Ms. Wolf,
After reading your CNN article this morning entitled 'Kate's breasts,
Pussy, Riot, virginity tests, and our attitude towards women's bodies' I
see a striking aggrandizement of the sexuality Pussy Riot evokes being
a female trio punk rock band, the reason for their imprisonment and the
thesis or point of your article. Pussy Riot was speaking out in a
public demonstration against the Russian orthodox church's support for
the united Russia party and Vladimir
Putin as the country's president. Sadly their actions interrupted a
church service at one orthodox cathedral and they were charged with
hooliganism motivated by religious hatred. Granted, more than likely
their stiff sentence and specific charges were skewed and propogandized
to deter questions of political persecution, but anyone can see the
Kremlin wanted an example mad out of them for speaking against the
ruling party.
Your article's sole premise is more of a general stab at sociological
idealogies as they relate to sex, the exploitation of woman, and the
female body as a whole. Aside from pussy riot being women, not sure how
mentioning them gives your article or your point to be more precise any
more vigor other than to slowly euthanize a pseudo-intellectual passerby
having eloped from their daily work duties to surf the Internet at
lunch only to become fixated on buzz word current events.
Best,
b
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Federer
Forgive me father for it has been quite some time since my last confession.
Roger Federer's prowess on the tennis court is unmatched in historical context. It is however a stitch in time where perhaps his competition was not comparable to the likes of the now prime players Nadal and Djokovic. Clearly, there is a drop off in Tennis Greatnss after the Big 3 and even though they existed during Federer's remarkable run of 231 consecutive weeks at number 1, where he amassed 16 grand slams and 60 plus tournament wins; Nadal and Djokovic were still at their nascent beginnings.
Now, it appears, the panacea, including totalitarian reign atop the ATP standing which 'the joker' ,as he is aptly referred,currenlty resides, is Nadal, Federer, and the homogenous court surface manipulation by the ATP. The likely hood of Djokovic winning every tournament but the french each year, conceded to not a French Frog but a conquistador of the clay in Nadal, is unlikely. This due in part to Nadal's lack of competition amongst other ATP players as of late including Federer. At 25 he has time to figure out what he needs to do to beat Djokovic on other surfaces, and with 5 set marathons being the status quo between the two, he is not far from doing it. This of course brings us to the aforementioned court homogenization by the atp to essentially slow down everything, so the points are longer on every surface to the extent where no one can tell the difference between how a ball bounces at Flushing Meadows in the fall and Wimbledon in the summer. It makes for great tv and it keeps baseline play en vogue as well as discouraging, or should I say, outright banning the teaching of serve and volley techniques as a 'style' of play at bolleteri and other youth tennis academies.
This brings me to my point, the slower surfaces perhaps is red-herring as to why older players are playing longer on tour, 28 plus, and also why Roger Federer's weapons are not as powerful as they once were. What I notice the most about Federer in terms of what he has lost is not so much athleticism, because quite frankly it is hard to tell. Clearly his footwork is a little slower as some of his shot making has waned in the last two yeas, however, what i notice most of all is how much his serve has turned from a weapon to merely a starter pistol . Most notably at Wimbledon, he doesnt seem to have the free points off his serve that I am accustomed to seeing. Everything seems to be hit back and against the human pong machine djokovic, something will have to be improved upon, to cut the point duration and give more power to his shots. Perhaps, Federer will serve and volley all day, though with the pace he is generating I dont see that happening. The Serve speed might be like old, but the ball slows down considerably after it hits the ground on this grass, particularly as the tournament goes to the later rounds, the dirt ground surface slows the ball down even further.
I dont see Federer having a shot against Djokovic who has harder ground strokes and counterpunches with his 18/20 string pattern better than anyone on tour. His serve is also enormously underrated, the surfaces he has placed Federer on recently he has essentially dominated him, I wish Federer the best, but I simply dont see him winning.
Roger Federer's prowess on the tennis court is unmatched in historical context. It is however a stitch in time where perhaps his competition was not comparable to the likes of the now prime players Nadal and Djokovic. Clearly, there is a drop off in Tennis Greatnss after the Big 3 and even though they existed during Federer's remarkable run of 231 consecutive weeks at number 1, where he amassed 16 grand slams and 60 plus tournament wins; Nadal and Djokovic were still at their nascent beginnings.
Now, it appears, the panacea, including totalitarian reign atop the ATP standing which 'the joker' ,as he is aptly referred,currenlty resides, is Nadal, Federer, and the homogenous court surface manipulation by the ATP. The likely hood of Djokovic winning every tournament but the french each year, conceded to not a French Frog but a conquistador of the clay in Nadal, is unlikely. This due in part to Nadal's lack of competition amongst other ATP players as of late including Federer. At 25 he has time to figure out what he needs to do to beat Djokovic on other surfaces, and with 5 set marathons being the status quo between the two, he is not far from doing it. This of course brings us to the aforementioned court homogenization by the atp to essentially slow down everything, so the points are longer on every surface to the extent where no one can tell the difference between how a ball bounces at Flushing Meadows in the fall and Wimbledon in the summer. It makes for great tv and it keeps baseline play en vogue as well as discouraging, or should I say, outright banning the teaching of serve and volley techniques as a 'style' of play at bolleteri and other youth tennis academies.
This brings me to my point, the slower surfaces perhaps is red-herring as to why older players are playing longer on tour, 28 plus, and also why Roger Federer's weapons are not as powerful as they once were. What I notice the most about Federer in terms of what he has lost is not so much athleticism, because quite frankly it is hard to tell. Clearly his footwork is a little slower as some of his shot making has waned in the last two yeas, however, what i notice most of all is how much his serve has turned from a weapon to merely a starter pistol . Most notably at Wimbledon, he doesnt seem to have the free points off his serve that I am accustomed to seeing. Everything seems to be hit back and against the human pong machine djokovic, something will have to be improved upon, to cut the point duration and give more power to his shots. Perhaps, Federer will serve and volley all day, though with the pace he is generating I dont see that happening. The Serve speed might be like old, but the ball slows down considerably after it hits the ground on this grass, particularly as the tournament goes to the later rounds, the dirt ground surface slows the ball down even further.
I dont see Federer having a shot against Djokovic who has harder ground strokes and counterpunches with his 18/20 string pattern better than anyone on tour. His serve is also enormously underrated, the surfaces he has placed Federer on recently he has essentially dominated him, I wish Federer the best, but I simply dont see him winning.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Letter to GLAAD PRESIDENT
Mr. Thompson
I always find it somewhat amusing when a reporter on either a partisan
news outlet such as fox news or some communist social welfare
prosthelytizing medium such as CNN attempt to converge gay rights and
politics to the tipping point of social paradigms. When Newt Gingrich
was asked at a Rally by a young man why gay and lesbian supporters of
his should vote for him I found the basic question a non-sequitur and
irreverent to any productive talking points on homosexuality. What
does sexual orientation have to do with voting for the president of
the United States? Newt is vehemently against same sex marriage and
finds homosexuality anti-christian and no doubt the man posing the
question new this so was he honest from the outset merely poised to
stir the pot? Other than marital rights why is sexual orientation such
a major issue in choosing a candidate to vote for. If Newt was gay I
would still vote for him because his ideologies match up with my own;
atleast the ones I feel to be most prudent, social welfare reform, war
on terror, healthcare, socioeconomic policy etc and so forth. Aren't
these the issues that any citizen should try to identify with in
choosing a candidate? Conversely, if I am a gay man or woman who is
reasonably intelligent I would imagine political issues other than gay
rights would be as important to me if not more important than whether
or not I can marry my significant other. If I have a car or am capable
of buying a bus or plane ticket I can travel to a state that does
allow such acts of sanctimony to occur. I can't gamble in DC but I can
gamble in Vegas; I can't marry my first cousin in DC but I can marry
my first cousin in West Virginia. Subversive activities that can
overthrow the very conduits of policing socially accepted morally
stringent behavior are dangerous if allowed to be considered part of
the status quo because people will take advantage of the immigration
loopholes, tax loopholes, and eviscerate the notion of private and
public life being separate. If a country club wishes to deny woman and
african americans I think that is wrong but its a private club and
they may do as they wish. Atleast that is the preface of the denial
letter I receive from Alpha Kappa Alpha stating their all-black
fraternity is strictly for 'people of color' and that perhaps 'I would
feel uncomfortable in such a social setting'.
P.S.
How do you think marines will feel when talking about having
heterosexual sex with a hot blonde over a game of cards in a barracks
when suddenly a gay member of the platoon mentions how much he enjoyed
anal sex with a guy the night before? Life isn't far, there is no
explanation possible to refute the likely deterrence of volunteers of
the arm forces if don't ask don't tell were repealed. Just
hypothetically speaking say pedophilia were not illegal, the soldier
that enjoyed sex with prepubescent girls or 10 year old boys pick your
poison, you don't suppose he would feel uncomfortable bringing this up
during a card game knowing he was in the minority? He is not exactly
going to be invited to a family picnick with my daughter thats for
sure.
Best,
Dale
I always find it somewhat amusing when a reporter on either a partisan
news outlet such as fox news or some communist social welfare
prosthelytizing medium such as CNN attempt to converge gay rights and
politics to the tipping point of social paradigms. When Newt Gingrich
was asked at a Rally by a young man why gay and lesbian supporters of
his should vote for him I found the basic question a non-sequitur and
irreverent to any productive talking points on homosexuality. What
does sexual orientation have to do with voting for the president of
the United States? Newt is vehemently against same sex marriage and
finds homosexuality anti-christian and no doubt the man posing the
question new this so was he honest from the outset merely poised to
stir the pot? Other than marital rights why is sexual orientation such
a major issue in choosing a candidate to vote for. If Newt was gay I
would still vote for him because his ideologies match up with my own;
atleast the ones I feel to be most prudent, social welfare reform, war
on terror, healthcare, socioeconomic policy etc and so forth. Aren't
these the issues that any citizen should try to identify with in
choosing a candidate? Conversely, if I am a gay man or woman who is
reasonably intelligent I would imagine political issues other than gay
rights would be as important to me if not more important than whether
or not I can marry my significant other. If I have a car or am capable
of buying a bus or plane ticket I can travel to a state that does
allow such acts of sanctimony to occur. I can't gamble in DC but I can
gamble in Vegas; I can't marry my first cousin in DC but I can marry
my first cousin in West Virginia. Subversive activities that can
overthrow the very conduits of policing socially accepted morally
stringent behavior are dangerous if allowed to be considered part of
the status quo because people will take advantage of the immigration
loopholes, tax loopholes, and eviscerate the notion of private and
public life being separate. If a country club wishes to deny woman and
african americans I think that is wrong but its a private club and
they may do as they wish. Atleast that is the preface of the denial
letter I receive from Alpha Kappa Alpha stating their all-black
fraternity is strictly for 'people of color' and that perhaps 'I would
feel uncomfortable in such a social setting'.
P.S.
How do you think marines will feel when talking about having
heterosexual sex with a hot blonde over a game of cards in a barracks
when suddenly a gay member of the platoon mentions how much he enjoyed
anal sex with a guy the night before? Life isn't far, there is no
explanation possible to refute the likely deterrence of volunteers of
the arm forces if don't ask don't tell were repealed. Just
hypothetically speaking say pedophilia were not illegal, the soldier
that enjoyed sex with prepubescent girls or 10 year old boys pick your
poison, you don't suppose he would feel uncomfortable bringing this up
during a card game knowing he was in the minority? He is not exactly
going to be invited to a family picnick with my daughter thats for
sure.
Best,
Dale
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Public expenditure Keynesian Philosophy and the War on Terror
I concede the point that the Taylor rule is a better measure of controlling inflation with marginal interest rate adjustments then the Phillips Curve. But the Phillips Curve still has some bite left in it particularly in relation to unemployment figures and a booming economy catalyzed initially by Obama's TARP, QE 1,2,3, and the governments purchase of the most toxic debt assets from private companies including those it absorbed such as GM. Unemployment continues to go down, inflation is rising, and in Europe the ESFS and ECB are asking those parties that hold 81 Billion EUROS in greek bonds to take a 53.5 percent hair cut to supplement the asset relief efforts visa vie Angela Merkel and other European leaders. It appears to me that if the United States were to aid Syria, Israel were to bomb Iran, and the European Oil Embargo were to occur within months of each other the results could incite catastrophic hyper inflation causing atavistic post world war one Keynesian reconstruction of the global economy.
To offset this crisis, given that the production costs of North American National Gas, and oil extraction through hydraulic fracturing and other measures is the lowest in the world. The Fed is easily capable using price controls to manipulate our currency, in this case devaluing it. If this were to happen the United States could once again become a major competitive export center of the world not seen since the Cold War era of the 1950s. In 2011 the U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported making the U.S. a net exporter of such goods, primarily disiel, for the first time since 1949. ...........
To offset this crisis, given that the production costs of North American National Gas, and oil extraction through hydraulic fracturing and other measures is the lowest in the world. The Fed is easily capable using price controls to manipulate our currency, in this case devaluing it. If this were to happen the United States could once again become a major competitive export center of the world not seen since the Cold War era of the 1950s. In 2011 the U.S. exported more oil-based fuels than it imported making the U.S. a net exporter of such goods, primarily disiel, for the first time since 1949. ...........
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Forgive Me Father For I Have Sinned
Forgive me Father for it has been ten days since my last confession and I have sinned with abundant obdurance in the interim. William Buckley's avid glean could not foresee my speculating as hubris having envisaged the fall of the BRICs equity markets. The spring's fate air is upon us and so is the rapid precipice of the Nasdaq; the technology sell off is upon us. If you believe in the efficient market hypothesis the determined dip of tech should not be timed with the cherry blossom festival year after year, but since studying market data since 1982, it happens year after year with the tick of my patek phillip. My layman assumption is in fact that product renewal and advanced inventory upgrades are generally featured towards the end of the fourth quarter and these sales figures trickle into the next year's business cycle. By the spring however, the cache of a christmas state of the art macbook has dispersed and everyone is awaiting until the release of the next iPhone, say late summer early fall to incite the next plebiscite yah or nay. Could it also be as Tom Brokaw referred to in his " The greatest generation" a 'mass exodus' to the outdoors with the smell of barbecue jamborees and burned rubber on the asphalt cajoling the would be 1080p flat screen channel surfers and computer virtuosos to partake in the majesty of the outdoors. We all know gas prices will rise and continue to stay high during the peak travel months of late spring and summer however...... more to come
Friday, February 17, 2012
Keynesian Economics 101
"If you put two economists in a room, you get two opinions, unless one of them is Lord Keynes, in which case you get three,"- Winston Churchill
Such a remark often attributed to Winston Churchill was met by Manyard Keynes with the stout academic reply of " When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you, sir?". Without historical contextualization my point is without merit as the ability to change one's mind by my estimation highlights intelligence not ignorance. The year is 1931 the place is London, England and Keynes has just published his famed denouncement of the Treaty of Versailles entitles Treatise. Nominal interest rates are high and prices on consumers goods are low and unemployment is over 20 percent. Keynes publicly encouraged mother's, daughters, and wives to spend and was pushing a public works program to lower unemployment. Treasury Chancellor Philip Snowden in response wrote a memorandum illustrating how "continued state borrowing on the present scale without provision for repayment....would quickly call into question the stability of the British financial system." Ergo, the fear that continued spending by the British government without repayment would echo fears throughout the already debt ridden super powers of Europe that the English government would renege on its debts prompting a run on the pound sterling.
Having read the memorandum Keynes made an about-face opting for temporary import levies to gain capital. Citing Hayek's criticism's of Keynes, Hayek could not accept Keynes believe that the divergence between investment and savings was that it adversely affected the stability of prices. As a corollary Keynes naturally would insist upon public works 'investments and an increase in household spending to promote inflationary price measures that would in the short term trigger employment opportunities. Introducing Knut Wicksell's thesis from The Influence of the Rate of Interest on Prices I believe illustrates there is no finite answer to such an economic problems as they fluctuate like the ebb and flow of the tides. However, the noble and sensible gentleman would ascertain from Keynes capricious calls to action in the mist of Hyper inflation in Germany and Austria and the stock market crash of 1929 that his doctrine is not ingrained in stone. Keynes believed it was the duty of the government to assist its people in a time of crisis, a crisis that not only affects the individual and company, but a sovereign's solvency. To allow the free market to correct itself to Keynes politically would be peripatetic in that the free market would inadvertently be directing fiscal and monetary policy as opposed to the other way around. Therefore in a democracy, autocracy, or totalitarian regime, the natural rate of interest has the power unless reeled in by the government to shift power from the public sector to the private. According to Wicksell's thesis:
" The thesis which I humbly submit to criticism is this. If, other things remaining the same, the leading banks of the world were to lower their rate of interest, say 1 per cent. below its ordinary level, and keep it so for some years, then the prices of all commodities would rise and rise and rise without any limit whatever; on the contrary, if the leading banks were toraise their rate of interest, say 1 per cent. above its normal level, and keep it so for some years, then all prices would fall and fall and fall without any limit except Zero."
Point being the economic retracement to equilibrium in interest vs prices takes longer in the free market economy than through a central bank in establishing market rates. Based soley on the natural rate of interests yield to maturity curve, the angles of elevation in depression visa vie short and long term holdings would present much steeper inclines and declines and shorter periods of inelasticity....Thoughts so far?
Such a remark often attributed to Winston Churchill was met by Manyard Keynes with the stout academic reply of " When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you, sir?". Without historical contextualization my point is without merit as the ability to change one's mind by my estimation highlights intelligence not ignorance. The year is 1931 the place is London, England and Keynes has just published his famed denouncement of the Treaty of Versailles entitles Treatise. Nominal interest rates are high and prices on consumers goods are low and unemployment is over 20 percent. Keynes publicly encouraged mother's, daughters, and wives to spend and was pushing a public works program to lower unemployment. Treasury Chancellor Philip Snowden in response wrote a memorandum illustrating how "continued state borrowing on the present scale without provision for repayment....would quickly call into question the stability of the British financial system." Ergo, the fear that continued spending by the British government without repayment would echo fears throughout the already debt ridden super powers of Europe that the English government would renege on its debts prompting a run on the pound sterling.
Having read the memorandum Keynes made an about-face opting for temporary import levies to gain capital. Citing Hayek's criticism's of Keynes, Hayek could not accept Keynes believe that the divergence between investment and savings was that it adversely affected the stability of prices. As a corollary Keynes naturally would insist upon public works 'investments and an increase in household spending to promote inflationary price measures that would in the short term trigger employment opportunities. Introducing Knut Wicksell's thesis from The Influence of the Rate of Interest on Prices I believe illustrates there is no finite answer to such an economic problems as they fluctuate like the ebb and flow of the tides. However, the noble and sensible gentleman would ascertain from Keynes capricious calls to action in the mist of Hyper inflation in Germany and Austria and the stock market crash of 1929 that his doctrine is not ingrained in stone. Keynes believed it was the duty of the government to assist its people in a time of crisis, a crisis that not only affects the individual and company, but a sovereign's solvency. To allow the free market to correct itself to Keynes politically would be peripatetic in that the free market would inadvertently be directing fiscal and monetary policy as opposed to the other way around. Therefore in a democracy, autocracy, or totalitarian regime, the natural rate of interest has the power unless reeled in by the government to shift power from the public sector to the private. According to Wicksell's thesis:
" The thesis which I humbly submit to criticism is this. If, other things remaining the same, the leading banks of the world were to lower their rate of interest, say 1 per cent. below its ordinary level, and keep it so for some years, then the prices of all commodities would rise and rise and rise without any limit whatever; on the contrary, if the leading banks were toraise their rate of interest, say 1 per cent. above its normal level, and keep it so for some years, then all prices would fall and fall and fall without any limit except Zero."
Point being the economic retracement to equilibrium in interest vs prices takes longer in the free market economy than through a central bank in establishing market rates. Based soley on the natural rate of interests yield to maturity curve, the angles of elevation in depression visa vie short and long term holdings would present much steeper inclines and declines and shorter periods of inelasticity....Thoughts so far?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)