...piece this morning, "California’s Midlife Crisis," that, really, could have been written about anywhere. Take the second paragraph, for example (all emphasis mine):
The real Los Angeles is gray and beaten down, an older man trying to fit into a younger body. We Angelenos are reminded of this when we drive down roads that have been repaved and retrofitted for a half-century or longer. To enter my local freeway, I cross a bridge built in 1940, past a crumbling concrete railing that has been struck so often by speeding Edsels, Ramblers and Explorers that it looks like a relic from a World War II battle.
This gets at one of the biggest knocks on Los Angeles that I hear from people, both in my hometown of Chicago and in LA itself: The traffic!
And I just want to say: What do you think it's like everywhere else?
Do you see that picture above? That's Chicago. It's from an article in the Tribune last year that conceded that although the Los Angeles area had the top three most congested stretches of road in the United States, five of the top 20 are actually in the Chicago area.
In fact:
Drivers in the northeastern Illinois-northwest Indiana region suffered the misery of 61 extra hours behind the wheel on average in 2014 — equivalent to a week and a half of work — because of delays caused by gridlock, construction zones and collisions that tied up traffic, according to the Urban Mobility Scorecard released late Tuesday by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
Turns out, traffic is bad in lots of places:
The Washington, D.C., area, at a numbing 82 hours of delay per commuter, ranked No. 1 on the Texas A&M list of the most gridlocked metropolitan areas last year. Rounding out the top 10 were Los Angeles; San Francisco; New York; San Jose, Calif.; Boston; Seattle; Chicago; Houston; and Dallas.
"The national congestion recession is over,'' the report concluded. "The total congestion problem is larger than the pre-recession levels.''
So, as I tell people here and in LA, it's not just your city, it's pretty much everywhere. In fact, when I hear people complain about how expensive a town is, or how high the taxes are, or how bad the traffic is, I just tell them that anywhere I'd want to live is going to have those problems. If you really want to avoid all those things then go live in the middle of nowhere where no one else wants to live either.
When I go to LA I hear people there complain about how bad the traffic has become. And I always say, Gee, the traffic in my town has gotten worse, too. In fact, it's gotten worse everywhere. (Maybe if you traveled outside your little bubble you'd notice that.) You see, there are more people and more cars in all major metropolitan areas. So of course the traffic has gotten worse.
Hey, Angelenos: Cry me a river! My town has become more crowded, more expensive and the roads more congested. (And we're about to get socked with higher property taxes.) But you know what? At least you have nice weather every day. We only get it for half the year.
A friend of mine once said that all jobs suck, so get a high-paying job that sucks. (Sage advice.) So if all big cities have the same problems, live in one (LA) with nice weather every day that has all those problems.
Friday, May 27, 2016
How should Hillary Clinton...
...campaign against Donald Trump? That's a good question, and if I knew the answer I'd be an extremely well-paid political adviser.
We all watched the Republicans flail about against the Donald in the primaries. Most of his early targets, like Jeb "low energy" Bush, tried to take the high road. It didn't work. Then "Little" Marco Rubio, for example, got down in the gutter with Trump by attacking the size of his hands. That didn't work either. Ted Cruz may have had the best strategy of all: he embraced Trump until the race became pretty much mano a mano. If you'll recall, though, on the day of the Indiana primary in which Trump crushed "Lyin' Ted," the New York tycoon suggested that Cruz's father was somehow connected to the Kennedy assassination. The Texas senator suspended his campaign that evening.
As Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, said:
If you imagine politics as a stick fight, all other stick fights have been won by a person with a stick. But here was Trump who said, ‘I read the rules and there’s nothing against bringing a flamethrower.’
(That was from a very interesting piece in Slate, "They Totally Knew: The People Who Foresaw the Rise of Donald Trump," and probably the best description I've heard yet of the Republican race.)
So, again, how do you fight a guy who brings a flamethrower to a stick fight? Or, more specifically, how do you answer charges about Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, Vince Foster's suicide, Whitewater, and whatever else the Donald chooses to dominate the news cycle on any given day and throw Hillary off her message?
Well, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in Bloomberg, "How Clinton Can Demolish Trump," says:
Her most powerful message against Trump might be a non-ideological one: His lack of knowledge, seriousness and impulse control make him too dangerous to put in the presidency.
My guess is that Clinton and her advisers will reach the same conclusion, and make Trump’s unfitness for the presidency the central message of her campaign. Her real meaning will not be explicitly spelled out, but will be unmistakable nonetheless: You may not like either of us, but you should fear him.
Since the blog you're reading right now is free, here's some advice for Mrs. Clinton that may very well be worth the price I'm charging. But, hey, opinions are like you-know-whats -- everybody's got one. So here's mine.
Every time Trump brings up some non-issue from the '90s and forces reporters to ask Mrs. Clinton about it, I'd have her answer their queries with a question of her own. For example:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Monica Lewinsky. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: how exactly do you intend to deport 11 million Americans?" And then I would have her cite reasons from this piece in the Times on how utterly unrealistic that would be.
Next day:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Vince Foster. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: tell us more about that wall with Mexico you plan on building." And then I would have her cite some of the reasons from that same piece on how impractical that whole idea is.
Next day:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Whitewater. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: tell us more about your plan to prevent all Muslims from entering the United States." And then go on to explain how ridiculous that would be.
In other words, every time Trump tries to capture the news cycle by putting Mrs. Clinton on the defensive with some stupid charge I would advise her not to even answer him, but instead throw one of his own loopy proposals right back at him with some facts on how crazy it would be. If there's one thing everyone can agree on (even his supporters, I suspect), it's that Trump is a complete ignoramus on policy who has gotten a free pass so far from the media, his Republican opponents and almost everyone else. I'd hammer him on how clueless he is and therefore utterly unfit for the office.
For now, the math favors Mrs. Clinton. But that flamethrower of Mr. Trump's worries me. Time to take it out of his hands.
We all watched the Republicans flail about against the Donald in the primaries. Most of his early targets, like Jeb "low energy" Bush, tried to take the high road. It didn't work. Then "Little" Marco Rubio, for example, got down in the gutter with Trump by attacking the size of his hands. That didn't work either. Ted Cruz may have had the best strategy of all: he embraced Trump until the race became pretty much mano a mano. If you'll recall, though, on the day of the Indiana primary in which Trump crushed "Lyin' Ted," the New York tycoon suggested that Cruz's father was somehow connected to the Kennedy assassination. The Texas senator suspended his campaign that evening.
As Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, said:
If you imagine politics as a stick fight, all other stick fights have been won by a person with a stick. But here was Trump who said, ‘I read the rules and there’s nothing against bringing a flamethrower.’
(That was from a very interesting piece in Slate, "They Totally Knew: The People Who Foresaw the Rise of Donald Trump," and probably the best description I've heard yet of the Republican race.)
So, again, how do you fight a guy who brings a flamethrower to a stick fight? Or, more specifically, how do you answer charges about Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs, Vince Foster's suicide, Whitewater, and whatever else the Donald chooses to dominate the news cycle on any given day and throw Hillary off her message?
Well, Ramesh Ponnuru, writing in Bloomberg, "How Clinton Can Demolish Trump," says:
Her most powerful message against Trump might be a non-ideological one: His lack of knowledge, seriousness and impulse control make him too dangerous to put in the presidency.
My guess is that Clinton and her advisers will reach the same conclusion, and make Trump’s unfitness for the presidency the central message of her campaign. Her real meaning will not be explicitly spelled out, but will be unmistakable nonetheless: You may not like either of us, but you should fear him.
Since the blog you're reading right now is free, here's some advice for Mrs. Clinton that may very well be worth the price I'm charging. But, hey, opinions are like you-know-whats -- everybody's got one. So here's mine.
Every time Trump brings up some non-issue from the '90s and forces reporters to ask Mrs. Clinton about it, I'd have her answer their queries with a question of her own. For example:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Monica Lewinsky. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: how exactly do you intend to deport 11 million Americans?" And then I would have her cite reasons from this piece in the Times on how utterly unrealistic that would be.
Next day:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Vince Foster. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: tell us more about that wall with Mexico you plan on building." And then I would have her cite some of the reasons from that same piece on how impractical that whole idea is.
Next day:
"Mrs. Clinton, Donald Trump is talking about Whitewater. How do you respond?"
"I have a question for Mr. Trump: tell us more about your plan to prevent all Muslims from entering the United States." And then go on to explain how ridiculous that would be.
In other words, every time Trump tries to capture the news cycle by putting Mrs. Clinton on the defensive with some stupid charge I would advise her not to even answer him, but instead throw one of his own loopy proposals right back at him with some facts on how crazy it would be. If there's one thing everyone can agree on (even his supporters, I suspect), it's that Trump is a complete ignoramus on policy who has gotten a free pass so far from the media, his Republican opponents and almost everyone else. I'd hammer him on how clueless he is and therefore utterly unfit for the office.
For now, the math favors Mrs. Clinton. But that flamethrower of Mr. Trump's worries me. Time to take it out of his hands.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Andrew Card, President...
...George W. Bush's chief of staff is the latest name to surface in the speculation surrounding Donald Trump's running mate. TRUMP/CARD. Get it?
Don't blame me for that; it's from a piece in USA Today, "VP Power Rankings: Corker tops list, Gingrich back in play."
The article mentions a number of the usual suspects, including Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Arizona governor Jan Brewer, and Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Nikki Haley, both of South Carolina.
And I thought it might be useful to divide the various possibilities into two categories, those thought to have a future in politics, such as:
Corker, Ernst, Kasich, Rubio, Walker, Scott and Haley.
And those who, let's face it, don't:
Gingrich, Christie and Brewer.
Why is this important? Because if someone with a real future accepts the VP nomination with Trump it means Republicans think the Donald has at least a fighting chance. But if he ends up picking someone like Newt Gingrich, well, bet the ranch on Hillary crushing Trump in November. No one with a future in Republican politics is going to want to hitch his or her wagon to Trump if he's going to just crash and burn in the fall. This could be the best indication of what Washington insiders are really thinking.
Don't blame me for that; it's from a piece in USA Today, "VP Power Rankings: Corker tops list, Gingrich back in play."
The article mentions a number of the usual suspects, including Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, former Arizona governor Jan Brewer, and Sen. Tim Scott and Gov. Nikki Haley, both of South Carolina.
And I thought it might be useful to divide the various possibilities into two categories, those thought to have a future in politics, such as:
Corker, Ernst, Kasich, Rubio, Walker, Scott and Haley.
And those who, let's face it, don't:
Gingrich, Christie and Brewer.
Why is this important? Because if someone with a real future accepts the VP nomination with Trump it means Republicans think the Donald has at least a fighting chance. But if he ends up picking someone like Newt Gingrich, well, bet the ranch on Hillary crushing Trump in November. No one with a future in Republican politics is going to want to hitch his or her wagon to Trump if he's going to just crash and burn in the fall. This could be the best indication of what Washington insiders are really thinking.
An article in the Times...
![]() |
| Charlie Munger, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. |
Chance events play a much larger role in life than many people once imagined.
It reminded me of the whole idea of free will and the Nature vs. Nurture debate I can't seem to let go of.
It also reminded me of an exercise I once took part in which was about the role of luck in our lives. And one woman in particular -- I swear! -- attributed all of the unfortunate things in her life to bad luck while all of her successes to her own good choices and hard work. Seriously. And she was a highly-intelligent, successful person. (I think I laughed out loud -- and she looked at me as though I had two heads.)
The piece goes on:
To acknowledge the importance of random events is not to suggest that success is independent of talent and effort. In highly competitive arenas, those who do well are almost always extremely talented and hard-working. As Charlie Munger, the vice chairman of Warren E. Buffett’s holding company, Berkshire Hathaway, has said, “The safest way to get what you want is to try and deserve what you want.”
Perhaps the most useful advice for someone who aspires to material success is to develop expertise at a task that others value. Such expertise comes not from luck but from thousands of hours of assiduous effort.
Warren Buffett, I recall, had a more nuanced view:
I happen to have a talent for allocating capital. But my ability to use that talent is completely dependent on the society I was born into. If I’d been born into a tribe of hunters, this talent of mine would be pretty worthless. I can’t run very fast. I’m not particularly strong. I’d probably end up as some wild animal’s dinner.
But I was lucky enough to be born in a time and place where society values my talent, and gave me a good education to develop that talent, and set up the laws and the financial system to let me do what I love doing — and make a lot of money doing it.
(Question: Would Bill Gates have created Microsoft had he been born in Uganda?)
So which is it, luck or hard work? Or some combination of the two?
Take me, for example. I was born into a solidly middle-class family with two parents who lived well beyond my childhood. In typical post-war fashion, my father worked outside the house while my mother raised the kids. Like my dad, we all completed college. I went on to get married, have kids and lead a comfortably middle-class existence myself. If you looked at my childhood and how my life turned out it would probably come as no surprise. Was it luck, though, or hard work?
Maybe, like that woman I mentioned above, all of the unfortunate things that happened to me in my life were the result of bad luck while all of my successes were due to good choices and hard work on my part.
Or not.
The other Name of the Day...
What, did you think he was a member of the Liberal Party?
The Name of the Day...
...belongs to Jennifer Howe Peace (middle), an associate professor of interfaith studies at Andover Newton Theological School.
What, did you think she worked at the Department of Defense?
What, did you think she worked at the Department of Defense?
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
I know that Massachusetts...
You want an attack dog? Just check out that video, above. I wonder if it might take a woman to bring the fight to a bully like Trump. After all, the only Republican that laid a glove on him in the primaries was Carly Fiorina. Also, Sen. Warren could unite the Sanders and Clinton wings of the party like no one else I can think of. Oh, and by the way, she's also a highly-intelligent, highly-principled person who is actually qualified to be president (unlike someone else I could mention).
Finally, at long last Sen. Warren could give the Democrats a real chance to turn the Bay State blue in the fall.*
From Paddy Power:
Julian Castro, 5/2 odds
Tim Kaine, 5/1
Elizabeth Warren, 11/2
* JK!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





