Profoundly skewed fundamentals - A review of "Aftershock", by Robert Reich

The American history of capitalism, viewed through the benefits of economic change has been swinging like a pendulum over the past 100 years between concentration of wealth in the hands of few, and the sharing of prosperity among many. In 1929, the year that marked the beginning of the Great Depression, income inequality in America was at its worst. The current income inequality is similar to the years immediately preceding the great depression. A widely used measure of income distribution called the Gini Coefficient ranked the U.S. 93rd out of 134 countries in 2010 (the higher the rank, the greater the income inequality). Iran was ranked 90th, and Russia 82nd (source, CIA - 2010).

Wealth concentration rose from 1870 to 1929 (the year the Great Depression began), followed by a more broadly shared era of prosperity (1947 - 1975), and then the "Great Divergence" according to Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman, which is rapidly rising income inequality since the late 1970s.

Mr. Reich believes unless the tide of rising income inequality is turned, we are sure to experience anemic job growth, persistently high unemployment and low wages, which affect everyone including the wealthy. With a weak purchasing power, the middle class that fuels all economic recoveries will be in no shape to sustain a strong recovery of the Great Recession of 2008. Over time, there will be growing public discontent, and two groups will vie for political dominance: The demagogues and the reformers, and let's hope the latter group dominates the voice of reason.

While Mr. Reich's reliance on the pitfalls of income inequality seems plausible -the impacts of which are debatable among economists - one of his lofty remedies could use more forethought. Mr. Reich proposes hefty government subsidies ("wage supplements") for the poor and middle class to the tune of $633 billion annually, funded partly by a carbon tax that can generate roughly the equivalent. Mr. Reich goes on to tout the benefits of such high carbon taxes as an inducement to develop "cheaper and more efficient" sources of energy, but fails to name a substitute when carbon emission is significantly reduced as a result.

Much of Mr. Reich's arguments pertain to establishing the importance of the inequality factor, followed by a very condensed version of how to fix it. Even if Mr. Reich's uncompromising remedies were ignored - there are many ways to skin a cat - "Aftershock" goes a long way in bringing "income inequality" to the forefront of the debate of U.S. economic woes since 2008.

Aftershock

Why Russell Crowe is Wrong - My 1.3 year old robot monkey

My 1 year old, Johanna, has a lot to say and most of it only she can decipher.  She is now in a monkey phase, mindlessly imitating what others say.  So a couple of nights ago during dinner, her 3 year old sister uttered "Duudde", and that's all Johanna needed.  She was off and running, directionless, yelling "dude" rapid fire.

Russel Crowe thinks babies are born perfect.  Here's video proof Mr. Crowe is grossly misinformed:

The rich request to have their taxes raised!

Ask and you shall receive:

The French government is to impose an extra tax of 3% on annual income above 500,000 euros (£440,000; $721,000).

From an August 24, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk article:

France introduces new tax on high incomes

....some of France's wealthiest people had called on the government to tackle its deficit by raising taxes on the rich.


Sixteen executives, including Europe's richest woman, the L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, had offered in an open letter to pay a "special contribution" in a spirit of "solidarity".

It was signed by some of France's most high-profile chief executives, including Christophe de Margerie of oil firm Total, Frederic Oudea of bank Societe Generale, and Air France's Jean-Cyril Spinetta. They said: "We, the presidents and leaders of industry, businessmen and women, bankers and wealthy citizens would like the richest people to have to pay a 'special contribution'."

They said they had benefited from the French system and that: "When the public finances deficit and the prospects of a worsening state debt threaten the future of France and Europe and when the government is asking everybody for solidarity, it seems necessary for us to contribute."

Review of "Confessions of a Public Speaker" - “No matter how much you hate or love this book, you’re unlikely to be a good public speaker”

Those are words from the author, verbatim (p. 140).  You can become a good public speaker if you practice, but don’t believe the marketing hype about this book.  Like most people, you are lazy and you will most likely not practice (also p. 140).  Curiously, Mr. Berkun waited until over 2/3^rds into the book to disclose this pertinent information, when it should have been stated on the front cover. 

You may increase your chances of overcoming your pathetic lazy propensity by watching the documentary “Comedian” to get an appreciation for what it takes to deliver a seamless comedy routine.

Now that it has been well established, quite convincingly so, that most readers interested in enhancing their public speaking skills will not become good public speakers, the question is, can any improvement, however marginal, be achieved from reading this book?  Well, the answer depends on how carefully you read the book, and which parts you choose to focus on.  Most of the book is entertaining.  So if nothing else, readers with at least a mild interest in public speaking should find it worthwhile reading.  Mr. Berkun’s candid writing style, e.g. disclosing his pay per speaking engagement, is refreshing.

I believe reading this book without practice will still increase your public speaking skills, provided the following sections are retained in memory and applied in your public speaking endeavors:

Can’t remember which page:  Take Improv classes.  Mr. Berkun claims taking these classes vastly improved his public speaking skills.

Page 128:  Do not bother becoming a teacher or lecturer.  Based on Mr. Berkun’s vast lecturing experience, in any learning environment “5% are asleep and 25% are thinking about sex.  Another 35% are day dreaming about something else entirely.  Of the remaining 40%, some will be in the wrong room and others will be distracted by text messages or emails.”   By the way, if you didn’t catch the fuzzy math (the percentages add up to 105%, which is an impossibility), it’s because you fall under one of the categories the author mentioned while reading this part of my review.  Feel free to post a comment about which you category you belong to.

Pages 60-61:  Four things to prepare well.  Read the list for yourself. The book may lose sales if I list them here.

Page 88:  “Speak louder, take stronger positions, and behave more aggressively than you would in an ordinary conversation…. They are the same rules that good stand-up comedians, professors, and talk-show hosts follow.”

Men are better negotiators than women, but kids put both to shame

In an August 4^th, 2011 Forbes magazine article, Susannah Breslin cited the reasons “why men are better negotiators than women” as:  They lie better, women feel guilty, and men intimidate.  Well, I would have to disagree with Ms. Breslin.  Kids are better negotiators than both, and here’s why:

Every Monday at work, I miraculously miss my family after the h*ll my two daughters put me through during the weekend.  It’s as if parents’ memories are fine tuned to forget all the god awful aspects of raising little kids.

This Monday was no different than any other with amnesia.  I got home from work to find my 3 year old hiding under the dining room table with her eyes shut.  In her mind if she couldn’t see me, I couldn’t see her either.  I spotted her right away and called her name.  Peculiarly, she stayed under the table longer than usual, and muttered something in Swedish to her mom that was incomprehensible to me.  It turned out she had peed.  Then she crawled out from under the table and as she was walking to the bathroom to finish the job, left giant pee footprints on the wood floor.  I spent the next 10 minutes cleaning her and the trail and puddle of pee she’d left behind.

Next, I heated up my food and sat down to eat to the loud complaints of my 1 year old in her IKEA high chair.  It wasn’t enough that she’d made a horrible mess of herself, the high chair and a 2 mile radius around her.  She had to belt out ghastly cries because she was tired.  My 3 year old who found all of this amusing decided to imitate her sister until I threatened her with a timeout, at which point she switched to lower decibel and slightly less horrifying sounds.

A little background on what happened next.  We’d been to Newport Coast the day before, checking out crabs and other sea creatures visible in low tide conditions.  My 3 year old cut her left elbow against the rocks and bled a few droplets, more than she had in a long time since her 6 stitches on her left index finger from another accident.

So we told her we needed to take this gigantic band aid off during the night to air out her cut.  The hideous imitation noises now blossomed into fully blown cries and screams refusing to take the band aid off.  So her mom promised her hot chocolate if she cooperated.  She went on with her loud complaints until we agreed to leave them on for one night.  We figured the band aid would come off on its own the following day in the pool.  Elin immediately asked for two nights to leave the band aid on.  Then she had the nerve to whine about the hot chocolate too.

So she negotiated to keep her band aid on for two nights when she wasn’t supposed to for any, and drink the hot chocolate promised to her for complying, which she hadn't.  Now that’s negotiation skills you can’t beat.

Alien invasion in Newport Coast - PPCs

This morning, with low tide in Newport Coast, we hit the beach with friends to discover creepy crawlies not visible or accessible most of the time.

As we were eating hot dogs on the beach, a gang of slow and low flying aliens popped up in the air northbound. I grabbed my wife's iPhone and took the film below.

It turned out this was a PPC group.  PPC stands for powered parachute - see picture below.  These are motorized parachutes with wheels.  In the U.S., the single seat PPCs require no license or flight instruction by the FAA to fly.  Airspeed is 25-35 mph (40-60 km/h), and altitude is anywhere from a few feet off the ground up to 18,000+ feet (5.5 km).  Typical flight altitude is between 500 and 1,500 feet (150 - 500 meters) and can last up to 3 hours.  A new single seat PPC is typically $10,000.

The video I shot appeared to be from a simpler version of PPCs with backpack sized motors with no wheels more like this one:

These aerial vehicles are loads of fun.  I remember one landed in the boxing ring many years ago during a match between Riddick Bowe and someone.  The flyer got tangled up mid fight and received a few blows from Bowe's manager.

Here's a better video than mine from YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4papFKYztk

This is Baghdad - A review of "The Last Narco" by Malcolm Beith

"The Last Narco" is much more than the story of one of Mexico's most notorious and powerful cartel leaders, El Chapo. Mr. Beith covers the comprehensive history of Mexico's illegal drug industry, from its humble beginnings when Mexicans were nothing more than couriers, transporting Columbian cartels' cocaine through Mexico to the U.S. The successful Columbian government's efforts with substantial U.S. aid and intervention in the 1990s led to the marginalization of the powerful Columbian Cali and Medellin cartels, which as an unintended consequence led to the formation and empowerment of their Mexican counterparts. Then in 2006, the newly elected president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon declared war on the dealers or "Narcos", unleashing the military to reduce violent crime instigated by the world's most dangerous criminal elite. The multi-year narco war's atrocities has put Al Qaeda's abhorrent acts to shame. For years there have been daily tortures, beheadings and mutilated bodies turning up everywhere, with over 27,000 deaths between 2006 and 2010 mostly from inter-cartel fighting. There is a pervasive and persistent narco culture in Mexico that is seemingly impossible to shed, lining up the pockets of the drug cartels to the tune of up to $48 billion annually according to the U.S. Department of Justice. 

"The Last Narco" demonstrates unequivocally the futile effort of the war on drugs, the endless resources consumed and lives lost. Neutralize one cartel and an ugly turf war ensues. The RAND Corporation estimates a $60 billion annual consumption of narcotics in the U.S.; $36 billion on cocaine, $11 billion on heroin, $10 billion on marijuana, $5.8 billion on methamphetamines, and $2.6 billion on the rest. Mexico's annual illicit drug export to the U.S. comprises up to $40 billion of our cocaine, heroin, marijuana and meth. America's insatiable appetite to consume ensures a steady stream of supply and the criminal infrastructure that accompanies it. As long as there is strong demand, this war will never be won.

Mr. Beith has risked life and limb to write an eye opening and comprehensive story of the rise and thrive of Mexican cartels that have been a part of the fabric of Mexican society for decades. This is excellent journalistic work that delves deep beneath the global headlines. My only critique of the book is the lack of chronological order of events that can create some confusion in piecing together a cogent historical account of the Mexican narcotics industry.

The 13 bullshit points on top of bullshit – Cowboys and Aliens (w/ major spoilers)

The following list was the result of a collaborative effort between Sean Petersen, Jack Kim and yours truly.  It contains major spoilers of the movie Cowboys and Aliens.  So if you plan on watching the movie and would like to keep the suspense, skip reading this list and revisit later.

There is a certain amount of BS that is expected and can be tolerated for movies in this genre.  This list comprises observations of BS above and beyond.

1. The entire objective of the movie, concucted by Olivia Wilde’s character was to blow up the alien ship so they wouldn’t get a chance to tell their colleagues about Earth.  Earth would be forgotten, and therefore, saved.  Really??  They weren’t in contact with anyone from their planet???
2. Why did Daniel Craig’s character put a blanket on Olivia Wilde’s nekked body following her resurrection?  He could've waited a few more seconds for a full frontal shot.
3. Why didn’t Olivia Wilde’s character resurrect following the suicide mission?
4. All the characters who made it back alive from the trance state in captivity turned altruistic.  This, if true, settles the debate between those who think there is a criminal gene, and those who do not.  Daniel Craig turned into an angel following his return as well.  This requires further explanation not provided during the movie.
5. When, if ever, would Daniel Craig’s weapon have run out of ammo?  He was shooting that thing endlessly.
6. What the heck was Daniel Craig thinking when he pulled out his 6 shooter after giving Olivia Wilde his weapon bracelette?  As if he didn’t know his weapon against the aliens was useless from numerous previous encounters?  And why didn’t he just reach down and pick up a replacement weapon from one of the dozens of dead alien bodies?
7. Why weren’t the alien guns have an authentication mechanism such as thumb print?
8. As common in most alien movies, the aliens’ phsycial characteristics resembled those of prehistoric monsters and they were barely able to put a coherent sound together.  Yet, they had vastly improved technologies.  This is counter evolutionary and MUST STOP.  These aliens also had temper issues, uncharacteristic of an advanced society.
9. Daniel Craig’s appendix wound was inflicted in such a way that survival would have been highly unlikely.  The heated metal rod inserted into his appendix looked to be at least 8 inches deep.  Yet, his wound was stitched up and he was ready to kick major alien ass in short order.
10. Human experiment lab was not exactly sterile.  There must have been cross contamination all over.
11. Space ship had very poor architecture.  Space was shared among the human lab experiment, gold extraction, and dead human storage.
12.  When Olivia kissed Daniel Craig, Craig’s mind went limp enough for the weapon to detach.  Why didn’t the same happen when Olivia whacked him in the head at the bar to stop him from killing people?  Why didn’t his weapon detach then?
13. How did Olivia Wilde pick up Apache language so quickly?  Can foreign language instructional programs be created with the same technology/efficacy?  Rosetta Stone, eat your heart out!