Ever the naivete, I was completely caught off guard this week when I listened to a story on National Public Radio while driving to work.  Apparently, angry consumers have been turning to online petitions to try to change what retailers put on their store shelves. To wit, J.C. Penney had to scrap a shirt that read “I’m Too Pretty To Do Homework, So My Brother Has To Do It For Me,” after an online backlash by consumers.

Before the story unfolded, I was ready and eager to sign such petition.  In my house, homework for my 7 and 9 year old is akin to the Battle of Leningrad: inch by inch, trench by trench, slowly and at great pain and high cost.  But it must be done so we slog on, to borrow a phrase from Donald Rumsfeld.  Still, children’s academic obstinance is a cause I’m ever ready to grab my musket and tri-corn hat and fight against.

But as it turns out, our cultural aversion to learning important things is not what had the “Romans” up at arms: the shirt is deemed sexist by these modern day Susand B. Anthony’s. I guess if the shirt said “my sister has to do it for me,” that would’ve made the shirt more politically palatable, even if not less ignorant.

Thus, when a New York resident saw a photo of the “I’m Too Pretty To Do Homework” shirt on Facebook last August, she started a petition on the social action website Change.org and, of course, the mainstream media picked up on it and she was later interviewed on CBS, where she said, “It was outrageous enough to be posted on Facebook, but it was actually more outrageous than that — and I felt like I needed to do something about it.”  Right behind her was the director of women’s rights organizing for Change.org who said “From the time [of] the petition on Change.org and J.C. Penney pulled the shirt, it was about 10 hours, in which it got over 2,000 signatures, and at one point was generating over 400 tweets a minute.”

That’s nice, but let’s do a sanity check for a minute.  Women’s right to vote, or any other rights, are not going to be eviscerated, let alone even affected, by a silly slogan on a t-shirt that people may or may not even read (now if it is tweeted or YouTubed on an I-[Whatever], then we may have a cultural mass-indoctrination problem to address).

And the real problem, most Liberals and Conservatives will agree, is the relentless academic downward spiral of the pre-college U.S. student.  In current trajectory, the end of this century will see the U.S. playing catch-up economically and otherwise with many other countries as much of the world surpasses us in the knowledge race. Perhaps this will make a liberal immigration policy an even stronger case, but the best option is an organically grown educated population.

So while our New York cultural patriot may have dealt with a seeming threat to the hard-earned victories of the feminist movement, the heavy-lifting of declining academic performance goes conveniently unaddressed.

-I.M.Windee

Herman Cain’s effective withdrawal from the 2012 Presidential campaign ended one of the more unconventional runs by a candidate in recent years.  Normally, post-mortems of failed candidacies are both an exercise in schadenfreude as well as in the morbid bent of the political psyche, but in this case there is a teaching opportunity.

Mr. Cain entered the race several months ago as a successful businessman and political outsider and caught the imagination and interest of Republicans desperately seeking any semblance of a true conservative. Over time, he caught and surpassed the favorite, Mitt Romney, in polls of Republican voters.  But a tsunami of allegations regarding both sexual harassment as well as an extramarital affair ultimately made him drop out.  Given the ham-handed approach he had toward his candidacy from the beginning, and the flurry of unpalatable behavior alleged against him as his campaign slogged on, the question of whether he was really serious about running for President has been rightfully raised.  It’s not likely anyone will ever know the answer to such, perhaps not even Mr. Cain himself.  He would not have been the first candidate to air out his dirty laundry in one campaign to clear the deck for a future one, so it would not be shocking to see him back on the political scene at some future point.

But assuming for a moment that he was “in it to win it,” Mr. Cain’s effort gives us a valuable lesson, for both politics as well as life: if you’re going to take on any endeavor of importance, go all in or don’t go in at all.  Assuming even 50% of the accusations of sexual and moral misconduct have some grain of truth, Mr. Cain should have known they would be raised and he should have decided before he entered that he was not ready to, nor could, weather such storm.  In short, his decision to press on with his candidacy displayed poor judgment and was reckless, on the level of a John Edwards or Bill Clinton.

Furthermore, Mr. Cain should be a cautionary tale to any future candidate, whether running for the lofty heights of U.S. President or just county dog catcher, that no misconduct, sexual or otherwise, will likely go unnoticed ever again in today’s highly automated, real-time, gotcha environment.  The days of womanizing with impunity by a politician, a la JFK, are long gone; Bill Clinton ushering such out in grand style right before the full bloom of the internet.

But before we bury a wannabee Caesar, a review of his contribution to the political discourse is merited.  Specifically, his “9-9-9″ tax platform raised the all-too-valid issue that individuals and corporations are overtaxed, unless you get special carve-outs in the tax code via credits and deductions, by virtue of strong lobbying.  Still, his 9% federal sales tax was a plank of his tax agenda that definitely showed his neophyte status as a politician: 9% would merely be a starting point that would only go higher over time for not only the sales tax but the corporate and individual income taxes.  Call it a “reverse divide and conquer” since by dumping much of the income tax burden into his proposed sales tax, it would be easier for the higher tax crew to both have a new tax revenue stream as well as inch the income taxes back up to their original burgeoning levels.  In that respect, he was only 2 for 3 but with a congress whose approval ratings is at 13% and whose good legislation out of all laws passed is far less than his batting average, he deserves an A for effort.

And, of course, as his political body cools, the question becomes who wins and loses over his demise.  It would appear that Newt Gingrich is the early winner collecting many of Mr. Cain’s scattering supporters.  Whether Mr. Gingrich can hold onto his lead is yet to be seen as he has some baggage, both personal and as a lobbyist, that he will have to work through.

President Obama is clearly a loser with this saga ending as he benefits anytime the conversation moves away from the economy and jobs, as Mr. Cain’s side-stories did.

An unlikely possible beneficiary, though, from Mr. Cain’s meteoric rise and fall is the presumptive front-runner and nominee, Mitt Romney.  Conservatives and Republicans in general just don’t get the “warm-fuzzies” from someone who has flailed on matters like healthcare. There is almost the impression that he is a “country club Republican” in the mold of Nelson Rockefeller or George H.W. Bush; a person who is eager to please both the unpleasable media as well as Democrats, while not his conservative wing.  If such is the case, better 4 more years of Obama than further ruining Republican stature as Tom Delay did so ably.  It’s possible, though, that Mr. Romney took to heart the yearning from both Republicans as well as many in the public who are looking for a leader willing to take bold action and go head-on with the liberal government behemoth that was built in 2009 through 2010 when President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid ran the government. There is a demand to dismantle such monstrosity, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan.  That approach would be the best way to get the economy back on track and people working again.

If Mr. Romney’s take-away is a more pro-growth agenda, we can only thank Mr. Cain for such and wish him Godspeed as he and his family recuperate from the barbaric ritual of the Presidential primaries.

-I.M. Windee

I recently went to buy a board game of Monopoly, mine having been destroyed by Hurricane Irene and the indifference of Just-Won’t-Power-&-Light (JWP&L [a.k.a. JCP&L]).

After having been surprised to see that several “updated” versions of the iconic game have been released, including those newer ones that have the board on a wheel with an electronic device in the middle, I was relieved that old-timers (80s children) like myself still have the good-old fashioned stone and flint iteration (dice and board).

But much unlike myself, still stuck in the 80’s (1880s, that is), the Monopoly game has moved on and kept up with the times.

Here are a few of the old rules blessed with “progressive” updates:

• Old Rule: Everyone starts out with $1,500 each. Progressive Update: Yes, but those who show signs of creativity or entrepreneurial spirit  which could give them an advantage in the game are immediately pointed out and ostracized  for prospectively oppressing the rest of the players; a surtax of $500 is taken  from them; they start with only $1,000 in the interest of “fairness.”
• Old Rule: Income Tax of $200 if you land on that square.  Progressive Update: A full analysis  of your income, worth, and lineage.  Too  high on the first 2 or politically incorrect on the last will wipe you out;  100% tax (think: “fair share”……you’re welcome).
• Old  Rule: Reading, Pennsylvania, B&O and Short Line  Railroads: Cost of $200 each. Progressive Update: railroads are too carbon-intensive and thus politically incorrect, if not inconvenient.  The railroads have been replaced by solar or  wind energy companies and you get paid $500 to acquire one.
• Old  Rule: “Chance”; possible financial downside. Progressive Update: Zero downside;  the government will come in and backstop any adverse edict that you may get on  a Chance card.
• Old Rule: “Free Parking”; parochial versions would actually give some money for  landing on it. Progressive Update: Renamed “Occupy  Wall Street Demonstration Site”.  Free  meals and a suspension of many civil rules allowed; no need to roll dice when  it’s your turn; stay as long as you like.
• Old  Rule: “Go to Jail”: Miss a turn; miss possible benefits. Progressive Update: Best move you  could’ve made! If a white-collar criminal, start writing a book and planning post-incarceration interviews on various financial news networks.  If other than a white-collar criminal, you  are the darling of the Liberals; call Gloria Allred; you’re set for life!
• Old Rule: “Community Chest: Bank Error in Your favor. Collect $200.” Progressive Update: You get to sue  the bank and win automatically; crushing government regulations forthcoming.
• Old Rule: “Community Chest: From Sale  of Stock You Get $50.” Progressive Update: You Get $25;  and you probably don’t deserve that much but we need to keep face; we remember The Bastille.
• Old  Rule: “You inherit $100.” Progressive Update: Remit the $100 to the government and where’s the  body buried (there’s valuables on it that decedent owes in “fairness” to the government)?
• Old  Rule: “Luxury Tax”: Pay $100. Progressive Update: Are you kidding?  Anything with “luxury” in it will decimate you; turn in all of your money and feel guilty that you had it in the first place (kind of like being in the Catholic Church).
• Old Rule: “Pay Hospital Fees of $100.” Progressive Update: Stand back; we’ll crush the healthcare industry with government regulation.
• Old  Rule: “Speeding Fine $15.”  Progressive Update: Speeding Fine $130; court costs $35; administrative fees $25; Have a nice day.
• Old Rule: “Go Back Three Spaces.” Progressive Update: Go Back Fifteen Spaces, and don’t whine; this is Barack Obama’s America, you know.
• Old Rule: “You Have Been Elected Chairman of the Board…” Progressive  Update:  Stand By for the Abuse.
• Old Rule: “Bank Pays You Dividend of $50.” Progressive Update: State Attorney  General has demanded you give such back; stand by for grand jury subpoena  regarding such.
• Old Rule: “Advance to Boardwalk.” Progressive Update: Admit nothing.  Nowadays, wealth is looked upon unfavorably; except to those who have such.

We’ve come a long way from the 1930’s game, baby!

-I.M. Windee

Some more weekend observations:

• Despite my inclinations for minimal government, impromptu shopping cart racing, especially in the wide aisles of Costco, should be heavily regulated, if not outlawed; demolition-cart racing should be criminalized.
• Why do people spend 10 minutes driving around the parking lot to find a space that will save them 30 seconds of walking?
• Why do the seemingly simplest of people take up the most time at a bank teller’s window or ATM?  They don’t look like they can re-negotiate Greek debt but perhaps they can?
• A solid 30 pounds overweight, I didn’t care (look for this as a recurring theme, and lifestyle).
• Has there been a law passed banning the use of auto direction signals?  If so, supported by the tort bar, no doubt.
• Why do cashiers practically black out when I pay cash instead of use a credit card?
• The young kids on a Sunday morning at the Dunkin Donuts, most of whom who undoubtedly partied the night before,  look far less hungover than us fathers/husbands who stayed in and did anything but party; unless you call surviving “partying.”
• Why do people driving cars move to the right when making a left turn?
• Finalizing an order involving kid’s meals at a drive-thru window probably takes more energy and time than resolving the EU crisis.
• Last weekend, I had my 7 year old’s birthday party at the aquarium and accused “Perky the Penguin” of having bourbon on its breath until I realized it was actually me.  I hope Perky doesn’t “lawyer-up” and sue for defamation.
• Why do police hide and wait for speeders?  If it is so dangerous, shouldn’t they be out in the open to slow speeders down?  Would they have waited for OJ to kill Nicole before they jumped out of the bushes and slapped the cuffs on him?
• I watched “The Fighting 69th” with James Cagney and Pat O’Brien. Not sure how Mr. Cagney will do but I think that O’Brien fellow has a bright acting future.
• “Drug-Free School Zone”?: Does that mean other areas are officially not “drug-free”?
• Is there a “courtesy app” for the I-[Whatever]?  This could help people from suddenly stopping to focus on their gadget as they walk in a crowd and having people behind them walk into them.
• The family took my mother-in-law to the Hibachi restaurant for her birthday.  I like Japanese food but I don’t think I’ll ever figure out how to eat soup with chopsticks.
• Why do stadiums blast music between plays during a football game?  Are they that worried that the fans will become bored and tear the place apart (Eagles and Jets fans aside)?

-I.M. Windee

Common lore holds that the U.S. and West won the Cold War that ended 20 years ago.

For those who recall the height of such in the 1960s and 1970s, a common tactic used by the communist regimes and their dictatorial proxies was to have paperwork requirements for those within their borders (“are your papers in order, comrade?”).  Papers could be anything from identification to any other document used to trip up and imprison a perceived adversary of the state.

That was mostly then.  But one recent morning I was thinking about now.  And I’m not sure much is different from the old Soviet Union and today’s society; at least from a paperwork perspective.

When I leave my house in the morning and drive to the train station, I need 3 pieces of paper: driver’s license, auto registration, and insurance card.  All come with a monetary bounty but let’s save that for another discussion.

When I get to the train station parking lot, I need a parking sticker.

To not get thrown off the train I board to the Emerald (New York) City, I must have a train pass.

At Newark Penn Station, a metro card is used to get on the PATH to enter Mayor Bloomberg’s Masada.

After being belched out into the streets of lower Manhattan and making it to my building, I must have an identification card to enter.

When I make it to my office, appropriate fingerprints and password are required.

Thus, I count 7 pieces of paper and a finger and memorized password to safely ensconce myself in my office each day.

So while the U.S. may have won the Cold War, it seems to me that the bureaucrats have prospered.

-I.M. Windee

Last night, New York City government, and more directly, Mayor Bloomberg, re-asserted civil authority over Zuccotti Park that was effectively annexed by the Occupy Wall Street (“OWS”) gang.  Walking by the dozens of police officers this morning on my way to work (I am part of the true 99%), I must admit that I felt a tremendous sense of relief.

I have been highly critical of the listless, wanderlust of OWS.  I interviewed the OWS crowd for over 2 hours a few weeks ago.  When asking them of the movement’s goal and what occurs after such goal may be achieved, the responses ranged from the disjointed (on to the next cause!) to the irrelevant (do away with money).

This is not to say that I disagreed with them on everything.  Corporate welfare, to the extent they know what that is beyond a mere jingo, is something that they claimed to be against and whether by well thought-out analysis or mere luck, they stumbled into the truth on such matter.

But as with almost anything, even the truth, you can only say it for so long and so much before its intrinsic value gets lost in mindless repetition (“E = MC²” said once, twice or a dozen times has a nice ring and makes one think; after that, it is nothing more than rote echo).  This is what happened with OWS, at least in the New York City financial district.

After initial contempt by many, OWS caught both the understanding and sympathy of many of the “true 99%” who were not protesting but shared the same concerns as the crew of OWS.  But of recent, the movement, which was intended to be a means, became the ends.  A tent city sprouted and, putting aside the problematic criminal element that infiltrated the park, there became a sense of permanence to an encampment where the only permanence that should have existed was with the policy debates.  Even 1960s sit-ins over weightier matters ended far quicker.

So where should OWS go from here?

Realizing that such crowd would not listen to someone of my opinion, but nonetheless sharing some of their views and admiring the civic role they are taking, I would hope that their cause continues in a less cantankerous manner.  To wit, organize and meet via the web, issue more robust and thought-out policy positions, and push candidates for office, especially as we enter a major election year, to consider the issues OWS is raising.

Finally, it is premature to assume that OWS will quietly stop its occupation at Zuccotti  Park or elsewhere.  Early on in the movement, they tried trespassing a building near their encampment at least in part to get arrested and draw attention and sympathy to their cause. Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC, amongst others, recklessly tried to whip up anti-police sentiment and support for OWS over such incident.  Such is an implicit concession of the weakness of their cause.  Let us hope that they do not try to rabble rouse and do see the strength of much of their cause and put their energies to good, constructive use, in the spirit of that other great civil disobeyer, Henry David Thoreau.

-I.M. Windee

There is much hand-wringing, if not soul-searching, over the travails that Penn State is going through involving their former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky molesting young boys.  It’s a pity that there is little, if any, consideration for the child victims.

A grand jury report details sexual abuse by Mr. Sandusky in graphic and vivid detail that would make anyone’s stomach turn (note: I will not be reading such as I need not challenge my intestinal fortitude).

Sadly, the media has moved quickly past the victims, who while not identified out of respect and privacy could at least be talked about in general terms, and focused on former Head Coach Joe Paterno who chose to inform a university official, and not the police, that a graduate assistant had told him in 2002 about witnessing Mr. Sandusky with a young boy in the showers.  Mr. Paterno paid the smaller price in this tragedy of having to resign at the not-so-tender age of 84.  The victims will have far more years to reminisce over this than “Joe Pa.”

There are dyspeptic students at the campus who think Mr. Paterno got a raw deal but as the kids at Occupy Wall Street have displayed, youth cannot always be looked upon for wisdom, let alone direction in moral quandaries like this one.

And, of course, the Penn State Board of Trustees is treating this as any great money-generating outfit would: do everything possible to preserve the cash inflow.  Look for the board to rip some pages from the Catholic Church’s playbook on damage control and donation preservation.

But the real story is the unrealistic expectations and portrait that Penn State cultists had of “Joe Pa.”  To wit, a very successful football coach, who appears to have done virtually everything by the book and had a good amount of success, was elevated to the status of hero or even saint.

Hardly.

By most accounts, Joe Pa ate, drank and slept football.  There is nothing wrong with such and for all of the boys who went through his program and developed into fine men in part because of his leadership, he should be given his due.

Yet such strength as a football coach clearly did not translate into a perfect human being, let alone a hero or saint.  When informed about the shower incident, he passed it onto his superior and it virtually left his mind.  One cannot help but think that if it were a matter that directly affected his program (i.e. a potential high school draftee), he would have have followed up with an interest and focus that most people would have admired as typical Joe Pa.  But in this case, it was an inconvenient matter that could only adversely affect his football world so: out of sight, out of mind.

That is not what a decent citizen, let alone a hero or saint, would do.  Thus, Joe Pa was nothing more than a great coach who was otherwise human.

There is a larger lesson for all of us who wish to avoid expectation gaps: what The Wall Street Journal editorial board recently called the promiscuous use of the term “hero” is all too much a problem and misleads: if your “hero” hits 40 home runs a season, has a high winning percentage as coach, or the highest ratings on a reality show, maybe you should think about changing from your current “hero” to a real one.

-I.M.Windee

This week in Ohio, Governor John Kasich faced “High Noon” which turned out badly, as voters chose to reject limits on public workers’ bargaining rights.

For those who do not recall the classic 1952 movie with Gary Cooper, the longtime marshal got married and turned in his badge. He learns that a criminal he brought to justice is due to arrive on the noon train.  He and his wife leave town, but fearing that the gang will hunt him down and be a danger to the townspeople, he turns back. He reclaims his badge and scours the town for help with little success. The worried townspeople encourage him to leave, hoping that would defuse the situation. In the end, he faces the Miller Gang alone. He guns down two of the gang.  As the townspeople emerge, he contemptuously throws his marshal’s star in the dirt and leaves town with his wife.

As is in many states, the public fisc is being blown out with deficit spending in Ohio.  A good portion comes from the pay and benefits, relatively higher than private industry, of the public workers.  Such is a direct threat to the economic future but, as usual, the politicians who are only concerned with winning the next election and not their place in history, will not make any tough decisions out of fear of alienating their vocal, albeit minority, constituencies.

And this week, the Ohio electorate also showed that they do not care by having a turnout of merely 46 percent of the state’s registered voters.

This is unfortunate for Ohio and reminds of how California voters re-elected Gray Davis last decade only to come out of their sleep and realize that he was running the state into a ditch.

It’s a pity that the Ohio electorate did not also see the urgency and weight of this matter.  Given that the majority of Ohio voters did their “High Noon” townspeople impression, they deserve what they will likely get.

-I.M. Windee

In the latest effort to pour gasoline on our economic meltdown, Ralph Nader, protector of the consumer from himself (and prosperity), is advocating such legislation that would enact a tax on the value of stock, bond and derivatives transactions.

Just as the banks have been subject to “stress-tests,” so too should such proposed regulations of the financial services industry like this get a full vetting.

Anyone following how the federal government regulators are grappling (unsuccessfully) with the definition of “systemic risk” and which banks should be allowed to fail must wonder how they will somehow shake the Magic 8-ball and divine some kind of workable definition of “speculation.”

So let’s think of some scenarios that may challenge what might be their definition of “speculation”:

• A couple in their 50s, having worked all their lives for just one company and acquiring its stock and amassing their life savings in such (though not technically “retirement funds” given tax restrictions), start to hear rumors that the company used deceptive accounting.  In a pure act of financial self-defense, they begin to sell off their stock of several hundred thousand dollars.  Under Mr. Nader’s rules, such could well be “speculation” subject to a tax if the couple got in and out of the position as they were unnerved by these once-in-a-lifetime events.  If not sure of such scenario, think of Enron in the summer of 2001.  OK, let’s have an exception for this.
• That same poor couple, nearing their retirement, finds themselves riding the wave of unprecedented prices in the commodities or stocks they own.  Worried that perhaps such is too good to be true, they wish to get out and into something ostensibly safer (US Treasuries).  Again, Mssr. Nader’s could well consider such as that evil force of speculation.  Not sure if such could occur? Please refer to the tech bubble of the late 1990s or the housing bubble of last decade. Sounds like we need another exception.
• Our bedraggled couple, who may never get the opportunity to retire given their serial lousy investment judgment, places a good amount of their nest-egg in a financial services company that happens to go all-in on government debt from Greece, Spain and Italy.  Sensing something may be wrong with such a position, they withdraw what’s left of such investment.  Speculation?  Such a scenario Possible? Ask the “Fiscal Terminator”, Jon Corzine.  This clearly calls for an exception.
• Mutual Funds would not be considered a speculative adventure.  Think of how few nano-seconds it would take Warren Buffet’s tax lawyers to drive an aircraft carrier through this opening, all the while Mr. Buffet is bemoaning taxed loopholes in full-throated manner. Me’s think the billionaire doth protest too much.

There are many more scenarios that would create “exceptions” but the point is, the rule would be the exception and the exceptions would be over-run by special interests and make the law toothless.

Also missing from the calculus is the fact that speculators are an additional source of “liquidity.”  Such seems like an academic term or some Wall Street jargon but it is, quite simply, the ease of transferability of securities, via the supply of buyers.  If you think such is not important, try selling your stock in September 2008 at the hight of the financial meltdown, when there where virtually no buyers.  Suddenly those dreaded speculators who will take risk and keep the economic blood of money flowing through our financial system don’t seem as evil as Mr. Nader makes them out to be.

As is quite often, Mr. Nader has an excellent suggestion, but for an alternative universe.

-I.M. Windee

I was pondering various public school board standards for grading teachers: “highly effective”, “effective,” “minimally effective”  and “ineffective”.

I contemplated what kind of surgeon I would want to do an operation on me; would “minimally effective” do?  Could I pay more for “highly effective”?  Not likely under Obamacare.  But “highly effective” is what I would want (call it that silly survival instinct).

And when it comes to the personnel at NASA whose charge up until recently was to place the space shuttle into orbit and bring it, with its crew, safely back to Earth, I know I would want “highly effective” as the Challenger and Columbia disasters were too gut wrenching to endure; only the best for that.

So why settle for anything less than “highly effective”?  I only ask as here, on Planet Jersey, around every school budget election time, the roadways are plastered with placards that indicate the urgency of what is at hand: our kids; our future.  I have bought into such (actually, I always held such opinion).  However, it is mutually incompatible for the teacher’s union leadership to say on one side of their mouth that it’s about the kids while on the other side say that we should protect teachers who are less than “highly effective” and in some cases only “minimally effective”.

But perhaps there is one thing that we can all agree upon: when it comes to advancing the interests of teachers (at times in direct contrast with the students), the leadership of the teachers unions gets a “highly effective”.

-I.M. Windee