No Bail-out for Wall street

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.