired someone, they will sorely regret it. You should be hired on merit, attitude and future promise.

I think that major mistake most youngsters make is they set a college degree as their final goal. Wrong, the college degree should not be a final goal, it should be the starting point of one's career, which one has to work at hard, in order to realize it.

Give failing students an "F", tell the losing team of youngsters the score they lost by, don't give everyone a part in he Christmas school play - use the kids that have some talent and more important, show an interest to work on producing a good play, don't reward youngsters for things "they are supposed" to do - no "atta boys" for barely passing a college class. May be this way the next generation will not feel as entitled.

Elections - Personal Wars?

2008-09-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

It's so confusing... Everyone thinks they have the right answer and they want you to believe them, not the other side, the ignorant liers. Yes, I am talking about the elections. Obama picks Biden to make up for the shortcoming that even Dems agreed he had, experience, and the Democratic party get a new wind in its sails. McCain picks Palin and the Conservative republicans are elated, because of her stance in abortion, family values, etc. And then, all of a suddent the mud-slinging starts. No, I don't care who started it, or who escalated it. It's here and it bugs me.

What's really interesting, however, is how each party is spinning each event differently, and how some, nominees and pundits alike, are making fools of themselves. Isn't anyone advising them?

In particular, in this case, I am amazed at the democrats. How dense can they be?

- Dems (indirectly) leak information that Palin's last child is not really hers, but her teenager daughters. They back it up with all sorts of information, primarily with a family picture, claiming the daughter is pregnant in the picture. Well, it turns out the picture is taken in 2006, and the child is born in 2008. That is a very *long* pregnancy. Give me a break.

- Palis goes public with the info that her 17 year old is 5 months pregnant and will have the child and marry the father, and Dems don't like that either. What else is she hiding, they are wondering. They don't stop to think that Obama's mother got pregnant at 17, unwed, and had him when she was only 18. And, look at how bad *he* turned out ;-)

- The Dems (indirectly again, through their sanctioned bloggers) release nude pictures of Palin, allegedly taken a few years back. It turns out that those are fake and they are pictures of Julia Louis Dreyfus.

- Omaba declares he has more experience than Palin. Duh, so he is comparing himself to the VP candidate (nor the presidential candidate) of the other party. Is he telling us that he would make a good VP, but is not necessarily experienced enough to be the President?

- Thompson is getting ready to speak and declare that the Dems are panicking, that's why the personal attacks. I think he is reaching, but it'll be interesting to see the Dems reaction.

- Baltimore columnist Susan Reimer is upset because she thinks McCain is using Palin as a substitute for Hillary, to attract the disenchanted women democrats to the other side in Movember. Come on, it was Obama and his choices that disenchanted her, not McCain. May be Thompson is right.

It will be interesting to see how this whole thing plays out in the next week or so. I am sure that the level of attacks on Palin will increase. I also think you'll start seeing personal attacks from the Republican side as well. I predict, however, that after one or two weeks, when some of the smoke settles, McCain will be ahead of Obama by 6-8 points and the Dems will be backpedalling trying to save face and put a "good" spin on the way *they* have personalized this war.

That doesn't mean they are going to win the elections in November, but in a couple of weeks, *they will* appear to be the losers.

The Hillary-Obama Convention

2008-08-26T08:02:00.000-07:00

It will be interesting to see how the US will vote in the 2008 elections. I realize that many people see this very simplistically as a Democrat -vs- Republican issue, but these elections, in my opinion, may be shaping the next 20+ years of what will be happening in the USA, in terms of election politics.

Of particular interest will be the behavior of Democrats who were originally for Clinton and now have to decide whether to stay the party course or react to what is perceived by many of them as the unjust treatment of Hillary because she is a female. Many Democrats are talking about unity, and conformity, and all behind Obama, but *many* does not mean *all*. In my small sampling world, which I submit may not be a typical representation of the USA-at-large, opinions are split. There are still many Democrat Clinton supporters that feel slighted by the Obama camp, and by the democratic party, in general. As if losing the main primary contest to Obama, who was a virtual unknown was not enough, he didn't even pick Hillary as his VP. In fairness, Hillary may have been asked and refused the part - in preparation for another run in 2012, but her "on the ground" supporters don't know and don't really care about that. I am certain that some of them will vote against Obama for that reason, while others will vote against him because the Democratic party, a party that did not really support Hillary, tells them to vote for him - they will not conform!

Although, part of what happens may depend on Hillary's speech at the convention, tonight, in particular with reports that the Obama group is trying to have the touted roll-call, with Hillary's name in the hat, in secret, and out of the mail convention. That is bound to make Hillary supporters even more miffed at the Obama camp, and may backfire on Obama. Attempts to hide the roll-call and their public support for Hillary may eliminate their last chance to save face and may drive them to vote for McCain. And, we haven't even talked about Bill Clinton, who will be talking tomorrow and is already at great odds with the Obama campaign. It will be interesting to see if the "below-the-scene" shenanigans to hide the roll-call makes its way into his speech tomorrow.

Let's take a quick inventory of what is happening to Obama and the convention.

- Hillary Clinton supporters expected to have a public roll-call for nominees and save face by showing the party's support for their candidate. Then, they would vote for Obama. The Omaba camp is attempting to derail those efforts, which may push some Hillary supporters to McCain.

- These attempts for a secret roll-call may also affect Hillary's support and her speech at the convention.

- McCain is capitalizing on the "bad blood" between Hillary and Obama, and fielded his first ads of Hillary voters, going to the McCain camp.

- Bill Clinton has been upset with the Obama campaign all along, because they never gave him any credit for the 8 years he run this country. Many have tried to tell Obama that it would take *very little* effort to acknowledge that and bring Bill on-board 100%, but he hasn't listened, so it's anybody's guess how supportive Bill Clinton will be of Obama.

- Obama picks Biden (good choice), but it's not clear if that will give him enough on the "experience" front. Sure, Biden is a very experienced and achieved politician, and a good VP candidate, but Obama can't just "borrow" someone else's experience.

- Obama pisses off some in the gay community by being against gay marriage. A major gay media czar, Paul Colichman, publicly tears up his support check for Obama. That can't help Obama.

- Reports of Obama as a 60's radical by linking him to William Ayers are staring to surface, and Obama is publicly defending himself, but defense is very "energy" expensive and many times does not undo the damage done by first impressions of such reports.

The next couple of days will be very interesting for the Democrats. There is a good chance that the party will come undone at the seams. Many democrat leaders also realize that and are trying to what whatever they can to keep it together. Will they succeed? It's not an easy task, but we'll see.

Not that the Republicans can/will do any better. Their chance to mess it all up will come shortly, and at that time, I'll posting about them, too.

Shortage of Scientists and Engineers

2008-05-19T17:14:00.000-07:00

Based on a recent article in the New York Times, Japan is facing a shortage in engineers and scientists. Well, welcome to the club! Based on reports over the past few years, the US has been facing such a shortage for the last 20 years, or so. Although undergraduate enrollment in the science and engineering fields increased slightly between 2000 and 2003, overall such enrollment has been sliding down since the 1980s.

Who's to blame, you ask. Well, there is apparently plenty of blame to go around, it just depends on who you ask. The most often cited reason you hear is, "...of course, in today's lazy society it's easier to get a degree in social studies, rather than go into science and engineering which requires a lot of work and commitment". That's an easy answer, it sounds good, only it attempts to simplify the problem way too much. We wish that answers to such serious socio-economical issues were that simple - they are not.

Although a general laziness, impatience, and need for immediate results, of newer generations is likely *a* reason, it seems to me that there are many factors that have contributed to bringing us to where we are today.

One of the factors was the general thinking, a few decades ago, that college students needed to graduate with a more balanced education. The belief was that graduates of science and engineering were not taking enough "social studies" courses and were not in touch reality, and the social issues that surrounded them. This necessitated the increased funding and enforcement of social studies departments, which in turn resulted in higher student requitments by those departments, which now needed additional funding to function properly, which started a self-sustained exponential growth cycle for such departments and their influence on colleges and universities in general.

Another factor was that many engineers and scientists spent 4,6 or more years of very demanding university work, to get a job, making a descent salary, working for a business manager with the same level of education making 4 or 5 times as much. Save for the satisfaction of one doing what one likes, very disheartening!

Also, in the 70's, who hadn't heard the stories about young people with PhD degrees from Harvard, driving cabs because they couldn't get a job?

These are some of the reasons that there may be a shortage. On the other hand, part of the announced shortages could be well orchestrated propaganda, to lower the criteria for allowing scientists and engineers to immigrate to this country.

But, I'm sure you had already thought of that, as well...

Obama-vs-Clinton

2008-05-07T19:32:00.000-07:00

Was that really the master plan of the DNC? Were the real controllers of the party actually machinating the "best-ever" primary campaigning, when they decided that Obama and Clinton would fight it out to the end?

Think about it. For the last few months, all you see in the papers, the news channels, on-line, and pretty much in every medium is the fight between Obama and Clinton. I bet if you polled the general public, few would know that this is only the primary and even fewer would know that there is another candidate, from another party running, McCain.

It really is starting to make sense. The DNC makes such a race out of the primary that subconsciously, Americans feel that the race for President is really between their two candidates, thus marginalizing the republican candidate. It's the ultimate plan! By the time November comes around, there are only two names, as far as the voting public knows, Obama and Clinton. After all, that's all they have been hearing about for the last few months. Who could blame them.

An ingenious plan, and I think it's working. Who knows who McCain is, what his plans are, etc.? Very few voters, indeed.

USA Worker Base

2008-03-28T07:16:00.000-07:00

"We're having trouble finding the numbers that we need with the skills that are required to do these jobs," AT&T Chief Executive Randall Stephenson told a business group in San Antonio"

Having been in management for years, I hear similar statements from colleagues at various gatherings. And, it's nor restricted to high-tech fields, either.

So, what is happening? Is the US workforce base really deteriorating, or are these managers making excuses, so they can ship jobs abroad?

I am not an expert on these issues, but it sure sounds to me that this may be the old "what came first, the chicken or the egg" question. A very simplified ed version is this. Labor base deteriorates, companies ship jobs abroad (or import workers), potential employees become discouraged and stop trying to acquire expertise, job pool becomes even thinner, so employers have to look elsewhere, and so on...

We, need, however, to ask ourselves, what really started this downhill run, and is there anything that can be done to stop it, or better reverse it?

Again not claiming and sort of guru expertise, my observations seem to tell me that the two issues that have driven us to where we are today, are education and feeling of entitlement.

There is question that our education system has been deteriorating. As Betsy Brown Ruzzi presented in her study, "International Education Tests: An Overview 2005", the US did not even rank in the top 12 in either reading, mathematics, or science in testing 8-th graders and above. There is something wrong! We want to claim the title of the most technologically advanced country, yet our students are being outperformed even in basic skills! Guess, what, if that's the case, then the only way to *retain* that title would be by bringing some of those out-performing us, so the can help us. It makes sense. Of course, the better, but tougher, solution would be to fix our educational system, so that our students, who become our eventual workers, once again become competitive, but who wants to hear that, really. Everyone is looking for the *quick fix* - send the jobs abroad, or bring others to this country to help us. Well, if that keeps happening, we are going to run into another problem, we are going to run out of jobs at McDonald's and Wendy's, to absorb all the student graduating with a very limited set of skills. Now, don't get me wrong. There is *nothing* wrong with working at McDonald's and Wendy's. Those employees serve as important a function in our economy and society as anyone else. But, as mentioned earlier, not everyone can work there.

And before feathers get ruffled, let me make sure I state, when I am talking about the "educational system deteriorating", I am *NOT* criticizing the teachers! This is truly a systemic problem. If anything, given today's climate, I admire anyone who decides to become a teacher. May be that's where we should start. Let's start giving teachers the recognition of the important role they play in society. Yes, teachers are the ones that form the character of the next generation, the next CEOs, the next president of the United States. Being a teacher was something to be proud of. Let's get back to that. Let's give them the recognition and authority they deserve. Parents, you can keep an eye on what is going on, but stay out of the way and let teachers do their job!

I kind-of lost my train of thought... Oh, yeah, the second issue, feeling of entitlement. Well, in today's society, there is a feeling that once someone finishes school, and decides to look for a job, they are entitled to it. They don't think that a company is "giving them a chance" to do something with their life, albeit not necessarily for altruistic reasons. No, they are entitled to a job, and benefits, and vacation, and holidays, and... I have seen it with my own eyes, while interviewing candidates for entry-level jobs. Many (not all) came to the interview with the attitude, "well, I'll listen to you, see what you have to offer me, and if I feel like I am getting what I want, I'll take the job". That attitude, coupled with the fact that their education and preparedness for the job is sub-par, results in, you guessed it, "Next candidate, please...". Again, I am not saying that employees should settled for whatever they can get, or be taken advantage of, or anything like that. But, they are *NOT* entitled to a job, just because they finished school! They have to show that they need the job, they want the job! They have to show that they are interested in participating in the growth of the company/business that wants to hire them, which in turn guarantees their own growth. But, they'll argue, what guarantee do they have that company growth will not mean their job being outsourced and their being out to pasture. Which brings me back to "the chicken and the egg" problem.

We've come full circle.

Ultimate Fighting for Kids

2008-03-27T09:33:00.000-07:00

Ultimate Fighting has been touted as the fastest growing sport, ever. It has also been dubbed "human cockfighting". Adults, pummeling each other, trying to inflict real harm, while a whole bunch of other adults are cheering them on. Or so it used to be until recently.

According to an AP article, in a recent fighting event in Montana, kids as young as 6 put on the protective gear and got into the fight, both boys and girls. Some parents that were interviewed said that they'd rather have their kids learning how to defend themselves, rather than running out in the streets, getting in trouble.

That sounds to me like they may be trying to convince themselves that what they are doing is the right thing. Let's face it, they are training their kids for dogfights. And, I'm surprised that the law steps in to protect dogs from being abused, i.e., being trained for and participating in dog fights, but will not do the same for these young children!

Oh, the parents' response, "... you can't tell me what to do with my children..." Give me a break. Children are not a piece of property that you own and can do whatever you want with them. When you dress 9-yr olds in fighting gear and send them to the mat, you are abusing them, regardless of how much they tell you they enjoy it. They are just kids, but *you* should know better!

I hope the law steps in and puts an end to this abuse.

Olympic Flame and Protests

2008-03-24T07:47:00.000-07:00

The lighting of the Olympic torch took place in Olympia, Greece today. The lighting is a process that takes place before the start of each Summer Olympic games and the torch carries the light from there to the host country, for the opening ceremonies.

Today, the event was marred by a few protesters from "Reporters without Borders" that held black flags with the Olympic rings pictures as handcuffs, protesting China's treatment of Tibet.

It got me thinking about the whole concept of the Olympics, and whether this was a good venue for such demonstrations.

I'm torn. Part of me thinks that if one believes that some human rights are being violated (as these protesters claims is done by China towards Tibet), then they have a social responsibility to voice that concern in any forum they can access.

Another part, however, thinks that the Olympic events should be immune from all that. Even during the ancient Olympics, all political fighting and wars, were paused for the events. Olympics were were supposed to be void of any politics. One of the reasons they were started was indeed to pause ALL hostilities!

The more I think about it, the more I think that the Olympics should only be about athletes getting together and competing. All other issues should be kept out of them. There are many venues that can be used by protesters. to try and make their statements. Let's have at least one that doesn't become the soapbox for everyone with an ax to grind.

And, I am not passing judgment as to whether the protesters are right or wrong. They may be very right in chastising China for their human rights abuse record. All I'm saying leave their plight ot of the Olympics. It's about the only institution that remains!

William F. Buckley

2008-03-18T15:46:00.000-07:00

Critics were abound, when it came to chastising Buckley for using words that were not in daily use, or understood by many Americans. However, he didn't let that dissuade him, because he really believed that people need to be challenged, in order to better themselves, even if that was only simply mastering their own language.

As he once noted, restricting a writer from using certain words, simply because they are not often spoken every day, is like telling a composer that they could not use diminished cords in their their next composition.

Although I found myself looking up words that he used in his writings, I agree with his way of thinking. If we do not use certain words, because they are not often used, we are simply ensuring that our vocabulary, and the English language, in general, will slowly become "limited". Not enough words would be available or known that would allow one to express a whole spectrum of feelings, emotions, conditions, etc. it'd be just black-or-white.

I may not have agreed with many of his views, but we need more writers like him, to preserve the language.

Technical Support

2008-03-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

Just like most users of technology out there, I have spent my share of time on the phone talking to some tech support person that either didn't know what they were talking about, or talked to me like *I* didn't. It's very frustrating indeed. That, when coupled with being put on hold every two minutes, so the tech support representative can consult with their supervisor, or look up something, etc. can drive you up the wall.

However, after each such experience, when I have a chance to calm down and think about the whole "tech support" concept, I remember a stint I did as a tech support person, and I start feeling compassion for the person at the other end of the line. I can really feel for them having to put up with disgruntled users that just don't take the time to look at the documentation, or the help file, or others who quite simply should not be allowed to use computers.

It could be that I feel this way because of the time I spent a few years ago as a tech support person for a software product. Now, I have to also admit that this was a while ago when not many of the users calling had grown totally immersed in the computer "era", like most youngsters today. On the other hand, I don't want to make excuses for them. It's one thing not be intimately familiar with computers and their use, and another not to have any common sense. The best way that I could demonstrate what I'm saying may be by a couple of "real" life examples of what I'm talking about. A typical real tech support call I received at the time, presented here as it took place (with may be some additional dispersed commentary from me).

[Providing Technical Support for a Spreadsheet program]
** Answering the Phone... **
Me: XYZ Corporation, can I help you?
Caller: Yeah, I got this program from you and it doesn't work.
Me: I'll be more than happy to try and help sir, which program are we talking about? (the company I worked for made over a dozen different products)
Caller: I don't know, the one you make, I mean I got it *from you*.
Me:Yes sir. Our company makes a lot of different products. Could you tell me which one you are using?
Caller:I don't know, where would I find that information?
Me:Well, that's usually displayed in the Caption of the program's window, at the vry top.
Caller:There is nothing there. Is there another way to find out?
Me: Yes sir. If you could select Help, About, the name of the program should also be displayed there.
Caller: O.K., I checked on Help About and all I get is some information About the Windows Version.
Me: Sir, is the program running?
Caller:No, I told you it doesn't work.
Me:I see, sorry about that sir. You mean when you double-click on the program's shortcut, nothing happens?
Caller: I don't have any shortcuts.
Me: (scratching my head). So, how do you normally try to start the program?
Caller: I click on it.
Me:Click on what?
Caller: Click on the program.
Me: (Again, scratching my head). So, you start it by clicking on "Start" and then "All Programs" and you find the program that way?
Caller:No, it's right there, and I just click it.
Me:Right there, where, sir?
Caller:On my screen. I see it every time I start my computer.
Me:I see. Well that icon that you see on your screen (desktop) is the shortcut I was referring to earlier. So, you click on that and the program doesn't run?
Caller:Don't treat me like I'm ignorant, OK! I click on the little icon, and the program opens up, but then nothing happens, it just doesn't work.
Me: Well, did you try to enter some data and it didn't work? Or, did you try to open a spreadsheet file and it didn't open? Did you enter a formula and it didn't work as expected? I don't understand.
Caller:Look, I've been in high tech for many years, don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I click the icon, the program opens and all I see is a bunch of rows and columns. The program just sits there and doesn't do anything.
Me: What did you expect the program to do sir?
Caller: I bought it because I wanted to use it to track my inventory. But how how can I do that if the program just sits there and doesn't do anything?
Me:Well, sir. This is just a spreadsheet program, and it doesn't do anything by itself. You'd have to enter your inventory and any other information and formulas you may need.
Caller:If I have to do all that, I don't want this program. Just tell me what I have to do to return it.
Me:(I really wanted to tell him he needed to return his computer - he shouldn't be allowed to use a computer, but I would have gotten fired) O.K., sir, here is the telephone number you need to call to get a Return Merchandise Authorization # (RMA). Thank you for trying our product.

This reminds me of a joke I saw on-line a couple of years ago...

General Motors doesn't have a 'help line' for people who don't know how to drive, because people don't buy cars like they buy computers -- but imagine if they did . . .

HELPLINE: 'General Motors Help Line, how can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'Hi! I just bought my first car, and I chose your car because it has automatic transmission, cruise control power steering, power brakes, and power door locks.'
HELPLINE: 'Thanks for buying our car. How can I help you?'
CUSTOMER: 'How do I work it?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'Do I know how to what?'
HELPLINE: 'Do you know how to drive?'
CUSTOMER: 'I'm not a technical person! I just want to go places in my car!'

Chemicals in Drinking Water...

2008-03-10T05:20:00.000-07:00

I read yesterday that a new study was just released that shows dozens of unwanted chemicals present in the drinking water of about 41 million Americans. Very alarming, indeed. Then, towards the end of the report I saw that these elements were found in concentrations of one part per billion or even trillion. Well, that starts to put things in perspective, I think.

Now, I am not one to want *bad* chemicals in my drinking water, but it would be nice if someone really explained what "one-part-per-trillion" concentration of some chemical water would do to me, before I start freaking out and stop drinking water.

I recall, about 20 years ago, when there was a report that some major brand muffin mix (don;t want to mention names) was found to contain a bad toxin. Front page news in most newspapers for a week, or so. Panic stricken consumers started calling supermarkets, which in turn proceeded to promptly remove all muffin mixes of that brand from their shelves. People were worried about muffin mix they had already consumed. Parents were distraught about having unknowingly fed their young children such muffins.

I happened to be in a position to secure a copy of the actual results of the study done by a lab in Washington, sanctioned by the EPA. I gave it to some co-workers that had expertise in those types of analyses, and asked him to spend some time carefully reviewing it. It turned out that all the experiments were done on mice, and then extrapolated to humans. No problem so far, that's done all the time (after all you don't want to run experiments with humans, possibly risking human life!). Looking at the numbers closer, it turned out that laboratory mice were fed 1/1000-th of their body weight of the toxin every day for 3 months, and their chance of cancer was increased by 22 % over that of the control group. It also turned out that the toxin concentration in the offending muffin mix was about 1 in 10o,000 parts. Doing the math quickly, it turned out that a person of average weight of 150 lbs, would have to consume 0.15 lbs of toxin, i.e., 15,000 lbs of muffin mix, i.e. 120,000 muffins a day (conservatively assuming 2 oz of muffing mix per muffin), every day for three months, i.e. a total of 3,600,000 muffins in order to possibly increase their risk of cancer by 22%. Looking at the further extrapolation calculations in the report (for long term exposure), it turned out that the same 150 lb consumer would have to eat 329 muffins a day, seven days a week, for 30 years to increase their chance of cancer by 22%. Give me a break!!!

So now I wonder. Is this "chemicals in drinking water" the same type of "alarmist" report? Don't get me wrong, as I said before I don't want any bad chemicals in my drinking water, but please, someone tell us what the AP report findings really means. Do we have to drink 100 gallons of water a day, every day for 50 years to increase our chance of cancer two-fold, or something?

I wonder...