Perverts?

I'm becoming more and more convinced that there is little reason for nudity and sex scenes in movies other than that it gives an actor/actress an excuse to kiss and rub on another, and a director an opportunity to be a voyeur. It all seems perverted to me.

Jenny and I recently watched Open Water. Not a bad movie, but why was it necessary to see them naked the night before?

Why did we need to see Kate Winslet, in all her glory, going at it in Little Children and The Reader? Does it not also take away from the viewer’s imagination if we don’t just see two people close a door behind them, and then wink at each other in following scenes?

Only two examples come to mind where I have no objection: my favorite movie, Boogie Nights, and White Men Can’t Jump. The topic of the movie explains the former. With regard to the latter, that’s just the way the Rosie Perez character dressed in private. I can understand if she occasionally ‘drops out’ of her shirt sleeves.

I’m curious to hear an argument as to why I shouldn’t think of these actors and directors simply as exhibitionists or perverts.

Does "For the Children" Not Count Here?

Dear elected representative,

We are fairly new to your district (a little over 2 years). This is my first letter to you.

I would like to see some form of school reform pushed that centers on the freedom of my wife and I to send our girls to the school of our choice, paying at least part of their tuition with the taxes we pay for that express purpose. My awareness of this issue first took hold when, as part of the graduate economics program at UTSA, I studied under Dr. John Merrifield. As you can see from his website (http://faculty.business.utsa.edu/jmerrifi/), this is a pet issue of his, too. This also happened to be right around the time of the birth of our 1st & 2nd daughters, so it piqued my interest. We have since had 2 more girls.

My wife and I have recently begun discussing in earnest shopping around for a private school for our 2nd grader once she enters 6th grade. This coincided with the week or so in which our property tax bill was affixed to our refrigerator awaiting payment. I looked at the ISD line item every day until I sent off payment. As you can imagine, it kinda gnawed at me that when we start paying private school tuition, we will not be able to receive a refund for services not rendered, even when our bill is barely 20% of what the state of Texas typically spends per public school student. By contrast, it’s odd to think that if we ever became disenchanted with our phone carrier, we could switch to another and not have to endure the former carrier still extracting payment from us, sending them no signal on their performance or why they lost a customer. The fact that it is not the case with something as important as our girls’ education strikes me as peculiar.

I acknowledge the incompatibility between most members of your political party, who favor relatively bigger government regardless of the unintended consequences, and a constituent like myself, whose graduate studies led me to put a premium on high efficiency (not to mention my personal beliefs in freedom and personal responsibility, and you’ll forgive me if I don’t put too much stock in the likes of Paul Krugman, whose politics have steered him away from his training in the “dismal science” a long time ago). Regardless, I have faith that whether you agree with me or not, you can appreciate the unfairness and poor logic of the system we are stuck with.

Happy Holidays,
Chris Baecker

Sloane & Mommy

Today is the 1st birthday of our 4th baby, Sloane. However, I’m not going to wish her a Happy Birthday out here. Seems kinda stupid to me since she doesn’t have a page of her own. No, I’m using this occasion to express how impressed with and proud I am of my wife. She has fulfilled my belief that if you really want to get in shape, you can.

Now mind you, she was a babe when I met her. That’s why I was attracted to her. I can still remember the outfit she was wearing on the night we met … uh, oops, sorry. That story is more appropriate for our anniversary. Anyway, she worked out then, but considering that she’s a year removed from childbirth, and the fact that the change is noticeable when I see her everyday, blows my mind. The running she has done has really had an effect.

I’ve always taken it as an article of faith that if you eat well and exercise, you’ll remain healthy, and healthy-looking. Before this year I’ve had only two first-hand experiences of any significant weight fluctuations.

The first was when I moved up to Dallas a couple years after graduating high school. At the time, I was in the 170-175 range. I was an athlete in high school, so I had fairly good eating and workout habits. When I moved, I refined those habits further. I tightened up the diet (if only due to financial constraints) and started lifting weights more. Thus, I put on about 20 pounds, and stayed there for a number of years.

My other experience has been a slower climb over the last five years or so. Blame it on ice cream. Blame it on beer. Blame it on time constraints. Given the birth of 4 daughters and a change of priorities, the latter is probably the biggest culprit. Whatever: I have gained about 10 lbs in that time.

Now comes the third experience, the first one of losing weight. As I said, there’s not a big difference in her appearance, but it’s there. I gaze at her longer than I used to in order to make sure what I’m seeing is for real. It’s as if I’m holding out my hands, fingertips to the sky and palms facing each other, and looking at her between them. I’ve had to move my hands closer to each other over the course of this year. Granted, part of this can be attributed to her body reassuming its normal shape the further out from the birth she progresses. But still, I don’t recall doing this as we neared Sloane’s older sisters’ respective 1st birthdays.
So take notice. If you really want to shape up, take care of yourself, set a good example for your kids and be productive, you can.

Did Christine O'Donnell Turn Delaware Into A 2-for-1?

Way back when, long about last week, I maintained that, given a vote, I would have gone for Mike Castle in the Delaware GOP senate primary. Sure, his beliefs probably are not as close to mind as his opponent, Christine O’Donnell, but he’s probably as close as I could get in such a state, and most polls had consistently shown him to be as near a shoo-in as imaginable. And anyway, it’s not like he was as out there as Lincoln Chaffee. Throw in the fact that he didn’t seem to have near the baggage as Miss O’Donnell, and the decision didn’t seem that hard.

But now I’m having second thoughts, particularly after a slew of favorable polls (collected at www.realclearpolitics.com) for the GOP were released yesterday.

One of those polls, which actually wasn’t so GOP-friendly, was one taken Saturday by Fox News/Rasmussen of the aforementioned Delaware senate race to fill Vice President Joe Biden’s old seat between Miss O’Donnell and democratic nominee Chris Coons. It showed Mr. Coons up by 15 LVs (likely voters). That’s actually an increase of 4 points from the poll Rasmussen conducted the day after the primary. No real surprise, although many in the republican establishment are probably still cursing through pursed lips at losing what looked to be the surest pickup of the Triple Crown (President Obama’s old seat in Illinois and that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid being the other two).

As my wife and I sat down to work and read after putting our girls to bed last night, I flipped on the TV to CNN’s AC360 (since we keep our TV-viewing to a minimum, CNN is the only news network in our satellite subscription package). They were still hammering Miss O’Donnell about her “checkered past”, as they like to call it. If I were going to donate to her campaign, I’d like to see her address some of that myself. But then we wondered why they were focusing so much on her. She’s down 15 in a very blue state. Even given the bias in the mainstream media, don’t they have something better to cover? I thought to myself ‘I bet the other so-called controversial (you know, because they believe in the constitution and stuff) tea party candidates like Sharron Angle & Rand Paul are happy about this’. RedState’s Erick Erickson expressed a similar impression a few minutes later. Even if Miss O’Donnell eventually loses this race, which is where I believe the safe money resides, she might at least go down as a martyr because of the media fire she drew away from other tea party/constitution candidates.

A couple other poll results that grabbed my attention yesterday came out of the senate races in Wisconsin and West Virginia.

The race in Wisconsin exemplifies, as well as any, what the political climate is like. There are probably not one or two issues on which I agree with Senator Russ Feingold, but he’s a principled liberal. Because of that, I respect him. When he votes against his party, it’s usually because their position isn’t far enough to the left. I’ve never had the impression that he votes the way the wind blows. This was the man after all, the ONLY senator, who voted against the Patriot Act. Agree or disagree, he stuck to his principles.

He has been in a tough race this year, usually finding himself up only a couple points. That changed last week when Rasmussen found him down by 7 points. Then a whopper this weekend; it increased to 11 points in a poll taken by … The Daily Kos, the pioneering liberal netroots blog!

West Virginia, in the meantime, is holding a special election this year to fill the seat of the late Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator in the history of the world. Polling in this race has regularly shown democratic Governor Joe Manchin with a lead just shy of double digits. Businessman John Raese, previously a 2-time loser in senate races, had managed to knock off a point or two in recent weeks, but was barely moving the needle … until yesterday. Public Policy Polling showed him up this weekend by 3 points, roughly a 10-point swing.

The recent trends in those two races got me to thinking; did O’Donnell’s victory have the effect of a national pep rally, or at least that of an encore at a rock concert? Was it the ultimate confirmation of what Florida senate candidate Marco Rubio said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show yesterday, that there is definitely a national aspect carrying his race, along with that of Joe Miller in Alaska, the aforementioned Mrs. Angle and Mr. Paul of Nevada and Kentucky, respectively, and others? Has a sense of “If this has touched a state as small and as blue as Delaware, certainly something must be going on” swept across the country?
I told my wife it kinda reminded me of that scene at the end of Star Wars when Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Darth Vader “If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.” I would not be shocked if this national wave actually sweeps Miss O’Donnell into office. But even if it doesn’t, conservatives ought to be thankful for the side benefits derived from her primary victory.

2 More Things About Unemployment

Stormtrooper: Here is my identification.
Obi-Wan: [with a small wave of his hand] We don't need to see your identification. Stormtrooper: You don't need to see my identification.
Obi-Wan: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Stormtrooper: These unemployment benefits will stimulate economic activity and create jobs. Obi-Wan: You need feel no pressure to find a job.
Stormtrooper: I need feel no pressure to find a job.
Obi-Wan: We’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
Stormtrooper: You’ll extend them for a few more weeks.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076759/quotes?qt0440731

No, no, that’s not George Lucas’ newest hatchet job on one of his classic movies. That’s just how it seems policymakers try to convince people of something that just isn’t true.

This week, the Wall Street Journal ran a story on the cover entitled “Long Recession Ignites Debate on Jobless Benefits” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704334604575338691913994892.html). Contrary to what some believe, this is a legitimate debate.

There are indeed some out there, like the internet programmer in New York, who abuse the system, passing up jobs because they do not pay what the applicants are accustomed to. People like him surely engender no sympathy from people like the forklift driver in Indiana. Few tears would be shed by the latter because, after landing another job that paid 10% more than the one he was laid off from, the former quit it because his “miserable career” depressed him.

While not even the government sympathizes enough with someone like that to extend benefits, the more intriguing story is that of the former forklift driver. The story provides two such reasons: his wife still has a job, making roughly what he use to; and, if you look closely at the picture of him, there is an ashtray beside him on the couch.

Although it is optimal, even desirable for everyone who wants a job to have one, it doesn’t always work out that way, especially in an economic climate like that of today. Misfortune strikes and one spouse loses a job. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2-earner families decreased from 51.4% in 2008 to 48.5% last year. The apparent course of action, therefore, would be to adjust the lifestyle to be able to live on one salary (it could be argued that it is prudent to adopt such a lifestyle anyway).

Most people agree with the propriety of temporary unemployment benefits, like the 26 weeks that used to be the norm. It is a small price to pay for prosperous dynamic economy brought about by a relatively free market, free trade and a flexible workforce. After a while, however, adjustments need to be made, perhaps psychologically as much as anything.

Now, assuming that ashtray does not serve simply to hold the couch down, it appears that he smokes. A pack of cigarettes have averaged about $5 for about a year now. The fact that the ashtray made it into a picture means it is probably conservative to assume he smokes a pack-a-day. Thus, there goes about $150 per month in smokes.

Assume, in this case, that numerous studies apply and he drinks. Let’s say he downs 3 beers every day. Here in Texas, a case of regular, domestic runs around $15-$20. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the price is roughly equal in Indiana. That’s $60-$80 per month.

Between cigarettes and beer, that’s at least $200 per month. Never mind the subsequent health care costs for someone with such a lifestyle.

Is it any wonder there has been pushback to extending unemployment benefits any further?

Unemployment Benefits Do Not Create Jobs

Last year I wrote an article in our company’s biannual newsletter detailing what I thought was necessary for our industry, natural gas, to recover from the plunge in it’s the price. In it I said “…relying on input demand for the production of inelastic goods (stuff we buy largely regardless of price i.e. food & energy) to return the industry to sunnier times is akin to expecting rip-roaring profit growth in the grocery industry to fuel robust growth in GDP.” Now it seems some prominent people are indirectly trying to make that case about GDP growth.

After an extension of unemployment benefits ran into some stiff headwinds last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reminded us that they “inject demand into the economy.” She went further and informed us of a new advantage: it “creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.” Huh? It’s debatable whether or not unemployment benefits are even a job preserver, much less a job creator.

It is technically true that they do support demand, but demand for what? Given that benefits average a little more than 1/3 of the average weekly wage nationally, demand is most likely relegated to the most essential, necessary goods, such as groceries, probably the most indispensable goods we buy.

Even in the absence of such assistance, don’t most people, especially parents, find a way to provide for such necessities, be it drawing on savings, taking whatever work can be found, seeking private charity (family or church) or even selling assets? If someone can’t find a job after 26 weeks, the range of time when most benefits originate from taxes on businesses, it’s probably time to evaluate his/her/their current living expenses i.e. rent/mortgage, TV, phones, etc.

Regardless of the source of funds, we will always eat and clean ourselves. Therefore, the purchase of groceries rarely fluctuates. It is true that when a society becomes richer the makeup of its diet changes, incorporating more meat for example, an entrée that is a luxury in many parts of the world. We also might buy more brand-name foods. This might explain why we spent 17% more on groceries in 2007, the last year of solid economic growth before the recession, than last year.

Still, in those beefier, even steak-ier, Charmin-using times, groceries accounted for less than 10% of GDP. In 2009, that figure was 5 ½ %. Last year’s figures arguably represent the minimum amount of basic food we need to get by. This is why we are unlikely to ever see a headline that reads “Grocery Stores’ Profit Lead the Way in 3rd Quarter GDP Surge”.

Whatever jobs that may have been shed at Del Monte that were not subsequently absorbed by generic fruit & vegetable canners are unlikely to return due to an extension of unemployment insurance.

Before You Take Advantage of a 0% Credit Card Offer ...

I have become more and more averse to debt as I have grown older and educated myself more. But I'm still open to it if we can come out ahead. With that in mind, this article from the Wall Street Journal this morning (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703890904575297353083622856.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF2) caught my interest.

The notion of borrowing from a 0% credit card and dumping the proceeds in an interest-bearing account is a good one. A few years ago, we actually started using such offers to move around our old student loan balance. Going the savings route, with $10K, could net you almost $180 in interest after a year (assuming that a portion of that $10K is used to make a $200 monthly payment to that credit card). There's only one hitch: the transaction fee.

Every time we move the balance from one credit card to another, there is a 2-3% transaction fee. So for the aforementioned $10K, we'd have to pay $200-300. Unless part of the lure of recent offers is the absence of such a fee, simple math shows that to be an unwise 'investment'.