son of doulas.
1. im am working on new postings 'behind the scenes,' but i will admit that although life has been busy recently, i currently have a weird 'blogger's block' regarding what to ultimately post.
the brady saga will definitely have to go up soon, but i haven't even started that one, so please be patient. the key thing here is that brady is safe and sound and cutely meowing and, not so cutely, but very normally for her, periodically puking, at home, as she should be.
2. in the way of actually putting something up right now, some food for thought, i offer a key slice of a wall street journal opinion piece that my dad clipped and mailed to me recently. the article was in the issue of jan. 24, titled 'We Must Change Policy Direction,' and authored by Robert Rubin. im not gonna bore you by summarizing the article; i think this paragraph, though not necessarily indicative of the main point of the article--which is how we must change our economic policies, while the paragraph more illuminates one of the reasons why we must change--stands well enough on its own. i think/know this section was the main impetus for my dad to send the clip to me in the first place, as he highlighted it himself:
The seeming inertial tendency of our economy toward less and less broad-based participation is startling and too little discussed. Median real wages, household incomes and family incomes have increased relatively little over the last 30 years, except during the last five years of the 90's. Thus, a study showed that in 1979 [c-note: the year of my birth] it took 44 people with average earnings in the bottom half of the population to equal each person in the top 0.1 of 1%, while in 2001 [c-note: the year in which my favorite movie, a total fantasy, takes place, though also an actual year that has passed], the last year in that study, that number was 160. Our economy is not working for too many of our people, and that is a problem for all of us.
the main thing i glean from this and the article as a whole is that the classic republican economic doctrine of catering to the rich rather than everyone--seemingly applied to our economy by dubya more than anyone ever--is not only altruistically shallow, but also pragmatically bad for our economic well-being as a nation. so dubya--pull your head out of your ass, man! (ok, maybe this premise, like cursing dubya, is nothing new, but, like cursing dubya, it's worth repeating, no?) true, as a former member of clinton's cabinet, rubin is inherently biased, but he clearly has the economic chops/cred; im gonna venture that he's right on the money. pardon the pun.
3. i call this post 'son of doulas' (pronounced doo-lahs, not doo-luz) because for some reason i was recently reminded that one of my favorite teachers used to call me 'colby, son of doulas.' his name was mr. goldberg, and he was our social studies/archeology teacher in third grade (yes, dalton actually is pretty cool, or at least it used to be; hands-on archeology simulation in third grade = classy). one day that year, our teachers had us make name tags for our parents, who were coming to an open house, or parent teacher conference maybe, that night. apparently, being a third grader and all--not that i wouldnt be capable of this now btw--i wrote 'doulas' on my dad's name tag instead of 'douglas.' so after that, mr. goldberg, who, like our house teacher, mr. meyers, was fond of medieval lore--and accordingly would call us 'so-and-so, son/daughter of so-and-so'--began calling me 'colby, son of doulas.' i think it's funny. good times.
was i thinking about this recently because of all the 'doula' talk by palm hedcatt? (again, i have always preferred the spelling 'dula') maybe, but in that case this talk only served as a reminder, rather than a catalyst; ive periodically thought of mr. goldberg making that joke in my own right, ever since third grade. is the coincidence of doula/dula/doulas funny? you bet your ass it is.
4. SUPER BOWL. i recently read an article talking about how the bye week is mainly for the gambling industry. ie, right after the conference finals, one super bowl team looks much stronger than the other one, and the bye week kind of lets everyone forget that, hence facilitating betting on both teams, which is crucial for vegas to make money.
well, i haven't forgotten that although seattle looked good, the steelers looked like the stronger team. and no team that wears so much teal should even be allowed to win. so i'll go with pittsburgh, 31-24. mvp: big ben.
the brady saga will definitely have to go up soon, but i haven't even started that one, so please be patient. the key thing here is that brady is safe and sound and cutely meowing and, not so cutely, but very normally for her, periodically puking, at home, as she should be.
2. in the way of actually putting something up right now, some food for thought, i offer a key slice of a wall street journal opinion piece that my dad clipped and mailed to me recently. the article was in the issue of jan. 24, titled 'We Must Change Policy Direction,' and authored by Robert Rubin. im not gonna bore you by summarizing the article; i think this paragraph, though not necessarily indicative of the main point of the article--which is how we must change our economic policies, while the paragraph more illuminates one of the reasons why we must change--stands well enough on its own. i think/know this section was the main impetus for my dad to send the clip to me in the first place, as he highlighted it himself:
The seeming inertial tendency of our economy toward less and less broad-based participation is startling and too little discussed. Median real wages, household incomes and family incomes have increased relatively little over the last 30 years, except during the last five years of the 90's. Thus, a study showed that in 1979 [c-note: the year of my birth] it took 44 people with average earnings in the bottom half of the population to equal each person in the top 0.1 of 1%, while in 2001 [c-note: the year in which my favorite movie, a total fantasy, takes place, though also an actual year that has passed], the last year in that study, that number was 160. Our economy is not working for too many of our people, and that is a problem for all of us.
the main thing i glean from this and the article as a whole is that the classic republican economic doctrine of catering to the rich rather than everyone--seemingly applied to our economy by dubya more than anyone ever--is not only altruistically shallow, but also pragmatically bad for our economic well-being as a nation. so dubya--pull your head out of your ass, man! (ok, maybe this premise, like cursing dubya, is nothing new, but, like cursing dubya, it's worth repeating, no?) true, as a former member of clinton's cabinet, rubin is inherently biased, but he clearly has the economic chops/cred; im gonna venture that he's right on the money. pardon the pun.
3. i call this post 'son of doulas' (pronounced doo-lahs, not doo-luz) because for some reason i was recently reminded that one of my favorite teachers used to call me 'colby, son of doulas.' his name was mr. goldberg, and he was our social studies/archeology teacher in third grade (yes, dalton actually is pretty cool, or at least it used to be; hands-on archeology simulation in third grade = classy). one day that year, our teachers had us make name tags for our parents, who were coming to an open house, or parent teacher conference maybe, that night. apparently, being a third grader and all--not that i wouldnt be capable of this now btw--i wrote 'doulas' on my dad's name tag instead of 'douglas.' so after that, mr. goldberg, who, like our house teacher, mr. meyers, was fond of medieval lore--and accordingly would call us 'so-and-so, son/daughter of so-and-so'--began calling me 'colby, son of doulas.' i think it's funny. good times.
was i thinking about this recently because of all the 'doula' talk by palm hedcatt? (again, i have always preferred the spelling 'dula') maybe, but in that case this talk only served as a reminder, rather than a catalyst; ive periodically thought of mr. goldberg making that joke in my own right, ever since third grade. is the coincidence of doula/dula/doulas funny? you bet your ass it is.
4. SUPER BOWL. i recently read an article talking about how the bye week is mainly for the gambling industry. ie, right after the conference finals, one super bowl team looks much stronger than the other one, and the bye week kind of lets everyone forget that, hence facilitating betting on both teams, which is crucial for vegas to make money.well, i haven't forgotten that although seattle looked good, the steelers looked like the stronger team. and no team that wears so much teal should even be allowed to win. so i'll go with pittsburgh, 31-24. mvp: big ben.
posted by Colby | 11:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home