Saturday, July 18, 2009
2009 Continues...
My last post explained some of the automobile-related losses suffered in the family during 2009. Well, since then: Late on June 18th, my son, Derek, while returning home from some evening work, hit a deer with his Acura. Not totaled, but quite a bit of damage. That's three. Then, in early July, driving home from work, my daughter, Jenn, was involved in a three-car pileup when a driver on the freeway stopped, just over the crest of a hill, apparently to read a map. That car was not hit--it was the panic avoidances that brought my daughter's car and two others into the same physical space. Her car was totaled. That's four. Again and still, no injuries. So we count our blessings while digging deep to pay our deductibles. Modern life is not so EZ.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
2009, so far...
Let me tell you about 2009 so far.
Everyone knows about the economy. Nothing need be said, here, about that, except to mention that we have not been immune from cuts in income and losses to our retirement plans.
March 2, 2009. My wife’s mother passed away. She was 79 and had been ill and declining for some time. While not a big surprise, you can never be truly prepared. My beloved wife of 40 years, called G here, and our youngest daughter flew to Idaho for the services. G still grieves and occasionally becomes very blue and weepy.
April 10, 2009. G had a stroke. While driving. After her loss of consciousness, she struck another car. Her car slewed to the right and rolled 1 ½ times, coming to rest on the roof. Amazingly, no one was seriously injured in the accident, although our car was totaled and there was damage to two other cars and some minor injuries. My wife’s injuries from the accident were limited to minor bruising from the seat belt. She is recovering well from the stroke and has no paralysis or loss of speech, but she has suffered some loss of vision and of skills and memory—and these losses are painful to her. She cannot drive now and has had to close her business, with the loss of income and pride in self-determination that brings. Our insurance paid off the loan on the car. All in all, it could have been so much worse.
She was hospitalized for a week after the event, mostly for follow up of the stroke. During her medical care, the doctors found an enlarged thyroid which may be cancerous. We are still working on the follow up and tests for that. Many medical appointments have been on our calendar. Since she cannot drive any more, I have had to take time off work to drive her or arrange other transportation. We don’t live on a bus line and a one-way taxi ride to our medical facility is about $50.00. Thank God for our good medical insurance.
Also April 10, 2009. G’s step mother fell on her front step and hit her head on the concrete. She had to be air-evacuated 160 miles to a hospital in Boise where they operated to remove clots from her head and relieve pressure on her brain. She required several weeks of in- and out-patient convalescence. She is 85, and is doing well now. I hope my Father-in-law has good medical insurance.
While G was in the hospital, between visits to her and my work, I struggled to complete our IRS forms. Last year I had under-witheld and had to pay a large amount when I filed my taxes. So, I increased my withholding in April of 2008. But not enough. This year, even though I’ve not had a raise, the additional amount I had to pay was even greater ($3500 on top of what had been witheld) plus I had to pay a penalty for underpayment. So I called my company’s HR department and again increased my withholding. The very next day: the Obama administration announced reduced withholding as a “benefit” to workers and part of the Stimulus Plan. My withholding has actually gone down as a result. So next year will probably be a replay with underpayment and penalty.
On the first of May, we received a letter from the State informing us that we had been accused by an un-named party of sexual abuse of two of our grandsons. The letter explained that an investigation had been completed and the charges were found to have no merit and that we could write to request the records be destroyed. We don’t know who filed the false charges, but we have our suspicions, and, if true, the scurrilous action, taken as revenge for imaginary wrongs, does not bode well for family harmony. We have not seen those grandchildren nor their mother since the end of March. G has taken this especially hard, and we are now seeing a counselor to learn how to deal with the grief of our losses this year and this hateful false charge against us. Had the investigator not had the integrity to publish the true findings, if she or he had had an axe to grind or a name to make, the false charges could have literally destroyed our lives. I wonder if the person who filed the charges has any idea of the potential impact?
On the morning of May 5, on my way to work I stopped at a stoplight. The 20-year-old girl, texting as she drove the car behind me, did not. She was doing about 30 when she hit me. I was on my motorcycle. The 1-year old customized 1300 cc V-Twin was totaled. But it could have been so much worse. I was not hurt at all—did not even have any stiffness the next day. But I miss my bike. Her insurance paid off all but $432.00 of the loan, so the debt is gone, but so is the bike. After nearly 45 years of driving with only a couple of minor accidents, we have totaled two vehicles in less than a month.
In mid-May, we had our home air conditioner serviced before its summer workout. The technician found a Freon leak in the inside air handling unit. So that had to be replaced. Another $3500 gone.
At the end of May, G received the settlement from her Mother’s estate: $12,000 from her Mother’s traditional IRA. Now since it came out of a tax-deferred IRA, it becomes a “taxable event,” meaning we would owe taxes and penalties on the total amount. To avoid having to give the IRS about a third of her inheritance, we chose, at the advice of our broker, to put $6,000 dollars each into our own IRAs, thus canceling out the taxable event. I gave the broker a personal check for $12,000 having deposited the cashier’s check from the estate into our joint checking account. At the time of deposit of the inheritance check, the teller said they would make an exception to the 5-day hold rule for deposited checks, since we have been with the credit union for nearly 40 years and have a good record, and it WAS a cashier’s check, after all. Guess what. When my personal check for $12,000 was presented for the deposit into our IRAs, it bounced because the $12,000 deposit was on hold. Result: who knows? So far fees and embarrassment and no resolution. This was the biggest check I've ever written--by far--and it bounced! Oh, the shame. The credit union did refund their fees on my account (after I complained) but we don’t yet know what the other financial institution is going to do. It’s been two weeks and I’ve not yet heard from them. Our broker is not returning my calls.
Still, we have so much to be thankful for. We have each other. We have our faith and a God we feel good about praying to. We can still pay the mortgage and utilities. We have one good working vehicle and it is licensed, insured, and inspected, and has good tires and a full tank of gas at the moment. The pantry is full and the (new) air conditioner keeps us comfortable. We sleep soundly at night, comfortable and relatively secure. We launder our clothes and bathe in fresh, clean, heated water. We even still have 200 TV channels of nothing to watch, internet, and a Netflix subscription. We are breathing, upright, walking and talking. We have many loving family members (and maybe one that is not so loving) and a number of very good friends at work, in our neighborhood, and at church. As tough and frustrating as this year has been, so far, our lives are still better than most alive on this earth today.
Everyone knows about the economy. Nothing need be said, here, about that, except to mention that we have not been immune from cuts in income and losses to our retirement plans.
March 2, 2009. My wife’s mother passed away. She was 79 and had been ill and declining for some time. While not a big surprise, you can never be truly prepared. My beloved wife of 40 years, called G here, and our youngest daughter flew to Idaho for the services. G still grieves and occasionally becomes very blue and weepy.
April 10, 2009. G had a stroke. While driving. After her loss of consciousness, she struck another car. Her car slewed to the right and rolled 1 ½ times, coming to rest on the roof. Amazingly, no one was seriously injured in the accident, although our car was totaled and there was damage to two other cars and some minor injuries. My wife’s injuries from the accident were limited to minor bruising from the seat belt. She is recovering well from the stroke and has no paralysis or loss of speech, but she has suffered some loss of vision and of skills and memory—and these losses are painful to her. She cannot drive now and has had to close her business, with the loss of income and pride in self-determination that brings. Our insurance paid off the loan on the car. All in all, it could have been so much worse.
She was hospitalized for a week after the event, mostly for follow up of the stroke. During her medical care, the doctors found an enlarged thyroid which may be cancerous. We are still working on the follow up and tests for that. Many medical appointments have been on our calendar. Since she cannot drive any more, I have had to take time off work to drive her or arrange other transportation. We don’t live on a bus line and a one-way taxi ride to our medical facility is about $50.00. Thank God for our good medical insurance.
Also April 10, 2009. G’s step mother fell on her front step and hit her head on the concrete. She had to be air-evacuated 160 miles to a hospital in Boise where they operated to remove clots from her head and relieve pressure on her brain. She required several weeks of in- and out-patient convalescence. She is 85, and is doing well now. I hope my Father-in-law has good medical insurance.
While G was in the hospital, between visits to her and my work, I struggled to complete our IRS forms. Last year I had under-witheld and had to pay a large amount when I filed my taxes. So, I increased my withholding in April of 2008. But not enough. This year, even though I’ve not had a raise, the additional amount I had to pay was even greater ($3500 on top of what had been witheld) plus I had to pay a penalty for underpayment. So I called my company’s HR department and again increased my withholding. The very next day: the Obama administration announced reduced withholding as a “benefit” to workers and part of the Stimulus Plan. My withholding has actually gone down as a result. So next year will probably be a replay with underpayment and penalty.
On the first of May, we received a letter from the State informing us that we had been accused by an un-named party of sexual abuse of two of our grandsons. The letter explained that an investigation had been completed and the charges were found to have no merit and that we could write to request the records be destroyed. We don’t know who filed the false charges, but we have our suspicions, and, if true, the scurrilous action, taken as revenge for imaginary wrongs, does not bode well for family harmony. We have not seen those grandchildren nor their mother since the end of March. G has taken this especially hard, and we are now seeing a counselor to learn how to deal with the grief of our losses this year and this hateful false charge against us. Had the investigator not had the integrity to publish the true findings, if she or he had had an axe to grind or a name to make, the false charges could have literally destroyed our lives. I wonder if the person who filed the charges has any idea of the potential impact?
On the morning of May 5, on my way to work I stopped at a stoplight. The 20-year-old girl, texting as she drove the car behind me, did not. She was doing about 30 when she hit me. I was on my motorcycle. The 1-year old customized 1300 cc V-Twin was totaled. But it could have been so much worse. I was not hurt at all—did not even have any stiffness the next day. But I miss my bike. Her insurance paid off all but $432.00 of the loan, so the debt is gone, but so is the bike. After nearly 45 years of driving with only a couple of minor accidents, we have totaled two vehicles in less than a month.
In mid-May, we had our home air conditioner serviced before its summer workout. The technician found a Freon leak in the inside air handling unit. So that had to be replaced. Another $3500 gone.
At the end of May, G received the settlement from her Mother’s estate: $12,000 from her Mother’s traditional IRA. Now since it came out of a tax-deferred IRA, it becomes a “taxable event,” meaning we would owe taxes and penalties on the total amount. To avoid having to give the IRS about a third of her inheritance, we chose, at the advice of our broker, to put $6,000 dollars each into our own IRAs, thus canceling out the taxable event. I gave the broker a personal check for $12,000 having deposited the cashier’s check from the estate into our joint checking account. At the time of deposit of the inheritance check, the teller said they would make an exception to the 5-day hold rule for deposited checks, since we have been with the credit union for nearly 40 years and have a good record, and it WAS a cashier’s check, after all. Guess what. When my personal check for $12,000 was presented for the deposit into our IRAs, it bounced because the $12,000 deposit was on hold. Result: who knows? So far fees and embarrassment and no resolution. This was the biggest check I've ever written--by far--and it bounced! Oh, the shame. The credit union did refund their fees on my account (after I complained) but we don’t yet know what the other financial institution is going to do. It’s been two weeks and I’ve not yet heard from them. Our broker is not returning my calls.
Still, we have so much to be thankful for. We have each other. We have our faith and a God we feel good about praying to. We can still pay the mortgage and utilities. We have one good working vehicle and it is licensed, insured, and inspected, and has good tires and a full tank of gas at the moment. The pantry is full and the (new) air conditioner keeps us comfortable. We sleep soundly at night, comfortable and relatively secure. We launder our clothes and bathe in fresh, clean, heated water. We even still have 200 TV channels of nothing to watch, internet, and a Netflix subscription. We are breathing, upright, walking and talking. We have many loving family members (and maybe one that is not so loving) and a number of very good friends at work, in our neighborhood, and at church. As tough and frustrating as this year has been, so far, our lives are still better than most alive on this earth today.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Taxing businesses.
If I accomplish nothing in my life but to open the eyes of a few U.S. citizens to the truth of the nature of taxing businesses, I will be satisfied that it was a life well lived. A life lived, I may add, as a worker and not as a wealthy business owner.
On TV last night a senator called for higher taxes on businesses to ease the burden on the average citizen. This senator, supposedly an educated man, proved that he is either sadly ignorant or that he is a purposeful liar--misleading the very average citizen he claims to protect.
Here is the truth: No business has ever paid taxes. No business ever will. Set the "business taxes" high or higher. Punish the businesses. Still, no business will ever pay taxes. Businesses may collect taxes and pass those monies on to the government, but, trust me, businesses don't pay taxes; their customers pay the taxes. Taxing businesses does more than indirectly take money out of the pocket of the consumer: It hurts the economy overall.
When a government wishes to collect taxes through a business, there are at least two basic ways the tax may be assessed, through a consumption tax, such as the new dollar per pack for cigarettes or a gas guzzler tax on thirsty autos. This method has the disadvantage (to a tax-hungry government) of being obvious. Consumers easily see who is paying the tax. The second method is to tax the businesses revenues or activities regardless of the consumer's choices. (If we consider fees, there are actually dozens of ways governments penalize the average consumer by taxing businesses.)
This is more oblique and less obvious to the consumer. But consider: If a tobacco firm sells 1,000,000 packs of cigarettes, a dollar per pack collects for the government one million dollars. And the consumer easily recognizes the cost as a tax and knows who is paying the tax. But if the government, instead, places a tax on the company's activities or revenues that will yield one million dollars in tax, what is the result? Assuming steady sales, the price of the pack of cigarettes has to go up one dollar per pack in this case as well. But since the tax is not obviously per pack, it is less clear to the consumer (who is paying for the cigarettes [and the tax]) exactly what it is that makes up the extra cost. The company collects one million dollars at a dollar a pack either way and passes the money to the government as a tax. But in the second case, the consumer likely thinks the business is gouging them and making great profits. Ask yourself, in which case did the business "pay" more taxes?
Answer: neither. The result is the same, consumers pay one dollar more per pack.
Now do you see why I say the good Senator is a liar? the business has no money except for the money paid to them for the products or services they provide. The only source of their money is from their customers. Who pays the tax? The customers.
If our elected representatives really wanted to protect the consumer, we would not have taxes on business revenues and activities nor on reasonable corporate profits. We should tax businesses only on their excess profits. Anything over, say, maybe 12% of gross revenues in profit. If a business is generating excess profits, they could either pay very high taxes on the excesses or they could lower the profits by reinvesting in the business (good for the economy); paying the employees more (good for the economy-and employees pay more income taxes); lowering their prices (which may increase sales volume: good for the economy); or, more likely, if the profits are really good, competition will move in and force the profits lower (again, good for the economy).
If our elected representatives do NOT care about protecting the consumer but are only concerned about short term personal gain and power, they would likely favor harming both the economy and the consumer by misleading us about the impact of taxing business revenues, activities, and all corporate profits. This form of taxation takes money out of the economy (and away from you, the consumer); it discourages and artificially limits business development and growth (bad for the economy); it encourages businesses to take their operations to a more favorable tax environment (bad for the economy). Worst of all, it hides from the taxpayers the true extent of the government's taxation of its citizens. Not even discussed here is the fact that it costs businesses money to collect and pass along the taxes, which increases costs to the consumer and hurts the economy even more.
Another way that the government collects monies from businesses is through employment taxes. Do you think the business really pays these costs? The business does not. Who does? The employee does. Now these taxes may be for a good cause, federal retirement and health benefits, unemployment insurance, etc. But we should be smart enough to know who really pays the costs. The costs come out of the total compensation the business pays for the employee's services. Were they not paid to the government, the business could pay more to employees in salary. Would they? Well, if the corporate tax structure only taxed excess profits the business would be motivated to leave more money in the employees checks or to reduce costs to consumers or grow the business. In each of these situations, everyone eventually comes out better.
For every penny of tax collected, more than a penny has to come out of the citizens' pockets. How we collect and allocate those monies is a societal decision. Perhaps we want to tax consumption in a way that raises revenues and impacts behaviors (like a “sin” tax or an excise tax on luxuries). Perhaps we want to tax all transactions, as most European countries do. Any and all taxes and fees on businesses (except for taxing excess profits) is, in effect, a consumption or transaction tax anyway, since all money to pay the taxes ultimately comes from the pockets of the citizens (and out of the economy). How much better off we would all be if our politicians would just be truthful to us about these matters.
So the next time you hear a politician calling for more and higher taxes on businesses so that you, the consumer, will get a break--ask yourself: Why is this politician not telling me the truth? What else is he (or she) misleading us about?
On TV last night a senator called for higher taxes on businesses to ease the burden on the average citizen. This senator, supposedly an educated man, proved that he is either sadly ignorant or that he is a purposeful liar--misleading the very average citizen he claims to protect.
Here is the truth: No business has ever paid taxes. No business ever will. Set the "business taxes" high or higher. Punish the businesses. Still, no business will ever pay taxes. Businesses may collect taxes and pass those monies on to the government, but, trust me, businesses don't pay taxes; their customers pay the taxes. Taxing businesses does more than indirectly take money out of the pocket of the consumer: It hurts the economy overall.
When a government wishes to collect taxes through a business, there are at least two basic ways the tax may be assessed, through a consumption tax, such as the new dollar per pack for cigarettes or a gas guzzler tax on thirsty autos. This method has the disadvantage (to a tax-hungry government) of being obvious. Consumers easily see who is paying the tax. The second method is to tax the businesses revenues or activities regardless of the consumer's choices. (If we consider fees, there are actually dozens of ways governments penalize the average consumer by taxing businesses.)
This is more oblique and less obvious to the consumer. But consider: If a tobacco firm sells 1,000,000 packs of cigarettes, a dollar per pack collects for the government one million dollars. And the consumer easily recognizes the cost as a tax and knows who is paying the tax. But if the government, instead, places a tax on the company's activities or revenues that will yield one million dollars in tax, what is the result? Assuming steady sales, the price of the pack of cigarettes has to go up one dollar per pack in this case as well. But since the tax is not obviously per pack, it is less clear to the consumer (who is paying for the cigarettes [and the tax]) exactly what it is that makes up the extra cost. The company collects one million dollars at a dollar a pack either way and passes the money to the government as a tax. But in the second case, the consumer likely thinks the business is gouging them and making great profits. Ask yourself, in which case did the business "pay" more taxes?
Answer: neither. The result is the same, consumers pay one dollar more per pack.
Now do you see why I say the good Senator is a liar? the business has no money except for the money paid to them for the products or services they provide. The only source of their money is from their customers. Who pays the tax? The customers.
If our elected representatives really wanted to protect the consumer, we would not have taxes on business revenues and activities nor on reasonable corporate profits. We should tax businesses only on their excess profits. Anything over, say, maybe 12% of gross revenues in profit. If a business is generating excess profits, they could either pay very high taxes on the excesses or they could lower the profits by reinvesting in the business (good for the economy); paying the employees more (good for the economy-and employees pay more income taxes); lowering their prices (which may increase sales volume: good for the economy); or, more likely, if the profits are really good, competition will move in and force the profits lower (again, good for the economy).
If our elected representatives do NOT care about protecting the consumer but are only concerned about short term personal gain and power, they would likely favor harming both the economy and the consumer by misleading us about the impact of taxing business revenues, activities, and all corporate profits. This form of taxation takes money out of the economy (and away from you, the consumer); it discourages and artificially limits business development and growth (bad for the economy); it encourages businesses to take their operations to a more favorable tax environment (bad for the economy). Worst of all, it hides from the taxpayers the true extent of the government's taxation of its citizens. Not even discussed here is the fact that it costs businesses money to collect and pass along the taxes, which increases costs to the consumer and hurts the economy even more.
Another way that the government collects monies from businesses is through employment taxes. Do you think the business really pays these costs? The business does not. Who does? The employee does. Now these taxes may be for a good cause, federal retirement and health benefits, unemployment insurance, etc. But we should be smart enough to know who really pays the costs. The costs come out of the total compensation the business pays for the employee's services. Were they not paid to the government, the business could pay more to employees in salary. Would they? Well, if the corporate tax structure only taxed excess profits the business would be motivated to leave more money in the employees checks or to reduce costs to consumers or grow the business. In each of these situations, everyone eventually comes out better.
For every penny of tax collected, more than a penny has to come out of the citizens' pockets. How we collect and allocate those monies is a societal decision. Perhaps we want to tax consumption in a way that raises revenues and impacts behaviors (like a “sin” tax or an excise tax on luxuries). Perhaps we want to tax all transactions, as most European countries do. Any and all taxes and fees on businesses (except for taxing excess profits) is, in effect, a consumption or transaction tax anyway, since all money to pay the taxes ultimately comes from the pockets of the citizens (and out of the economy). How much better off we would all be if our politicians would just be truthful to us about these matters.
So the next time you hear a politician calling for more and higher taxes on businesses so that you, the consumer, will get a break--ask yourself: Why is this politician not telling me the truth? What else is he (or she) misleading us about?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Almost random thoughts.
Today IH-35 reminded me that it is, and I am not, in charge of my schedule. After several days of an easy morning commute, even through rain, today was a mess. It took an hour and ten minutes to make my 14 miles. That's an average of 12 miles per hour, in case you wondered, on a U.S. interstate highway.
I generally listen during my morning commute to NPR's local member station, KSTX, of which I am a member. In most things I find their reporting interesting and accurate and at least somewhat balanced. But locally their traffic reporting is less than worthless. This morning, as the traffic reporter discussed the accidents on IH-10, on Loop 1604, and on various surface streets around San Antonio, he reported delays on IH-35 "from the intersection of Austin Highway all the way to Walzem." Well. Austin Highway does NOT intersect IH-35. It does intersect Walzem one-half mile west of IH-35. See my note, above, about this morning's commute. IH-35 South was packed and stop and go from north of FM 3009 to well past the split onto IH-410 South near Walzem. And on IH-35 North there was a passenger van sideways near Loop 1604 blocking two north-bound lanes. This caused the north-bound traffic to be backed up several miles to beyond Walzem. As I switched off the frustrating traffic report at about 8:50 AM there was still no mention of the traffic woes on IH-35 in which, by then, I had been snarled for 70 minutes. Thank you, KSTX. Accurate traffic reporting has the potential to ease our commute, reduce idling (which causes extra pollution), and improve our economy directly through less lost time. I wish KSTX could give me reliable reporting that would let me effectively adjust my commute time or my route.
This morning's headline in the San Antonio Express News noted that Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter had "Jumped to the Dems." It is fitting that he should jump to the Dems, since he's been dancing to their tune for several years anyway.
Our local UPS driver told me this morning that business has been steady through March. Maybe the worst of our economic slump is over. I trust our UPS driver more than I trust Timothy Geitner (or Henry Paulson, or Paul O'Neill, or Ben Bernanke, et. al.)
I generally listen during my morning commute to NPR's local member station, KSTX, of which I am a member. In most things I find their reporting interesting and accurate and at least somewhat balanced. But locally their traffic reporting is less than worthless. This morning, as the traffic reporter discussed the accidents on IH-10, on Loop 1604, and on various surface streets around San Antonio, he reported delays on IH-35 "from the intersection of Austin Highway all the way to Walzem." Well. Austin Highway does NOT intersect IH-35. It does intersect Walzem one-half mile west of IH-35. See my note, above, about this morning's commute. IH-35 South was packed and stop and go from north of FM 3009 to well past the split onto IH-410 South near Walzem. And on IH-35 North there was a passenger van sideways near Loop 1604 blocking two north-bound lanes. This caused the north-bound traffic to be backed up several miles to beyond Walzem. As I switched off the frustrating traffic report at about 8:50 AM there was still no mention of the traffic woes on IH-35 in which, by then, I had been snarled for 70 minutes. Thank you, KSTX. Accurate traffic reporting has the potential to ease our commute, reduce idling (which causes extra pollution), and improve our economy directly through less lost time. I wish KSTX could give me reliable reporting that would let me effectively adjust my commute time or my route.
This morning's headline in the San Antonio Express News noted that Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter had "Jumped to the Dems." It is fitting that he should jump to the Dems, since he's been dancing to their tune for several years anyway.
Our local UPS driver told me this morning that business has been steady through March. Maybe the worst of our economic slump is over. I trust our UPS driver more than I trust Timothy Geitner (or Henry Paulson, or Paul O'Neill, or Ben Bernanke, et. al.)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Thoughts on life and death.
The president of Pakistan thinks that Osama Bin Laden must surely be dead by now. Ironic, as the government of Pakistan is very nearly dead, itself.
GM tells us that Pontiac is dead, following Oldsmobile to the great automotive brand resting place. Killed, I think, by 20 years of automotive "quality" that depended almost solely on the tacking-on of plastic body cladding just in case the car was not ugly enough on its own. Dressing a pig in lipstick? A front lower lip, a spoiler a wheel flare: Tack it on. We'll make the damn think ugly one way or another. Pontiac's proudest moment in design history: The Aztec. It did not need any plastic tack-ons to make it ugly. They added some anyway. I had become convinced that GM's Pontiac was the Ottawa tribe's revenge on American society for the damage the white settlers did to their tribe and their lands. R.I.P. Chief Pontiac.
In the meantime, our economy, if not dead, is surley on the critical list. The medicos have told us for years to lay off the red meat, fat, salt, and sugar--confine our diets to the nutrients we need and kick obesity. Our economy has the same health problems - a bloated morbidity brought on by too many years of excesses. One of the first questions posed by my economics professor, low these many decades ago, was, "What would be the state of the world economy if people suddenly decided to spend only on basic needs?" What? No cell phones or Wii games? No meals out or convenience foods at home? No increasing credit card limits? No designer jeans? No speedboats or RVs? Hah! That'll never happen!
GM tells us that Pontiac is dead, following Oldsmobile to the great automotive brand resting place. Killed, I think, by 20 years of automotive "quality" that depended almost solely on the tacking-on of plastic body cladding just in case the car was not ugly enough on its own. Dressing a pig in lipstick? A front lower lip, a spoiler a wheel flare: Tack it on. We'll make the damn think ugly one way or another. Pontiac's proudest moment in design history: The Aztec. It did not need any plastic tack-ons to make it ugly. They added some anyway. I had become convinced that GM's Pontiac was the Ottawa tribe's revenge on American society for the damage the white settlers did to their tribe and their lands. R.I.P. Chief Pontiac.
In the meantime, our economy, if not dead, is surley on the critical list. The medicos have told us for years to lay off the red meat, fat, salt, and sugar--confine our diets to the nutrients we need and kick obesity. Our economy has the same health problems - a bloated morbidity brought on by too many years of excesses. One of the first questions posed by my economics professor, low these many decades ago, was, "What would be the state of the world economy if people suddenly decided to spend only on basic needs?" What? No cell phones or Wii games? No meals out or convenience foods at home? No increasing credit card limits? No designer jeans? No speedboats or RVs? Hah! That'll never happen!
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Washington D.C. cherry blossoms.
I'm in D.C. for a couple of days and the cherry trees are in full bloom. It is truly an awesome sight. I've been here many times but always missed the bloom season by a day or a week or two early or late. I have not had time to play tourist, plus, today was darkly overcast, but I got a couple of quick snapshots yesterday. If anyone cares to look at them, you will find them at http://www.flickr.com/ezdunne.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Quick update re: the cloud.
Well, I did it. Signed up for Gmail, and so far, so good. I have consolidated my work and personal emails into Gmail, have it filtering using tags, adding action items directly from email into My Tasks and My Calendar then archiving the emails. That keeps my inbox clean and the tasks and events link right back to the originating email for reference. Neat. And with the addition of a widget that gives color tags, finding things in my archived mail is a snap, and, if it isn't the powerful search feature is great. I like the way Gmail lets me send and receive as if I were using the "native" email account, and allows me to automatically reply from the email address the original was sent to. So, the move to cloud computing has been good. Not perfect. I would like to be able to sort by sender or topic. I don't care for the way Gmail handles replies and the action "buttons" are in places that seem less than logical to me, but, still, good. One of the biggest advantages I see is that I'll have a copy of my sent emails available (so long as I can get to Gmail) from anywhere, regardless of which email I sent from. That can be big for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
