http://www.worldtravelerinternship.com/member/kace-phillips/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBqm8n5uwsc&feature=player_embedded
vote for kace
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
The edge of a cliff
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/02/us/politics/20100201-budget-porcupine-graphic.html
I find it interesting (amusing) that almost 80% of the 10 year projections since 1980 indicate a surplus by the last year. Doesn't seem to be a wise political move to forecast a budget surplus, yet seems to be an easy financial move to spend into a deficit.
We talk about "clawbacks" with bonuses and incentives tied to long-term performance for CEO's and others - where is that accountability with our political leaders?
I find it interesting (amusing) that almost 80% of the 10 year projections since 1980 indicate a surplus by the last year. Doesn't seem to be a wise political move to forecast a budget surplus, yet seems to be an easy financial move to spend into a deficit.
We talk about "clawbacks" with bonuses and incentives tied to long-term performance for CEO's and others - where is that accountability with our political leaders?
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Upcoming Concerts in NY
- Milly Beau - Party Glitter (see forwarded email below, album released yesterday)
- The band signed with my good friend's record label, Greenhouse Records. This is their first full album, and have 2 concerts coming up in NY.
- Feb 1 - Petes Candy Store - Brooklyn, NY
- Feb 5 - Crash Mansion - LES, Manhattan
- Check out the website: www.greenhouserecords.net
- Spoon - Transference (released yesterday).
- Concerts:
- Tomorrow night at Mercury Lounge. Tix are first come / first serve @ the door.
- March 26th @ Radio City Music Hall
- Vampire Weekend - Contra (concerts were the last two nights...)
- Hot Chip - Concerts 4/23 & 4/24 @ Terminal 5
- Trey Anastasio - Concert 2/16 @ Terminal 5
"Mobs Rule"
In honor of my blog's name, an article from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23blow.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23blow.html
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
More or Less?
After listening to Obama's speech regarding the future of the war in Afghanistan, first I'll say I don't necessarily disagree with the plan. Having said that, the overarching theme behind the current administration's policies seems to be "more now, less later". More troops now, less troops later. More stimulus now, less deficit later. More health care coverage now, less health issues later. When you break down the individual issues and assess the situations on a case-by-case basis, the proposals make sense.
To counter rising insurgency amongst Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, more resources are needed. On the surface, this "surge" strategy sounds eerily familiar to that embarked upon by the Bush administration (note we never heard Obama use the word "surge" in his address at West Point).
To counter rising unemployment, freezing of the credit markets, and a lack of business & consumer spending, the economy needed a stimulus. Anywhere from 500k to 1m jobs have been sustained, GDP was held buoyant (about 3-4% of GDP was attributed to the stimulus, and we still saw a contraction), and liquidity was pumped in the marketplace due to the stimulus and other measures enacted by the fed.
To counter rising health care costs and the number of uninsured individuals in the U.S, health care needed reform. The current bill is still under debate, yet the underlying proposal outlines a strategy to cover more individuals now, to lower the overall health burden on society.
So yes, maybe on a case-by-case basis more is needed. More support now, less problems later. But when you take a step a back and look at the broad reality of the Obama administration and it's proposals, it seems that they're not addressing the root of the problem. They're not tackling the underlying issues, but rather trying to clean-up the aftermath of dramatic failures in policy and leadership. I see the US standing beneath a dam. A dam with cracks that we try to fill with barely chewed gum. One crack temporarily stopped, another spouts out.
All Obama's carefully crafted composition sounds reminiscent of his campaign - lofty, optimistic, hopeful, forward looking. I heed and appreciate that. But at what point can we stop delaying to the future? At what point can we say more is not less? More is More.
To counter rising insurgency amongst Taliban and Al Qaeda forces, more resources are needed. On the surface, this "surge" strategy sounds eerily familiar to that embarked upon by the Bush administration (note we never heard Obama use the word "surge" in his address at West Point).
To counter rising unemployment, freezing of the credit markets, and a lack of business & consumer spending, the economy needed a stimulus. Anywhere from 500k to 1m jobs have been sustained, GDP was held buoyant (about 3-4% of GDP was attributed to the stimulus, and we still saw a contraction), and liquidity was pumped in the marketplace due to the stimulus and other measures enacted by the fed.
To counter rising health care costs and the number of uninsured individuals in the U.S, health care needed reform. The current bill is still under debate, yet the underlying proposal outlines a strategy to cover more individuals now, to lower the overall health burden on society.
So yes, maybe on a case-by-case basis more is needed. More support now, less problems later. But when you take a step a back and look at the broad reality of the Obama administration and it's proposals, it seems that they're not addressing the root of the problem. They're not tackling the underlying issues, but rather trying to clean-up the aftermath of dramatic failures in policy and leadership. I see the US standing beneath a dam. A dam with cracks that we try to fill with barely chewed gum. One crack temporarily stopped, another spouts out.
All Obama's carefully crafted composition sounds reminiscent of his campaign - lofty, optimistic, hopeful, forward looking. I heed and appreciate that. But at what point can we stop delaying to the future? At what point can we say more is not less? More is More.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Name that Decade (00's)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/15segal.html
In response to this NY Times article, and the end of decade, here are some name suggestions for this decade:
-Decade of Boom and Doom
-King of Pop
-Death of Pop
Let's hear some names...
In response to this NY Times article, and the end of decade, here are some name suggestions for this decade:
-Decade of Boom and Doom
-King of Pop
-Death of Pop
Let's hear some names...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)