I just posted the following as a comment to one of my "friend's" postings on Facebook regarding her frustration with the musings of that infamous Pennsylvania woodchuck. I feel it imperitave that I get this message out there.
I have been looking into taking legal action regarding that unholy liberal celebration ostensibly known as "Groundhog Day.". It is difficult to determine just what came first: The groundhog - or more aptly, the whistle pig, the name known by those who recognize the danger signals - or the weather? Regardless, it is clear that a conspiracy is afoot - that the so called "shadow" is actually a left wing cabal intent upon establishing an inclimate radical muslim caliphate that will enforce sharia law in weather forecasting, and force us all to listen to a never-ending loop of Kenny G music. (In that regard, you MUST all gird your loins and remember - "If it ain't country, it ain't music.)
And that's just for starters!
Before we know it - and both the great Holy Man of our time, Glenn Beck, and the much beleaguered John Birch Society have duly warned us - America will soon become, in effect, the western arm of the New Ottoman Empire. Ponxitauney Phil indeed! If you perform a (commie controlled) Google search, you will see that "Phill's" first name has any # of spellings. Exceedingly interesting, no? How dumb do they think we are?
If you are having trouble following the logic of this, if this just doesn't make sense to you, well - that's just what THEY want. Simply close your eyes and listen. Listen to the Beckster. Concentrate. Now, remember how that left wing hack, the so called George H. W. Bush, used to tell us that "it wouldn't be prudent" --- to what? It wouldn't be prudent to look over his left shoulder (but you must remember- his left is your right. See? See how the maniacal Pinkos conspire to confuse good and true, god fearing, right minded, conservative Americans?!!!)
Why? - You may ask. Indeed! Well, isn't it clear why? I mean it's all right out there, plain as day. Keep in mind: We have proof! What proof? Well... never you mind! You must remember the motto of the true conservative: Don't ask, don't ask.
TLS
Just an additional note: RE: Girding of Loins: I am not altogether clear as to the steps to achieving proper girding.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
More Senseless Violence
Ever since President Obama took office, the right has incorporated violent rhetoric in their message. The Reps and tea party activists have "targeted" the opposition, they have suggested the use of "second ammendment" solutions. They have stated their intent to "take out" an opposition candidate. Any # of right wing political candidates at all levels used guns and targets - often human silhouette type targets, not just bullseyes - and language suggestive of violence against their oponents. Right wing TV - FOX, that is - has lauded the hits on medical people involved in abortions. Right wingnut radio dipsticks have made much more baldly violent threats against the left. Ann Coulter has accused all Democrats and anyone politically to the left of Atilla the Hun as being traitors.
The characterization of Obama, the Dems and the left in general as anti-american, as socialists, as communists, as fascists has fed the flames. Those who appeared at political rallies armed to the teeth reinforced the notion that violence was not only acceptable, but perhaps desired.
All these people can shrug and claim having no responsibility for todays massacre, but they ARE responsible. They know full well that there is and will always be a fringe element - on both extremes of the political spectrum - who are just crazy enough, just disaffected enough, just prone to violence enough to pick up the gauntlet and start shooting.
Ironically, among the worst of them are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Sharon Angle - the idiot triumvirate! Those three and all the others who make it a practice to use violent language and evoke violent images when speaking of their political opponents MUST accept responsibility and they MUST remove such allusions from their rhetoric in the future. They cannot be allowed to protest their innocence, but rather, must be held accountable by the public and, perhaps, ultimately, by the courts. To paraphrase the sheriff in Tucson who said in his statement earlier today in reference to the radio and TV pundits and pols' use of violent language - "It might be free speech, but it has consequences." Indeed it does.
TLS
.
The characterization of Obama, the Dems and the left in general as anti-american, as socialists, as communists, as fascists has fed the flames. Those who appeared at political rallies armed to the teeth reinforced the notion that violence was not only acceptable, but perhaps desired.
All these people can shrug and claim having no responsibility for todays massacre, but they ARE responsible. They know full well that there is and will always be a fringe element - on both extremes of the political spectrum - who are just crazy enough, just disaffected enough, just prone to violence enough to pick up the gauntlet and start shooting.
Ironically, among the worst of them are Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Sharon Angle - the idiot triumvirate! Those three and all the others who make it a practice to use violent language and evoke violent images when speaking of their political opponents MUST accept responsibility and they MUST remove such allusions from their rhetoric in the future. They cannot be allowed to protest their innocence, but rather, must be held accountable by the public and, perhaps, ultimately, by the courts. To paraphrase the sheriff in Tucson who said in his statement earlier today in reference to the radio and TV pundits and pols' use of violent language - "It might be free speech, but it has consequences." Indeed it does.
TLS
.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Appraisers and Fee Splitting with AMCs.
I just sent the letter below via snail mail to Sandra Braunstein, who is working with others in her department of the Federal Reserve Board considering the portion of the Dodd/Frank Financial Reform Legislation dealing with home appraisal fees. We'll see if I get any response and/or if any response I receive will be anything other than a form letter.
For non-appraisers looking this over, this likely makes little sense and, doubtless is of little concern to you. However, if anyone who reads this happens to be an appraiser, or is in some manner connected to the mortgage lending industry - including any working for appraisal management companies - I'd appreciate it if you would read this through and make any comments - pro or con - which you may have. Especially let me know if you disagree or find any egregious errors in my letter. I won't mind hearing from you if you agree either. :)
Also, I would encourage other appraisers to send letters off to Ms. Braunstein in the hope of strengthening our position as regards AMC fee splitting. I think it's well past the time when we should stop being given the shaft by AMCs. Note that I obtained Ms. Braunstein's name and mailing address from the latest on-line edition of Working RE.
Sandra Braunstein
Director
Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs
Federal Reserve Board
1709 New York Avenue
Washington D.C. 20006
Ms. Braunstein:
I am writing this regarding the consideration currently being given to the portion of the Dodd/Frank Financial Reform Legislation concerning residential appraisal fees and the bill's language which indicates that those fees should be "customary and reasonable."
I agree with TAVMA (Title/Appraisal Vendor Management Association) that the language is vague. However, Appraisal Management Companies or AMCs are standing in opposition to any regulation or directives concerning appraisal fees.
First, a bit of history: AMCs are a relatively new phenomenon. They first appeared either in the late 1970s or sometime in the 1980s. They developed in response to changes in the mortgage lending industry - mainly its movement away from generally local and locally owned banks and other mortgage lenders to regional and national institutions. As it stands today, there are few local lending institutions. As this movement increased, it became less desirable for lenders to maintain local offices and staff and contacts with local appraisers. During the past 25 years or so, it gradually became more common for lenders to seek the services of AMCs from which to order appraisals. That, in and of itself, is fine.
However, in the early years, the change to AMCs was slow. Old habits die hard. It was often a hard sell. The chief problem was, of course, cost. Lenders did not want to pay any more for an appraisal ordered through an AMC than if they had contacted the appraiser directly. "No problem," said the AMCs. "We’ll simply take our portion out of the appraisal fees you are currently paying."
Observing this formula AMCs generally made contact with primarily younger or more accurately, less experienced appraisers who were perhaps having difficulty establishing a clientele. Many such appraisers were willing (if not happy) to accept lower fees in order to obtain work. More established appraisers were outraged at this. Fees for residential appraisals had developed over many years and were, for the most part, reflective of the time and expertise required to properly and professionally complete assignments. The lower fees being paid by AMCs were rightly seen as a threat to an appraiser's ability to be competitive, to continue to do professional quality work, and frankly, to make a living. This has been an ongoing fight within the appraisal industry for years.
The advent of the HVCC (the Home Valuation Code of Conduct) originally negotiated between Fannie Mae and the State of New York and then adopted nationwide, effectively mandated that lenders could no longer have direct contact with appraisers which then had the consequent effect of opening the flood gates for AMCs. When the HVCC officially went into effect in May of 2009, many appraisers literally lost all of their clientele overnight. They were left to scramble about, searching for and signing on with AMCs in the hope of getting work. Many gave it up and left the business entirely. There are today, fewer licensed or certified residential appraisers nationwide than at any time since the early days of nationally mandated licensing in the early 1990s.
What it comes down to is what constitutes "customary and reasonable" fees? Obviously, the AMCs want that figure to reflect what they generally pay appraisers for their work. The question then is: Why should the appraiser be expected to take less for the same work ordered by AMCs than he or she was normally receiving directly from lenders?
The services provided by AMCs do nothing to enhance the appraiser's condition. The AMCs would argue that they provide a major work source. That is a strawman argument as, if AMCs did not exist, lenders would still require appraisals. The work would still be there.
The fact is that ALL of the benefits of services provided by AMCs accrue to the lender. Lenders using AMCs, both before and since the HVCC, were and are provided the convenience of using just one or perhaps two or three AMCs as sources for most or all of their appraisal needs rather than maintaining long lists of appraisers across the country. As time passed, the AMCs developed reviewing capabilities which had the effect of reducing the work load for lenders. They could either eliminate staff and/or redirect their efforts in other, perhaps more profitable, endeavors. Again, all of these and other services which AMCs provide benefit only the lender. Why then should the appraiser be expected to pay for these services out of his or her fee?
It should be noted that some AMCs often receive as much as 60% or more of the total fee collected from the lender for an appraisal leaving what is often far less than half of the fee for the appraiser - the individual who actually performs the work.
It is my opinion, and one that is, I believe, shared by many in the industry, that if lenders elect to use AMCs (and it is still technically an election, not a mandate) that any monies paid to AMCs should be a separate fee, not connected to the appraisal itself. It is the appraiser who performs the inspection, who performs the research, who completes the report, and who is primarily liable for its conclusions. The lender should pay for services received. The days of "fee splitting" should end.
I understand in your capacity your primary concern is rightly for consumers, with what is best for them, and perhaps, what is best for the housing and mortgage lending industry as a whole. I also understand that appraisal fees are of little concern to the average mortgagor except insofar as they are obligated to pay them. But, there are other considerations.
Recent surveys conducted by various appraisal organizations and publications, of which I expect you are aware, have found that many appraisers feel that quality and reliability of appraisals have declined since the implementation of the HVCC. This decline is largely owing to lower fees with AMCs often awarding assignments to the lowest bidder, coupled with pressures on appraisers brought to bear by AMCs for quick turn-arounds of reports. Completed reports are considered due often as little as 24 hours after the inspection which doesn't allow for careful consideration of assignments. Well considered and accurate appraisals are vital to the current and future health of the mortgage and housing industries. A bit of justice regarding appraisal fees could be a small, but not insignificant step toward that goal.
Sincerely,
TLS
For non-appraisers looking this over, this likely makes little sense and, doubtless is of little concern to you. However, if anyone who reads this happens to be an appraiser, or is in some manner connected to the mortgage lending industry - including any working for appraisal management companies - I'd appreciate it if you would read this through and make any comments - pro or con - which you may have. Especially let me know if you disagree or find any egregious errors in my letter. I won't mind hearing from you if you agree either. :)
Also, I would encourage other appraisers to send letters off to Ms. Braunstein in the hope of strengthening our position as regards AMC fee splitting. I think it's well past the time when we should stop being given the shaft by AMCs. Note that I obtained Ms. Braunstein's name and mailing address from the latest on-line edition of Working RE.
Sandra Braunstein
Director
Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs
Federal Reserve Board
1709 New York Avenue
Washington D.C. 20006
Ms. Braunstein:
I am writing this regarding the consideration currently being given to the portion of the Dodd/Frank Financial Reform Legislation concerning residential appraisal fees and the bill's language which indicates that those fees should be "customary and reasonable."
I agree with TAVMA (Title/Appraisal Vendor Management Association) that the language is vague. However, Appraisal Management Companies or AMCs are standing in opposition to any regulation or directives concerning appraisal fees.
First, a bit of history: AMCs are a relatively new phenomenon. They first appeared either in the late 1970s or sometime in the 1980s. They developed in response to changes in the mortgage lending industry - mainly its movement away from generally local and locally owned banks and other mortgage lenders to regional and national institutions. As it stands today, there are few local lending institutions. As this movement increased, it became less desirable for lenders to maintain local offices and staff and contacts with local appraisers. During the past 25 years or so, it gradually became more common for lenders to seek the services of AMCs from which to order appraisals. That, in and of itself, is fine.
However, in the early years, the change to AMCs was slow. Old habits die hard. It was often a hard sell. The chief problem was, of course, cost. Lenders did not want to pay any more for an appraisal ordered through an AMC than if they had contacted the appraiser directly. "No problem," said the AMCs. "We’ll simply take our portion out of the appraisal fees you are currently paying."
Observing this formula AMCs generally made contact with primarily younger or more accurately, less experienced appraisers who were perhaps having difficulty establishing a clientele. Many such appraisers were willing (if not happy) to accept lower fees in order to obtain work. More established appraisers were outraged at this. Fees for residential appraisals had developed over many years and were, for the most part, reflective of the time and expertise required to properly and professionally complete assignments. The lower fees being paid by AMCs were rightly seen as a threat to an appraiser's ability to be competitive, to continue to do professional quality work, and frankly, to make a living. This has been an ongoing fight within the appraisal industry for years.
The advent of the HVCC (the Home Valuation Code of Conduct) originally negotiated between Fannie Mae and the State of New York and then adopted nationwide, effectively mandated that lenders could no longer have direct contact with appraisers which then had the consequent effect of opening the flood gates for AMCs. When the HVCC officially went into effect in May of 2009, many appraisers literally lost all of their clientele overnight. They were left to scramble about, searching for and signing on with AMCs in the hope of getting work. Many gave it up and left the business entirely. There are today, fewer licensed or certified residential appraisers nationwide than at any time since the early days of nationally mandated licensing in the early 1990s.
What it comes down to is what constitutes "customary and reasonable" fees? Obviously, the AMCs want that figure to reflect what they generally pay appraisers for their work. The question then is: Why should the appraiser be expected to take less for the same work ordered by AMCs than he or she was normally receiving directly from lenders?
The services provided by AMCs do nothing to enhance the appraiser's condition. The AMCs would argue that they provide a major work source. That is a strawman argument as, if AMCs did not exist, lenders would still require appraisals. The work would still be there.
The fact is that ALL of the benefits of services provided by AMCs accrue to the lender. Lenders using AMCs, both before and since the HVCC, were and are provided the convenience of using just one or perhaps two or three AMCs as sources for most or all of their appraisal needs rather than maintaining long lists of appraisers across the country. As time passed, the AMCs developed reviewing capabilities which had the effect of reducing the work load for lenders. They could either eliminate staff and/or redirect their efforts in other, perhaps more profitable, endeavors. Again, all of these and other services which AMCs provide benefit only the lender. Why then should the appraiser be expected to pay for these services out of his or her fee?
It should be noted that some AMCs often receive as much as 60% or more of the total fee collected from the lender for an appraisal leaving what is often far less than half of the fee for the appraiser - the individual who actually performs the work.
It is my opinion, and one that is, I believe, shared by many in the industry, that if lenders elect to use AMCs (and it is still technically an election, not a mandate) that any monies paid to AMCs should be a separate fee, not connected to the appraisal itself. It is the appraiser who performs the inspection, who performs the research, who completes the report, and who is primarily liable for its conclusions. The lender should pay for services received. The days of "fee splitting" should end.
I understand in your capacity your primary concern is rightly for consumers, with what is best for them, and perhaps, what is best for the housing and mortgage lending industry as a whole. I also understand that appraisal fees are of little concern to the average mortgagor except insofar as they are obligated to pay them. But, there are other considerations.
Recent surveys conducted by various appraisal organizations and publications, of which I expect you are aware, have found that many appraisers feel that quality and reliability of appraisals have declined since the implementation of the HVCC. This decline is largely owing to lower fees with AMCs often awarding assignments to the lowest bidder, coupled with pressures on appraisers brought to bear by AMCs for quick turn-arounds of reports. Completed reports are considered due often as little as 24 hours after the inspection which doesn't allow for careful consideration of assignments. Well considered and accurate appraisals are vital to the current and future health of the mortgage and housing industries. A bit of justice regarding appraisal fees could be a small, but not insignificant step toward that goal.
Sincerely,
TLS
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Honey Nut Clusters - Redux!
As some may know, I have waged an on-going, and oft-times fruitless effort to find what has become my favorite breakfast food - General Mills' Honey Nut Clusters cereal. I have written, I think, at least three separate articles here in this regard. This, then may be number four.
Someone recently added a comment to one of my earlier "Clusters" posts stating that he (or she) had heard that GM had discontinued production of Honey Nut Clusters. Well, the latest information I received is that is NOT the case. I took it upon myself to once again contact GM and get the latest 'scoop' on Clusters.
According to the good folks at General Mills, they STILL make Honey Nut Clusters. I received essentially the same response to the same query a couple of years ago. They went on to say that shelf space in groceries is limited, and that the various grocery chains and individual stores must make the hard decisions as to what products they provide for sale. I find that a bit disingenuous in that the average cereal aisle in most of the larger grocery chains runs for about a city block with what seems literally hundreds of choices. It just seems that these stores could come up with the 8 or 9 inches needed to accommodate most cereal boxes for one little row of Clusters, but alas, apparently not. They have no trouble carrying volumes of "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs," and their many variants which our increasingly pudgy and rotten toothed kids eat by the barrel full, much to the chagrin of nutritionists and dentists.
As I noted some time ago, I happened to find Honey Nut Clusters at a local Meijer store. I was thrilled and made periodic trips there usually buying 2 or 3 boxes at a time. No more. Meijer stopped carrying Clusters a few months back.
There remains only one store anywhere in the Indianapolis market where I can still get a fix for my Clusters 'Jones;' that being the Safeway store at 56th St. & Illinois on the north side of Indy. As it happens, I am a real estate appraiser, and I drive all around central Indiana about everyday. I find myself near the Safeway store probably a couple times a month. Other Clusters aficionados may not be so fortunate. If any other stores around here carry Clusters, I haven't found it or them. I even tried another Meijer store to no avail. I also filled out a product request card at our local Kroger store, which is where we normally shop, but never received a reply - and NO Honey Nut Clusters on the shelf! I recently filled out another such card. We shall see. Just as a suggestion, some of you Clusters junkies might try bugging your local grocer - fill out a few of those cards or whatever. You might have more luck at an independent or small chain store than at one of the gargantuan monolithic monster chains.
I believe Honey Nut Clusters can be purchased on-line through Amazon and perhaps other sites, but you must purchase an entire case at a cost of around $65. for what I believe is a dozen boxes. That comes down to $5.41 a box plus shipping. I think I pay around $4.75 per box at Safeway. They are, in any event, kinda pricey. But, hey, who cares when it comes to eating all that crunchy, honey, nutty, flakey goodness, right?
One not initiated to the wonders of Honey Nut Clusters might deservedly wonder what all the fuss is about? Well, just let me tell you...uh, not much really. There is really nothing particularly spectacular about Honey Nut Clusters. Yet, they are like anything people get a hankering for. For some it's beer - perhaps a certain brand of beer. For others, maybe it's some kind of chips, or chocolate, say specifically Godiva, or maybe just a good old Snickers bar. I'm not much of a beer drinker, but I certainly can joyously eat most any kind of chips and most any kind of chocolate. Yet none of that comes down to a specific item for me. Nothing does, but Honey Nut Clusters. Go figure. :)
TLS
Someone recently added a comment to one of my earlier "Clusters" posts stating that he (or she) had heard that GM had discontinued production of Honey Nut Clusters. Well, the latest information I received is that is NOT the case. I took it upon myself to once again contact GM and get the latest 'scoop' on Clusters.
According to the good folks at General Mills, they STILL make Honey Nut Clusters. I received essentially the same response to the same query a couple of years ago. They went on to say that shelf space in groceries is limited, and that the various grocery chains and individual stores must make the hard decisions as to what products they provide for sale. I find that a bit disingenuous in that the average cereal aisle in most of the larger grocery chains runs for about a city block with what seems literally hundreds of choices. It just seems that these stores could come up with the 8 or 9 inches needed to accommodate most cereal boxes for one little row of Clusters, but alas, apparently not. They have no trouble carrying volumes of "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs," and their many variants which our increasingly pudgy and rotten toothed kids eat by the barrel full, much to the chagrin of nutritionists and dentists.
As I noted some time ago, I happened to find Honey Nut Clusters at a local Meijer store. I was thrilled and made periodic trips there usually buying 2 or 3 boxes at a time. No more. Meijer stopped carrying Clusters a few months back.
There remains only one store anywhere in the Indianapolis market where I can still get a fix for my Clusters 'Jones;' that being the Safeway store at 56th St. & Illinois on the north side of Indy. As it happens, I am a real estate appraiser, and I drive all around central Indiana about everyday. I find myself near the Safeway store probably a couple times a month. Other Clusters aficionados may not be so fortunate. If any other stores around here carry Clusters, I haven't found it or them. I even tried another Meijer store to no avail. I also filled out a product request card at our local Kroger store, which is where we normally shop, but never received a reply - and NO Honey Nut Clusters on the shelf! I recently filled out another such card. We shall see. Just as a suggestion, some of you Clusters junkies might try bugging your local grocer - fill out a few of those cards or whatever. You might have more luck at an independent or small chain store than at one of the gargantuan monolithic monster chains.
I believe Honey Nut Clusters can be purchased on-line through Amazon and perhaps other sites, but you must purchase an entire case at a cost of around $65. for what I believe is a dozen boxes. That comes down to $5.41 a box plus shipping. I think I pay around $4.75 per box at Safeway. They are, in any event, kinda pricey. But, hey, who cares when it comes to eating all that crunchy, honey, nutty, flakey goodness, right?
One not initiated to the wonders of Honey Nut Clusters might deservedly wonder what all the fuss is about? Well, just let me tell you...uh, not much really. There is really nothing particularly spectacular about Honey Nut Clusters. Yet, they are like anything people get a hankering for. For some it's beer - perhaps a certain brand of beer. For others, maybe it's some kind of chips, or chocolate, say specifically Godiva, or maybe just a good old Snickers bar. I'm not much of a beer drinker, but I certainly can joyously eat most any kind of chips and most any kind of chocolate. Yet none of that comes down to a specific item for me. Nothing does, but Honey Nut Clusters. Go figure. :)
TLS
Monday, August 30, 2010
Hooray for Poetry and Hooray for My Son
Some of you few who venture here may have noticed the cellpoems link I have provided on the right side of this blog page. cellpoems is a web site dedicated to publishing short poems - poems limited to the number of characters one can use in a single "Twitter" submission. The site has a steadily growing membership and has received submissions from a number of well known poets including Billy Collins, the former US Poet Laureate among many others.
cellpoems recently was the recipient of a $2500 grant from the National Book Foundation. A goodly portion of this grant has gone into a redesign of the site which is still underway, plus the addition of more efficient means by which poems can be received and distributed to the site's members. (All of this is free BTW.)
cellpoems is the brainchild of my younger son, Chris and submissions are evaluated by him and other poets. They are pretty tough to please.
A couple of weeks ago Chris received word that he has been chosen one of five winners of the Ruth Lilly Prize for Poetry given yearly to young poets across the country. The award is sponsored by the Poetry Foundation and its publication, Poetry Magazine. The prize includes a fellowship award of $15000. The poems submitted by Chris and the four other winners will be published in the November issue of Poetry Magazine. There were more than a thousand entrants. The submissions were evaluated by a group of esteemed poets, professors, etc. blindly - that is no names were attached to the works they judged so that only the poems and not the poets were being evaluated.
Ruth Lilly, a member of the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical family, passed away a few years ago leaving the Poetry Foundation and Poetry Magazine two hundred million dollars through her will. This gift raised a number of eyebrows at the time, but poetry was, perhaps her main love in life. Ironically, Ms. Lilly submitted a number of poems to the magazine over the years, none of which were published.
The four other winners include Brooklyn Copeland (also) of Indianapolis, Miriam Bird Greenburg of rural Texas, Nate King of Wellesley, MA, and Dora Malech of Maryland.
Note that a lifetime poetry award which includes a $100,000 prize was awarded to 94 year old Eleanor Ross Taylor of Charlottesville, VA
Kudos and WOOHOOs! to Chris and all of the other winners.
TLS
cellpoems recently was the recipient of a $2500 grant from the National Book Foundation. A goodly portion of this grant has gone into a redesign of the site which is still underway, plus the addition of more efficient means by which poems can be received and distributed to the site's members. (All of this is free BTW.)
cellpoems is the brainchild of my younger son, Chris and submissions are evaluated by him and other poets. They are pretty tough to please.
A couple of weeks ago Chris received word that he has been chosen one of five winners of the Ruth Lilly Prize for Poetry given yearly to young poets across the country. The award is sponsored by the Poetry Foundation and its publication, Poetry Magazine. The prize includes a fellowship award of $15000. The poems submitted by Chris and the four other winners will be published in the November issue of Poetry Magazine. There were more than a thousand entrants. The submissions were evaluated by a group of esteemed poets, professors, etc. blindly - that is no names were attached to the works they judged so that only the poems and not the poets were being evaluated.
Ruth Lilly, a member of the Eli Lilly pharmaceutical family, passed away a few years ago leaving the Poetry Foundation and Poetry Magazine two hundred million dollars through her will. This gift raised a number of eyebrows at the time, but poetry was, perhaps her main love in life. Ironically, Ms. Lilly submitted a number of poems to the magazine over the years, none of which were published.
The four other winners include Brooklyn Copeland (also) of Indianapolis, Miriam Bird Greenburg of rural Texas, Nate King of Wellesley, MA, and Dora Malech of Maryland.
Note that a lifetime poetry award which includes a $100,000 prize was awarded to 94 year old Eleanor Ross Taylor of Charlottesville, VA
Kudos and WOOHOOs! to Chris and all of the other winners.
TLS
Sunday, August 29, 2010
A Karaoke Night Out
As this is the first time in 3 or 4 years all four Shannons have been together, we celebrated last nite by hitting a bit of the karaoke circuit. We kinda did two extremes: First, we hit Marty's at Carson Square. Low key. Kinda redneck. Lotta Country. Preferring to keep things at a highbrow level, I started off with Jim Croce's "Workin at the Car Wash Blues" Chris followed with Rod Stewart's version of "Reason to Believe." I came back with Jimmy Buffet's "Come Monday," a song I quickly realized I didn't know so well as I thought. Nick wrapped up our adventure at Marty's with a kick ass rendition of John Denver's "Thank God I'm a Country Boy." Sadly, we could not prevail upon Jo to give it a whirl.
We left Marty's with our thanks and headed north, passing downtown Indy, and winding up on Illinois St at Downtown Olley's. Olley's is very Gay. It was also really fun. There was a much longer list of singers signed up, and we waited some time before our turns came along. Showing my age, I led off with Buddy Holly's "That'll Be The Day" which garnered about as much approbation as anyone else's efforts to that point. But then Nick and Chris absolutely nailed Elton John's "Rocket Man" passing the lyrics back and forth and achieving some great harmonies. Comparatively speaking, it brought the house down. I loved it.
Once again, Joan demurred at the prospect of taking the mike. Maybe another time.
We then drove back to our humble domicile and had a late nite snack of homemade cherry cobbler (Jo made with cherries from our own tree) and ice cream and topped off the late evening by watching a couple of season one episodes of "The Wire." Good times.
TLS
We left Marty's with our thanks and headed north, passing downtown Indy, and winding up on Illinois St at Downtown Olley's. Olley's is very Gay. It was also really fun. There was a much longer list of singers signed up, and we waited some time before our turns came along. Showing my age, I led off with Buddy Holly's "That'll Be The Day" which garnered about as much approbation as anyone else's efforts to that point. But then Nick and Chris absolutely nailed Elton John's "Rocket Man" passing the lyrics back and forth and achieving some great harmonies. Comparatively speaking, it brought the house down. I loved it.
Once again, Joan demurred at the prospect of taking the mike. Maybe another time.
We then drove back to our humble domicile and had a late nite snack of homemade cherry cobbler (Jo made with cherries from our own tree) and ice cream and topped off the late evening by watching a couple of season one episodes of "The Wire." Good times.
TLS
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Is Obama Imploding?
A note of explanation: This is a comment I wrote in response to an article in the Politics section of Blogcritics Magazine entitled "And So It Goes: The Implosion of the Obama Presidency" written by one Joseph Cotto. The people I refer to - namely Arch and Baronius - are others who commented and, obviously, with whom I disagree. There was much discussion back and forth - this comment was #101.
This discussion is, as usual, going nowhere. Neither side is going to convince the other of anything they don't already embrace.
While it is de regueur of the right to denigrate the left and to dismiss any and all who stand with Obama as delirious fools,it is, however, my view that those such as Arch and Baronius among many others who are suffering from short sightedness and the aforementioned delirium. They have totally unrealistic expectations of government.
I have lived through several recessions in my 60+ years - none of them as bad as the current one. Yet, in no instance did the recovery take less than 2 or 3 years, often longer. A note to those pointing impatient fingers at Obama: Your naivete is showing.
If it were your guy (or gal) in the WH, you'd be doing just as Glenn, myself and a few others who comment here: You'd be telling their detractors that these things take time. And they do. Either Arch or Bar suggested above that no president nor administration can turn these things on a dime via their own efforts. This economy will recover in its own time. Obama, his administration and Congress can, if they show the insight and will, can nudge things along. It is clear to me that Obama has done his utmost to do just that.
Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans and even a few recalcitrant Dems from time to time have chosen to block virtually every effort to such an end. They claim ideology and care and concern for this country's fair citizenry, but it is, in the main, political.
Another level of naivete displayed by people on both sides of the coin is a belief that government should not be beholden to special interests. It is the nature of the beast. Many claim that government is evil by its very nature. Yet, humanity has, if reluctantly at times, come to the realization that we cannot behave ourselves. We must have overseers. Even moreso in a capitalist economy. Ironically, the ONLY societal construct which would allow for minimal or perhaps even no formal government would be a perfect socialist order. Alas, perfection is beyond us. Capitalism and its ties to the profit motive insures that a government must be in place to curb greed and its attendant abuses. We are incapable of conducting ourselves and, more to the point, our business, without regulation and oversight. A lack of government is by definition anarchy. Libertarianism is basically just one step removed.
It can be said that the gloves have come off. What passes for political posturing today is more akin to the harrowing days of the Adams/Jefferson campaign and the Alien and Sedition Act.
At no time in our history, save perhaps the era leading up to the Civil War, has politics been so heated and potentially violent. Every side believes it is situated upon the high ground. However, it is primarily the rhetoric and sound bites coming from the right which vehemently claims its opposition is willfully destroying the country. This hyperbolic drivel is, unfortunately, being taken to heart by many. This is sadly, becoming a more and more dangerous time to be alive.
TLS
This discussion is, as usual, going nowhere. Neither side is going to convince the other of anything they don't already embrace.
While it is de regueur of the right to denigrate the left and to dismiss any and all who stand with Obama as delirious fools,it is, however, my view that those such as Arch and Baronius among many others who are suffering from short sightedness and the aforementioned delirium. They have totally unrealistic expectations of government.
I have lived through several recessions in my 60+ years - none of them as bad as the current one. Yet, in no instance did the recovery take less than 2 or 3 years, often longer. A note to those pointing impatient fingers at Obama: Your naivete is showing.
If it were your guy (or gal) in the WH, you'd be doing just as Glenn, myself and a few others who comment here: You'd be telling their detractors that these things take time. And they do. Either Arch or Bar suggested above that no president nor administration can turn these things on a dime via their own efforts. This economy will recover in its own time. Obama, his administration and Congress can, if they show the insight and will, can nudge things along. It is clear to me that Obama has done his utmost to do just that.
Unfortunately, Congressional Republicans and even a few recalcitrant Dems from time to time have chosen to block virtually every effort to such an end. They claim ideology and care and concern for this country's fair citizenry, but it is, in the main, political.
Another level of naivete displayed by people on both sides of the coin is a belief that government should not be beholden to special interests. It is the nature of the beast. Many claim that government is evil by its very nature. Yet, humanity has, if reluctantly at times, come to the realization that we cannot behave ourselves. We must have overseers. Even moreso in a capitalist economy. Ironically, the ONLY societal construct which would allow for minimal or perhaps even no formal government would be a perfect socialist order. Alas, perfection is beyond us. Capitalism and its ties to the profit motive insures that a government must be in place to curb greed and its attendant abuses. We are incapable of conducting ourselves and, more to the point, our business, without regulation and oversight. A lack of government is by definition anarchy. Libertarianism is basically just one step removed.
It can be said that the gloves have come off. What passes for political posturing today is more akin to the harrowing days of the Adams/Jefferson campaign and the Alien and Sedition Act.
At no time in our history, save perhaps the era leading up to the Civil War, has politics been so heated and potentially violent. Every side believes it is situated upon the high ground. However, it is primarily the rhetoric and sound bites coming from the right which vehemently claims its opposition is willfully destroying the country. This hyperbolic drivel is, unfortunately, being taken to heart by many. This is sadly, becoming a more and more dangerous time to be alive.
TLS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)