-dara duratinsky
I believe the topic for this week was issues in Congress right now. According to huffingtonpost.com, on Thursday (tomorrow) Congress will be voting on taxing AIG bonuses. I will be the first to admit that not matter how many articles I read on the economy, AIG, bailouts, whatever, all the information is just way over my head. But, I do understand that there is anger over the AIG bailout. But I did a little research and according to an abc news blog, AIG were supposed to receive under $200 million in bonuses. Bonuses? Really? AIG was supposed to get $30 billion from the government. Bonuses are unnecessary, gaudy, and if I were in government with THIS economy, I would definitely tax the bonuses.
Okay, I wanted to put an intellectual piece in my blog about Congress right now. But I also think that this whole twitter business is hilarious! I'm a little late on the topic but, in a way twitter can be a medium, possibly a type of blog. So, here's a blog on twitter. During Obama's speech to Congress journalists were shocked to see so many politicians on their phones, twittering. Every news outlet tried to describe to their middle-age audience what twitter was. Here's a note to everyday people twittering: I really do not need to know what you're doing, the exact time you're doing it. I could care less if you just scored high points on tetris, or are painting your nails. However, I see how twitter can come in handy when it comes to politicians. tweetcongress.com is a great website to follow twitter updates from those in Congress. I find it interesting to read Chris Dodd's update about his Executive Compensation Amendment and Nancy Pelosi's update that the Chairman and CEO of AIG testified in Congress. But to Claire McCaskill: I do not care that you are making Chicken Parm tonight, or what non-fat ingredients you are using.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Jim Cramer gets Crossfired
By Chris Collins
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Wow.
A girl just walked past my door panting, "Oh my god....Brittany....guess what....I was watching Wheel of Fortune and this girl....SHE HAD THE SAME DRESS I HAVE!"
Oh, college. You promised sanctuary from such people. How you dissapoint.
Anyways, Jim Cramer.
He went on the "Daily Show" last Thursday and, in a replay of the Stewart-Crossfire incident 5 years ago, was exposed as a media hack who not only shunned his journalistic duties but had a role in the economic collapse. So his television career is screwed.
And I'm not sure how I feel about that.
On one hand, he's a reckless prick. His show encouraged short selling, where you buy stocks and quickly sell them for a higher price soon after. I THINK that's what it is. Anyway, he helped convince viewers to buy into these lucrative yet high risk stocks that brought on the recession.
If you've never seen Kramer's show "Mad Money," watch it. Or watch a clip via youtube; it might not be airing on CNBC much longer. It's so frickin bizarre. The set might have been designed by Nickelodean, or maybe it was borrowed from the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 people. There's big red buttons; they make noises. There's flashing lights, loud red bits of plastic. And yet Kramer manages to act gautier than his surroundings. He hobbles about the stage, sleeves rolled up, eyes pulsating, forehead sweating, face reddening.
It's a winning format: an accesible, entertaining stock market show that makes investing short and easy. Don't research where your money's going, just listen to Cramer.
He's ace at what he does.
He really is. Want proof? Jane Sherman. She's Brian's mom (a friend from home.) WASPY, blond, lock jawed, conservative, always clad in golf wear or inconspicous formal attire, she would sit in the sunroom of the family's white-washed lakehouse (complete with gym and wine cellar) in a white wicker sofa surrounded by stacks of Wall Street Journals and a TV- on which Mad Money would play.
It was funny. Partly due to her reserved disposition, but mainly because we all knew SHE knew her shit, having managed a Los Angeles investment firm in the 80's. Why spend time with Cramer? "Because he REALLY know his stuff. He's it," she'd respond.
Cramer isn't just some cheap layman's sage. He's revered amongst the elite, regarded as one of the best analysts and financial reporters out there. And yet he dedicates his time to a program that promotes lazy entrepreneuralism. It asks the viewer to buy without asking why, because it's easier that way, because Cramer says so.
Here's where Stewart was pissed. Cramer, Stewart said, failed his responsibilities as a financial journalist. He steered his viewers away from the bigger picture and focused on specifics that might make them rich. Worse yet, those "specifics" were risky buys, the ones that led to the collapse. Stewart went as far as accusing Cramer of erroding the work ethic of Americans, by fostering an environment in which a game of economic roullette outweighed the value of real work.
It was intense. And while Stewart did a fantastic (and neccesary) job of reprimanding Cramer, using the Daily Show's arsenal of archival footage to expose the man as a coniving twit, I can't help but ask, was it fair?
Cramer did, after all, have the guts to come on the show, to participate in a real dialogue between Wall Street elitist and outsider, and to publicly accept his share of the blame for the meltdown. His decision was a far cry from the behavior exhibited by bank CEO's and investment guru's since October, who've isolated themselves from the public in an effort to avoid blame or worse, continue to operate under the delusion that their methods need not be altered.
The interview's ramifications won't be good for Cramer. His credibility lies in ashes. His show will be off the air soon as a result. Sure, he has blood on his hands. But it's unnerving that he's the only one who seems to be paying for his actions. Or ever will. Thing is, after Stewart's interview, the likelihood of other wrongdoers sitting down with serious, probing journalists seems grim.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Earth Hour
Kate Pinkerton
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
What will you be doing on March 26, 2009 at 8:30 pm?
I will be turning off my lights. I will be part of one of the biggest environmental movements. I am going to push for change.
So, what are you doing?
Hopefully you will also participate in Earth Hour, one hour when the entire world will turn off their lights. Major landmarks such as the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge and Rome's Colessium will go dark as we take a stance on our environmental future. This started 2 years ago in Australia where 2.2 million people turned off their lights, and it grew last year with 50 million people across the world turning off their lights for an hour. This year, Earth Hour states that their goal is 1 Billion people, and so far a large amount of people have committed.
This Earth Hour is especially important because turning off your lights is like a vote for the Earth, according to Earth Hour.org. This vote matters in the upcoming decision at the conference in Copenhagen that will decide the future international policies on Environmental standards and regulations. We need to show the world we care, and that we want strong Environmental Policies.
Last year had some dramatic results. Obviously many more people participated-2.2 to 50 million people is a huge jump.
The White House obviously did not participate in 2008 and it will be interesting to see if Obama convinces the White House to participate. Google even participated last year. According to the 2008 video, Sydney's original goal was to reduce energy use by 5% during the hour, and they reduced it by more than 10%! If Earth Hour reaches its goal, the environmental effects within that hour will be amazing!
Sources such as the Rebel Yell suggest many different ways of experiencing the hour. One suggestion is having a candlelight party with card games. Candlelight is something that people do not experience enough. While it is a slight fire hazard, especially if the card games involve alcohol, the atmosphere that candlelight creates is magical. Many other fun things happen in the dark- flashlight tag, hide and seek, sleeping...etc.
Colleges such as Ohio University are pledging to turn off their lights for the hour. This is in their favor since OU's price per hour of keeping the lights on is $686. American University would benefit a great deal in this economic crisis simply by encouraging environmental practices like conserving energy. Eco-Sense, AU's Environmental Club, has made an effort to convince students to participate in Earth Hour, but we could definitely make a stronger one.
Earth Hour obviously doesn't mean that we should keep our lights off all the time. It just is something to show that a lot of people care about the environment. There are clean energy alternatives to keeping the world lit, but it's also important to remember to turn off lights when they are not needed. Wasting energy is a huge source of pollution.
It's weird that something so simple can have such a large effect. It has grown so much that it is obvious that environment is important to a lot of people, cities, organizations, and businesses. This is the kind of push we need to show representatives going to Copenhagen this fall that we want environmental progress in the world.
If you are interested, there is a facebook group you can join!
Monday, March 16, 2009
America's Beef With Nudity
When one of my housemates came back from spring break in Miami she commented about how she was disturbed by a topless beach she "accidentally" stumbled upon. Knowing her it probably was an accident, but that's aside the point.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.
But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.
Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
So I asked her, "What was so bad about it, do those women have something you're not accustomed to?" She snapped back at me and said that people should not be naked in front of complete strangers. But boy do I love playing the devil's advocate. So I pressed her for some better reasoning, "But nudity itself isn't harmful. If I'm just walking around the beach with nothing on, how does that affect you?"
She stumbled for an answer. Ultimately she simply said that she doesn't want to see other people
naked. Fair enough. I still didn't think that was good reasoning to force people to wear clothes, but she was getting a bit annoyed and I didn't feel like having to eat dinner by myself so I dropped the issue.But it did keep me thinking about our perception of nudity for some time. In the United States nudity is seen as a taboo, something that must be avoided for us to remain pure and innocent. That's why kids giggle when their parents accidentally take them to that PG-13 movie that shows a nipple.
But why are we like that? Why is there such a pervasiveness to nudity? There seems to be a double standard.The image to the right is ostensibly crude: we see David's penis. But no... it's ART! But if that wasn't a statue and was just some man standing there being photographed (like this) it would be considered soft pornography by some.
But when it comes to advertising we're back to no holds barred. Calvin Klein does a great job selling their underwear by selling sex. Just take a look at the image below. And that ad is perfectly acceptable for us to admire in any magazine that we would let our 12 year old kids read. Some of those ads can be found in the magazines in your doctor's office.
And when it comes to movies... 3 second penis or boob shots are all the rage. But what is interesting is that while boobs appear on the TV for sexuality purposes, a penis only comes on the screen to make people laugh. Remember that scene from Borat, I'm sure you do. Some people would just say thats because a hanging testicle isn't as "beautiful" as a women's bosom. And that is what really bothers me. That is only true because our society has constructed a man's genitalia to be "ugly" while a women's bare chest is seen as "artistic" and "sexual." There is absolutely no good reason for that. It is an entirely artifical creation that we have developed.Now how does this all relate to nude beaches? I contend that the only reason nude beaches are not the norm in the U.S. is because our society has constructed an image of nude beaches as being places where really dirty things happen and where everyone is just flaunting their sexuality. And the movie industry has done a great job on entrenching this notion by the way. Just as we've been primed to view David's penis (above) as artistic, we've been trained to think of nude beaches as "disturbing" and X-rated.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Mooching
What bothers me more than anything is someone who does not contribute and who takes a free ride from those who do shell out. There are unwritten rules within our society of college students that some people do not understand.
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
During college there are certain things that a group should pay for, such as a party. The problem, with a party is, someone always has to pay and someone ALWAYS stiffs another. There are always those people who say, “they will pay” or “later” but that’s a bunch of BS.
It is not that big of deal in retrospect, it is just annoying when some people do not contribute their fair share and expect to gain the same privileges as someone who does pay.
What people do not understand when in a social group or organization is how to not only share the cost fiscally, but also the cost of time and effort. For example, cleaning up. If you use the dish, you clean the dish, it is that SIMPLE, but some people think they are above cleaning up after themselves.
Another annoying thing that someone who mooches does is minimal work in a group. Someone will pick a smart group so they have to put less effort in and get a good grade. Again, it goes back to doing their equal share and contributing to the whole team.
Teams rely on people to work together, businesses rely on people to stay afloat by everyone doing their own part. When one person does not do their job to 100%, then everyone has to pick up their slack and it can get annoying.
PEOPLE NEED TO STOP MOOCHING.
-Brian Galm
Housing Crisis
Brian Galm
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Living in the city and in the dorms, I do not see much of the problems with the housing crisis that affect many people across the country. Going home for spring break has shown me that there is a real problem and that America is being hit hard. In the city, we see it thriving; nothing is closing as much as it is in the suburbs. After looking into it more, I see that the housing crisis is really affecting a lot more than many think.
It not only affects the thousands of home owners, but it affects lenders, builders, as well as students who cannot qualify for student loans due to the mortgages. My neighbor is a builder and he has lost much business because no one is buying houses. Not only is the housing industry affected, but it seems that now its time for the auto industry to be affected by the real estate foreclosure crisis. With banks and auto lenders tightening their loans and worried of getting caught in the recession, hundreds of American consumers are not being able to get any loans.
So now, people are not buying cars, which then leads to less jobs in factories with these large companies such as GM, and less money in the system. It seems like this is a never-ending process.
With real estate the number one industry and the auto industry the second, if these two fail, then there does not seem to be a back up.
The housing crisis is the first that needs to be solved and if that works itself out, then people will be more confident in society.
Monday, March 9, 2009
The Housing Crisis in Simple Terms Please
After reading some blogs on the housing crisis, I still did not understand the situation completely. Many blogs either complained or praised the actions of the government but I wish they would have explained the situation in simple, elementary terms. I am not an economics major and neither is most of the country, I didn’t understand some of the technical terms the blogs threw at me.
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Surprisingly I found a housing crisis blog in the Comics/Humor section of the New York Times of all places. It discussed the idea of nationalizing banks and how the government was thinking about basing its banks off the Swedish model. I just wish it explained what exactly the Swedish model was and explained plain and sweet the logistics of the crisis. Rather than simply mocking the government’s decisions, a mixture of opinion and fact would have been nice.
Another problem I noticed with these housing crisis blogs was that they were ridiculously long. Thehousingbubblebog.com gave a good analysis of the crisis filled with quotes of various people’s opinions. But the blog went on for at least five pages worth of information. I quickly lost interest when I glanced at the shrinking scroll bar.
To keep to the point: economic bloggers should make their explanations short and in simple terms so that the average population knows what the heck is going on.
Layal Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)