Mozart, the genius of composition, touches the heart forever. Here is the sublime trio, "Soave sia il vento" translated "May the Wind be Gentle" from his rather comical opera Cosi Fan Tutte typically translated "All Women are Alike." Go figure! Are we? Are men really from Mars and women from Venus? Don't we really want the same things? Perhaps it's a simple--or not so simple--matter of how we go about getting them. Are some caught in between? Where might this place be? Pluto? Oh, it's no longer a planet anymore, is it? Perhaps this is the feeling of many--the sense of being nowhere, of not being understood or not being emotionally wholly in one category of the other. But I digress.
In the trio the men are leaving the young women in a state of extreme distraught, wondering when or if they'll see their lovers again. Notice the underlining troubling "waves" of the orchestra over the calm plaintive wails of the singers, setting up the theme of the opera and a beautiful tension similar to real life—not that such tensions are always beautiful. Often times separation and gender differences are just painful. But do sometimes they hurt so good—just a little? The trio appears in Act I which sets the scene for a series of strange happenings, ensuring that things will never be the same for the young lovers ever again. Here is the translation: "May the wind be gentle, may the wave (s) be calm, and may every one of the elements warmly fulfill our (your) wishes." Enjoy!
Friday, March 5, 2010
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Being Happy
Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and Nobel Prize laureate for his groundbreaking work in behavioral economics, gave a thoughtful talk at TED this year. He dealt with the paradox between the experience and memory selves and how it applies to happiness. Kahneman asserts that time is the crucial element that distinguishes the experience and memory selves. He concludes that there is no change in time in the story; the story itself as actually experienced doesn't change. But what about our memory of it? Memory seems to evolve in time even though there is no actual change in the story itself. Our memory of the story often changes. Kahneman asserts that "we choose between memories of the experience." But I wonder about our recreating or reinventing the experience. Does this become memory?
What we think about "the happiness of the experiencing self and the satisfaction of the memory self" are very different, Khaneman posits. There is nothing new here really. I think this relates to our ability to invent stories, even memorable ones, those re-created by memory from the story. The mind seems to have a distinct ability to create stories, to develop pictures. But what is interesting is how these distinct selves relate to our happiness or sense of it. Kahnenman asserts that "happiness is not a substitute for well-being. They are two different notions." He gives stats that unequivocally indicate that money plays a role in how we remember happiness but not how we experience it. Do listen to the 20-minute video. You might find in interesting, even applicable in how we think about happiness.
What are your thoughts?
What we think about "the happiness of the experiencing self and the satisfaction of the memory self" are very different, Khaneman posits. There is nothing new here really. I think this relates to our ability to invent stories, even memorable ones, those re-created by memory from the story. The mind seems to have a distinct ability to create stories, to develop pictures. But what is interesting is how these distinct selves relate to our happiness or sense of it. Kahnenman asserts that "happiness is not a substitute for well-being. They are two different notions." He gives stats that unequivocally indicate that money plays a role in how we remember happiness but not how we experience it. Do listen to the 20-minute video. You might find in interesting, even applicable in how we think about happiness.
What are your thoughts?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Being for Public Schools
In 2005 former Assistant Secretary of Education Diane Ravitch wrote, "We should thank President George W. Bush and Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act ... All this attention and focus is paying off for younger students, who are reading and solving mathematics problems better than their parents' generation."
In 2009 Ravitch has changed her mind. "I was known as a conservative advocate of many of these policies," Ravitch says. "But I've looked at the evidence and I've concluded they're wrong. They've put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don't think any of this is going to improve public education."
Ravitch appeared on NPR today.
Ravitch believes that No Child Left Behind "misuses standardized testing."
"The basic strategy is measuring and punishing. And it turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there's a lot of cheating going on, there's a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it's actually lowered standards because many states have 'dumbed down' their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are."
Ravitch opposes charter schools, as they take money away from public schools and have not been proven to be any better largely. She also opposes competition within education.
"There should not be an education marketplace, there should not be competition," Ravitch says. "Schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration. Teachers are supposed to share what works; schools are supposed to get together and talk about what's [been successful] for them. They're not supposed to hide their trade secrets and have a survival of the fittest competition with the school down the block."
I agree with Ravitch point by point.
In 2009 Ravitch has changed her mind. "I was known as a conservative advocate of many of these policies," Ravitch says. "But I've looked at the evidence and I've concluded they're wrong. They've put us on the wrong track. I feel passionately about the improvement of public education and I don't think any of this is going to improve public education."
Ravitch appeared on NPR today.
Ravitch believes that No Child Left Behind "misuses standardized testing."
"The basic strategy is measuring and punishing. And it turns out as a result of putting so much emphasis on the test scores, there's a lot of cheating going on, there's a lot of gaming the system. Instead of raising standards it's actually lowered standards because many states have 'dumbed down' their tests or changed the scoring of their tests to say that more kids are passing than actually are."
Ravitch opposes charter schools, as they take money away from public schools and have not been proven to be any better largely. She also opposes competition within education.
"There should not be an education marketplace, there should not be competition," Ravitch says. "Schools operate fundamentally — or should operate — like families. The fundamental principle by which education proceeds is collaboration. Teachers are supposed to share what works; schools are supposed to get together and talk about what's [been successful] for them. They're not supposed to hide their trade secrets and have a survival of the fittest competition with the school down the block."
I agree with Ravitch point by point.
Being in the Old Guard
Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates the age limit to join the House of Representative as 25. Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution stipulates the age limit to join the Senate as 30. Why isn't there a stipulation that requires those in the House and Senate to retire at a certain age? What might that age be? If we are not going to impose term limits maybe there should be age limits on both ends, entering and exiting. I'm getting really tired of the same staid faces which usually represent the same staid ideas.
Being Senator Jon Kyl
Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) is against unemployment insurance and Cobra extensions that would enable families to subsist and get some form of health care insurance while they search for work. Okay, that's his stance. But as a legislator what is he doing to assist those who have given into the system and through no fault of their own have been laid off? We can all take a stance but as a legislator I want to know what is he doing about our current state. Otherwise, it is my opinion that instead of holding up benefits that other states desperately need he can go back to Arizona and find another job himself and pay for his family's health care benefits without Cobra.
Here in Michigan there are just as many white collar workers and blue collar workers who are without jobs. What is the solution right now? There seemed to be no problem in giving hundreds of billions to Wall Street banks who are now making record profits. Everything takes time in Washington. The Stimulus is working but not fast enough. Again, if companies (large and small) are not hiring and banks are not lending what should be done right now?
Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate in the Senate yesterday on whether to extend unemployment insurance and other benefits that would assist families during this incredibly difficult time. "I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer," Kyl continued. "If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here."
As a business owner, I employ others. I vehemently disagree with Senator Kyl. I'm actually out in this incredibly difficult jobs environment; he's largely pontificating in Washington. Most people would much rather have a job than receive unemployment insurance. It's not a "disincentive." It's not called unemployment insurance for nothing. It's insurance for those who have already paid into the system. Being from Michigan, the hardest hit state with the highest unemployment, I am acutely aware that many are laid off of work due to no fault of their own and are hitting the payment every single day in search of work.
A recent jobs fair in downtown Detroit nearly caused a stampede. I have hired many of these. I see the pain on the faces of unemployed men and the fear in the eyes of single mothers. Questions are prevalent on their faces: Will I be able to feed my family? Will I lose my home? They are not using unemployment insurance as a "disincentive." They are out every day looking for work. But right now they need assistance.
Here in Michigan there are just as many white collar workers and blue collar workers who are without jobs. What is the solution right now? There seemed to be no problem in giving hundreds of billions to Wall Street banks who are now making record profits. Everything takes time in Washington. The Stimulus is working but not fast enough. Again, if companies (large and small) are not hiring and banks are not lending what should be done right now?
Unemployment insurance "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work," Kyl said during debate in the Senate yesterday on whether to extend unemployment insurance and other benefits that would assist families during this incredibly difficult time. "I'm sure most of them would like work and probably have tried to seek it, but you can't argue that it's a job enhancer," Kyl continued. "If anything, as I said, it's a disincentive. And the same thing with the COBRA extension and the other extensions here."
As a business owner, I employ others. I vehemently disagree with Senator Kyl. I'm actually out in this incredibly difficult jobs environment; he's largely pontificating in Washington. Most people would much rather have a job than receive unemployment insurance. It's not a "disincentive." It's not called unemployment insurance for nothing. It's insurance for those who have already paid into the system. Being from Michigan, the hardest hit state with the highest unemployment, I am acutely aware that many are laid off of work due to no fault of their own and are hitting the payment every single day in search of work.
A recent jobs fair in downtown Detroit nearly caused a stampede. I have hired many of these. I see the pain on the faces of unemployed men and the fear in the eyes of single mothers. Questions are prevalent on their faces: Will I be able to feed my family? Will I lose my home? They are not using unemployment insurance as a "disincentive." They are out every day looking for work. But right now they need assistance.
Being Merciful
"For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
--James 2:13
Be merciful.
--James 2:13
Be merciful.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Being Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett has never been out so much on television as he has been in the last two years. Usually, we see him once a year during his annual quirky shareholders' meeting in Omaha. The interesting thing is that Berkshire has never been in such a dubious position as it has been over the same period. Yes, I'm aware that Berkshire has been profitable lately. Do you remember how much Buffett was insisting on the need for bank bailouts? He had vested interests, real skin in the game.
There seems to be a correlation with the once reclusive billionaire investor and the now very talkative one. Buffett talks health care today as a typical politician in a back and forth wiggle room position, rejecting the current bill while saying that other countries--mostly socialized countries I might add--do it better. The world pays about 9 percent of their GDP on health care he noted. We pay 17 percent.
Buffett says that we should "attack cost cost cost" as "jobs jobs jobs." But he doesn't suggest how these things might be done. Real lawmakers, not obstructionists, are in the real position of dealing with how things are done. Often times, comprises are necessary. I did not like the tone Buffett took on President Obama's effort of bipartisanship and beginning anew with that infamous "white sheet of paper" is out of the question.
Regarding the health care bill, Buffett says that he would prefer a Plan C as opposed to the current A or B but he doesn't say how this Plan C would look or why his ideas--whatever they are--could be added to the current bill. His uncertainty or inability to actually express what he means did not instill confidence.
The Oracle of Omaha seemed to be a bit of red meat for the giddy often ill-informed CNBC analysts who tried to force him to say what he was actually saying as opposed to dancing like an inept dancer. Perhaps Buffett felt as if he needed to make a television appearance as George Soros' did brilliantly yesterday on Fareed Zakaria GPS. It did not work well for him.
An article in the Huffington Post reports that "Berkshire owns clothing, furniture, jewelry and corporate jet firms, but its insurance and utility businesses accounted for one-third of the company's profit last year. It's net income jumped 61 percent in 2009 to $8.1 billion largely because the value of its investments and derivatives rose sharply."
As I read this I couldn't help but to wonder if Berkshire is so very profitable as Goldman Sachs now is through government bailouts of Wall Street firms. (Yes, I understood the necessity of the bailouts, although not the lack of accountability.) Goldman Sachs is now also reporting record profits. After all, Berkshire was heavily invested in Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs heavily insured by AIG. As indicated above "insurance and utility accounted for one-third of the company's profits last year." A question: Are banks essentially utilities?
What a web we are all in. But some of us get caught therein while others win big, lecturing us on what we need to do without offering any real solutions on how to do it. There is cost control containment in the current health care bill, although perhaps there could be more. Some would say that the public option would insure greater cost containment.
While being for the public option, it is not a deal breaker for me in this first stage of health care reform. Changes to Medicare has also occurred over time. But if Warren Buffett has an opinion on what needs to be further included in the current health care bill he should say so or otherwise not comment at all. After all, he is known to be the Oracle of Omaha and some might just listen to him. But in this CNBC interview what has he really said?
There seems to be a correlation with the once reclusive billionaire investor and the now very talkative one. Buffett talks health care today as a typical politician in a back and forth wiggle room position, rejecting the current bill while saying that other countries--mostly socialized countries I might add--do it better. The world pays about 9 percent of their GDP on health care he noted. We pay 17 percent.
Buffett says that we should "attack cost cost cost" as "jobs jobs jobs." But he doesn't suggest how these things might be done. Real lawmakers, not obstructionists, are in the real position of dealing with how things are done. Often times, comprises are necessary. I did not like the tone Buffett took on President Obama's effort of bipartisanship and beginning anew with that infamous "white sheet of paper" is out of the question.
Regarding the health care bill, Buffett says that he would prefer a Plan C as opposed to the current A or B but he doesn't say how this Plan C would look or why his ideas--whatever they are--could be added to the current bill. His uncertainty or inability to actually express what he means did not instill confidence.
The Oracle of Omaha seemed to be a bit of red meat for the giddy often ill-informed CNBC analysts who tried to force him to say what he was actually saying as opposed to dancing like an inept dancer. Perhaps Buffett felt as if he needed to make a television appearance as George Soros' did brilliantly yesterday on Fareed Zakaria GPS. It did not work well for him.
An article in the Huffington Post reports that "Berkshire owns clothing, furniture, jewelry and corporate jet firms, but its insurance and utility businesses accounted for one-third of the company's profit last year. It's net income jumped 61 percent in 2009 to $8.1 billion largely because the value of its investments and derivatives rose sharply."
As I read this I couldn't help but to wonder if Berkshire is so very profitable as Goldman Sachs now is through government bailouts of Wall Street firms. (Yes, I understood the necessity of the bailouts, although not the lack of accountability.) Goldman Sachs is now also reporting record profits. After all, Berkshire was heavily invested in Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs heavily insured by AIG. As indicated above "insurance and utility accounted for one-third of the company's profits last year." A question: Are banks essentially utilities?
What a web we are all in. But some of us get caught therein while others win big, lecturing us on what we need to do without offering any real solutions on how to do it. There is cost control containment in the current health care bill, although perhaps there could be more. Some would say that the public option would insure greater cost containment.
While being for the public option, it is not a deal breaker for me in this first stage of health care reform. Changes to Medicare has also occurred over time. But if Warren Buffett has an opinion on what needs to be further included in the current health care bill he should say so or otherwise not comment at all. After all, he is known to be the Oracle of Omaha and some might just listen to him. But in this CNBC interview what has he really said?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)