My mind is still reeling as I ponder the potential ramifications of the recent shake up in the financial markets. Not only will this bail out cost more taxpayer money than I can possibly imagine, we have effectively nationalized our financial system. While the Republicans rail against a national health care system, President Bush showed no hesitation in spending hundreds of billions of dollars to buy up a load of worthless holdings from major financial institutions which were thought to be too big to go under. Everything Mr. Bush does sends the same message: If you are rich, we will always extend a lifeline; if you are poor, suck it pal!
So what got us into this horrible mess? As with any financial mess: greed. When you couple greed with a regulatory system that is antiquated and disinclined to intervene, you have a bomb waiting to go off. Having worked for a major investment firm for many years, I know that the layers of regulation regarding financial institutions are deep and complex. But just like our complicated income tax system, there are always those who can circumvent the system if they really want to. Fortunately, I happened to work for a company that believed in running a tight ship, but I was also aware that many of the regulations we followed were created in the early 30s in response to the Stock Market Crash of 1929. A few extra precautions were put into place after the next big crash of 1987, but surprisingly little was done during the 90s when financial institutions grew by leaps and bounds.
The proliferation of employee-funded retirement plans and the feeble interests offered by bank instruments pushed millions of Americans into stocks and bonds. Investment firms grew exponentially during the 90s, not necessarily because of their investment genius, but simply from market penetration. The flood of money into the markets in turn spurred on these markets to ever greater heights. The more people wanted in, the higher the value of stocks went, which drew even more people in, which drove stock prices even higher, and so on. By the late 90s, you could invest in just about anything and it would make money over the short term. Investment firms made money by staying open, basically.
I worked as a lowly cog in one such investment firm during the 90s. While the investment managers and administrative bigwigs treated themselves to lavish raises, bonuses, and stock options, us worker drones were given annual raises barely above a cost-of-living increase and year-end bonuses that were the monetary equivalent of Chevy Chase's Jelly-of-the-Month Club bonus from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Granted, I was not working the trading desk or directly effecting any influence over our investment products, but I was a part of an army who took care of the shareholders' daily needs and made sure they were happy. And in an environment where any boob could make money in the stock market, the major deciding factor for most shareholders was the service they received. But that was always discounted by the people in power. It was their brilliant financial minds that drove their success, or so they thought.
The bubble burst in 2000. The markets dropped and no amount of trading finesse could create gains. Mutual fund managers who were once given rock star treatment by the financial press were suddenly vilified by the shareholders. Some slunk away into oblivion to pursue "other opportunities." Still, those who remained continued to receive ample raises and bonuses each year while my colleagues and I either received less or were laid off. Those who suffered most were the shareholders and the middle-class employees.
With the stock market suffering, the next area of exploitation became the housing market. Home buyers had already been benefiting from a decade of low-interest-rate mortgages, but avarice created the highly risky sub-prime mortgage. Any reasonable thinking person would know that you don't talk someone of limited means into an adjustable rate mortgage. The introductory rate they receive at the beginning is probably the rate they can afford. Once the adjusting kicks in, they are priced out of their mortgage. Secondarily, because the initial rate is so low, home buyers convinced themselves they could pay more for a house than they once would simply because the low interest rate made the monthly payment reasonable. Of course, that monthly payment was the highest - not the lowest - they wanted to pay. Raise that adjustable rate a few ticks and suddenly they were on the verge of default.
The banking piranhas who pushed these loans knew all this of course. They knew these people would be sucking wind in a year or two, but every new mortgage meant a commission. They had to keep making those commissions. If the suckers were out on their ear in a year or two, that was their dumb luck. I can't really argue that point - those who don't read or care to understand the fine print should be held accountable. But when an avalanche of bad debt comes crashing down, everyone gets hit, not just the poor saps who took out the mortgages.
Of course, that's not quite true. The bigwigs who ran these financial institutions into the ground with ridiculous risk - those same bigwigs who received enormous salaries and bonuses during the run up - are now bailed out by Uncle Sam. We, the taxpayers, have to pay for the greed of those who already had too much. In return, we get a load of bad holdings that will likely never amount to anything. Lucky us.
So the risk/reward message I preached to so many shareholders for so many years, and the warnings I carefully laid out for them that high risk investments may lead to big losses, don't hold true anymore - at least for the ones at the top. They take all the risk they want and if it blows up in their face, the taxpayers bail them out. No accountability for those who finance the campaigns of Congresspeople.
It's estimated that this financial bail out may cost $1 trillion. And a national health care plan would be too expensive? Oh right, that's for the poor people. They don't count.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Where's the Love for the Ravens?
I'm becoming increasingly irritated with the national media's coverage of the NFL. They tend to treat it like a TV series where you have a handful of main characters (in this case, The Colts, The Patriots, The Cowboys, Last Year's Super Bowl Champs, and whatever team Farve is currently playing on), the semi-regular guest stars (usually The Steelers, The Eagles, The Seahawks, and maybe The Jaguars), and the bit players and extras (the remaining 23 teams). The Ravens are akin to a slab-bound crystal meth addict on an episode of CSI.
Case in point: The Ravens beat The Cincinnati Bengals 17 to 10 in their season opener Sunday in front of nearly 71,000 fans in M&T Bank Stadium. We're starting the season with a new head coach, mostly new coaching staff, a re-vamped offensive line, and a rookie quarterback who was meant to be a third-stringer until two weeks ago. And we won! So I'm watching Football Night in America, and instead of focusing on this Cinderella story, the ex-jocks in the glass cage can only rant about how poorly the Bengals played, as if they had money riding on the game or something. They literally did not mention the Ravens at all except to say "Flacco Who?" The Number 18 First Round Draft Choice, you big boobs!!!!
I realize that The Bengals are a crappy team and there's a lot more football down the road, but you can a least throw a bone to a team that struggling to rebound from a 5-11 season. Besides, no matter how well we do, the national media seems to take some sadistic glee in ignoring us or downplaying our success. Back in 2006, when we had won our first four games in a row, I was still hearing more about Tony Romo and he hadn't even taken his first snap as a starter yet. They had already elevated him to the calibre of Manning and Brady before he had done anything. Such is the nature of star-making from the likes of NBC and ESPN. The hot-and-heavy bromance that John Madden has for Tony Romo is truly distasteful!
When I was a kid, I loved to watch the Olympics on ABC because they always did those up-close-and-personal segments showing how some poor family in Podunk, Iowa hauled their kid to the skating rink at four o'clock every morning and ate Mac N' Cheese for eight years so they could afford to buy her proper skates and outfits. I loved that stuff because it showed the true sacrifice of the underdog with a dream. The overcoming of adversity to rise to the top. We don't seem to care about that anymore. We just want to see people who are automatically winners through birth or connections or dumb luck. Those struggling for greatness are viewed indifferently by the media. They'd rather play sicophants to those who are already on the top than seek out the true human drama in the up-and-comers.
The Ravens are going through a come-from-behind transition right now. I understand that former coach Brian Billick and some of the hot-headed veterans on the team created a reputation for The Ravens being the east coast version of The Raiders. But John Harbaugh is working hard to change that image, and he has a lot of rookie players who are buying into his mission. The low number of penalties in yesterday's game point to such a change. Why can't the media jump on this story as it's unfolding rather than take the wait-and-see attitude as they are prone to do? I suspect, even if we miraculously pull out enough wins to get a wild card slot in the playoffs, Bob Costas and the boys will still be wringing their hands and wasting air time over Brady's knee rather than saying anything nice about Baltimore.
Case in point: The Ravens beat The Cincinnati Bengals 17 to 10 in their season opener Sunday in front of nearly 71,000 fans in M&T Bank Stadium. We're starting the season with a new head coach, mostly new coaching staff, a re-vamped offensive line, and a rookie quarterback who was meant to be a third-stringer until two weeks ago. And we won! So I'm watching Football Night in America, and instead of focusing on this Cinderella story, the ex-jocks in the glass cage can only rant about how poorly the Bengals played, as if they had money riding on the game or something. They literally did not mention the Ravens at all except to say "Flacco Who?" The Number 18 First Round Draft Choice, you big boobs!!!!
I realize that The Bengals are a crappy team and there's a lot more football down the road, but you can a least throw a bone to a team that struggling to rebound from a 5-11 season. Besides, no matter how well we do, the national media seems to take some sadistic glee in ignoring us or downplaying our success. Back in 2006, when we had won our first four games in a row, I was still hearing more about Tony Romo and he hadn't even taken his first snap as a starter yet. They had already elevated him to the calibre of Manning and Brady before he had done anything. Such is the nature of star-making from the likes of NBC and ESPN. The hot-and-heavy bromance that John Madden has for Tony Romo is truly distasteful!
When I was a kid, I loved to watch the Olympics on ABC because they always did those up-close-and-personal segments showing how some poor family in Podunk, Iowa hauled their kid to the skating rink at four o'clock every morning and ate Mac N' Cheese for eight years so they could afford to buy her proper skates and outfits. I loved that stuff because it showed the true sacrifice of the underdog with a dream. The overcoming of adversity to rise to the top. We don't seem to care about that anymore. We just want to see people who are automatically winners through birth or connections or dumb luck. Those struggling for greatness are viewed indifferently by the media. They'd rather play sicophants to those who are already on the top than seek out the true human drama in the up-and-comers.
The Ravens are going through a come-from-behind transition right now. I understand that former coach Brian Billick and some of the hot-headed veterans on the team created a reputation for The Ravens being the east coast version of The Raiders. But John Harbaugh is working hard to change that image, and he has a lot of rookie players who are buying into his mission. The low number of penalties in yesterday's game point to such a change. Why can't the media jump on this story as it's unfolding rather than take the wait-and-see attitude as they are prone to do? I suspect, even if we miraculously pull out enough wins to get a wild card slot in the playoffs, Bob Costas and the boys will still be wringing their hands and wasting air time over Brady's knee rather than saying anything nice about Baltimore.
Friday, September 5, 2008
And Now the Red Team's Turn...
After watching Senator McCain's speech last night, I can understand why he went with Sarah Palin as his running mate. He needed someone with a personality to breathe excitement into his campaign. While Governor Palin bowled the Convention, and much of the viewing audience, over with her dynamic, well-crafted attack on the Democrats, McCain stumbled awkwardly along, barely reaching a decibel level higher than normal conversation, and rattling off the same ol' anti-Democrat catch phrases that we've heard a million times. As McCain was shouted down by protestors, the whole event reminded me of Hubert Humphrey's acceptance speech in 1968. A simple, decent politician trying mightily to set himself apart from the current president, but constantly counterpunched by those who won't let the public forget why we want the current administration out in the first place. Given the over-the-top security measures taken at such events, I was amazed that protesters got anywhere near the hall, but I'm happy they did. Free speech is not dead yet.
I've had mixed emotions all along about John McCain. I believe he is more of a true public servant than Obama, can connect with a broader cross section of American than Obama can, and has greater life experience as preparation for the job. I was fully ready to break with my Democratic brethren and vote for him until he named Sarah Palin his running mate. I suddenly had Bush-Quayle flashbacks. For all her personality, I just can't see her running the country. Of course, after George W., I think our republic can withstand a trained monkey in the White House, but I would still worry about having the Governor of a sparsely populated state running the entire country -- not such a small consideration given McCain's age.
Another issue in the negative column for me is McCain's lack of ideas and inability to convey a clear vision for America's future. I'm so tired of hearing things like, "I will cut taxes; Senator Obama will eliminate jobs." This Republican concept that raising taxes automatically destroys job creation has never been proven. Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 90s and we saw one of the biggest economic growth spurts in our history. In fact, historically, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. It's just like that old 80s rant about how Democrats were "tax-and-spenders." Reagan proved that the Republicans were "don't-tax-but-keep-spending-anyway-and-run-up-a-ridiculous-deficiters." Finally, Clinton took the bull by the horns, raised taxes enough to pay off our debts, and then made difficult budget cuts to balance the budget. All the while, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Era. George W. Bush cut taxes, but how many jobs have been created during Mr. Bush's watch?
Ultimately, the Republican rhetoric is tired and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They keep saying McCain is a maverick, and I would love to see him prove it by attacking the President and the Republican status quo outright. What the hell? You already have the nomination. But, alas, he will continue to bend himself to the will of the current policies and sound like George W. Part Two. I don't know if that's going to fly with the bulk of Americans.
The one new wrinkle which I found intriguing this week was how the Republicans out-Democrated the Democrats by embracing the working class. From the way McCain and Palin rattled on about helping ordinary folks, you'd think they had morphed into Mondale and Ferarro. Again, I think it's all smoke and mirrors. Just as President Bush has pandered to the Bible Belt Christians by wearing his born-again status on his sleeve, all the while helping big business and squeezing the very people who faithfully voted for him, McCain and Palin are trying to play against Obama's elitist persona to snatch up working class voters who are afraid Obama doesn't quite understand them. I too believe that Obama is more comfortable with the Starbuck's crowd than those at Joe's Diner, but I can't for a minute believe that a McCain/Palin administration is going to do anything substantive to help working families get decent health care or relief from high prices.
So there we are. If a Biden/McCain ticket was available, I'd have no problem voting this year. John Adams feared for our republic if we developed strong parties, but it was inevitable, and this is what we've wrought. Instead of electing the best possible candidates from both parties, we get these oddball combos that don't add up to very much. Regardless of which side wins, I'm not looking forward to the next four years.
I've had mixed emotions all along about John McCain. I believe he is more of a true public servant than Obama, can connect with a broader cross section of American than Obama can, and has greater life experience as preparation for the job. I was fully ready to break with my Democratic brethren and vote for him until he named Sarah Palin his running mate. I suddenly had Bush-Quayle flashbacks. For all her personality, I just can't see her running the country. Of course, after George W., I think our republic can withstand a trained monkey in the White House, but I would still worry about having the Governor of a sparsely populated state running the entire country -- not such a small consideration given McCain's age.
Another issue in the negative column for me is McCain's lack of ideas and inability to convey a clear vision for America's future. I'm so tired of hearing things like, "I will cut taxes; Senator Obama will eliminate jobs." This Republican concept that raising taxes automatically destroys job creation has never been proven. Bill Clinton raised taxes in the 90s and we saw one of the biggest economic growth spurts in our history. In fact, historically, the stock market has done better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. It's just like that old 80s rant about how Democrats were "tax-and-spenders." Reagan proved that the Republicans were "don't-tax-but-keep-spending-anyway-and-run-up-a-ridiculous-deficiters." Finally, Clinton took the bull by the horns, raised taxes enough to pay off our debts, and then made difficult budget cuts to balance the budget. All the while, 22 million jobs were created during the Clinton Era. George W. Bush cut taxes, but how many jobs have been created during Mr. Bush's watch?
Ultimately, the Republican rhetoric is tired and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. They keep saying McCain is a maverick, and I would love to see him prove it by attacking the President and the Republican status quo outright. What the hell? You already have the nomination. But, alas, he will continue to bend himself to the will of the current policies and sound like George W. Part Two. I don't know if that's going to fly with the bulk of Americans.
The one new wrinkle which I found intriguing this week was how the Republicans out-Democrated the Democrats by embracing the working class. From the way McCain and Palin rattled on about helping ordinary folks, you'd think they had morphed into Mondale and Ferarro. Again, I think it's all smoke and mirrors. Just as President Bush has pandered to the Bible Belt Christians by wearing his born-again status on his sleeve, all the while helping big business and squeezing the very people who faithfully voted for him, McCain and Palin are trying to play against Obama's elitist persona to snatch up working class voters who are afraid Obama doesn't quite understand them. I too believe that Obama is more comfortable with the Starbuck's crowd than those at Joe's Diner, but I can't for a minute believe that a McCain/Palin administration is going to do anything substantive to help working families get decent health care or relief from high prices.
So there we are. If a Biden/McCain ticket was available, I'd have no problem voting this year. John Adams feared for our republic if we developed strong parties, but it was inevitable, and this is what we've wrought. Instead of electing the best possible candidates from both parties, we get these oddball combos that don't add up to very much. Regardless of which side wins, I'm not looking forward to the next four years.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Obama Live! - The Change Tour
Like most people in the U.S., I watched Barack Obama make his acceptance speech in front of 75,000 people in Denver's Invesco Field. After watching my beloved Ravens lose yet again in their last pre-season game, I was primed to watch another painful display that takes place in a stadium.
I'm not entirely sure why Obama insisted on choosing such a grand place to make his acceptance speech rather than simply doing it at the convention hall like all other presidential candidates have. Some said it was to commemorate the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. It is remarkable that in less than half a century we have gone from separate water fountains to having the first African-American presidential candidate nominated by one of the major political parties. It still felt awfully showboat-y to me. I'm sure some Republican pundits will liken the scene to one of Hitler's rallies. I won't do that, but every time I heard the audience cheer, I was waiting for the words "Seig Heil!" to filter through.
Now don't think I'm comparing Obama to Hitler in terms of their political positions, or that I expect Obama to be some evil dictator or anything. I'm more concerned about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama. He so charming, smooth, and articulate, you can't help but be mesmerized. He's got the same "it" factor that Reagan and Clinton had. However, unlike Reagan and Clinton, he doesn't appear to have the political saavy to navigate Washington.
I thought his speech was about as good as he could have made it. He addressed his critics who find his "Change" mantra too vague by laying out some specific policies he wants to initiate. He offered an olive branch to the Republican Party by outlining points of agreement both sides have on the issues of abortion and the energy crisis. He picked on McCain a bit, but not in a belligerent way. All in all, it was a speech presenting an earnest man with an earnest mission to bring the country together and improve the dismal state we find ourselves in.
That's wonderful. I wish I could believe it. I just feel that there is a certain piety about Obama that will be his undoing. In his acceptance speech, he mentioned the men and women of our armed services who are fighting not for red states or blues states but for the United States, implying that he wants to focus on our country as a whole and not a country divided by political polarities. And yet, on the previous night, Obama pulled out that horrid expression, "taking back America." Take back America from whom? The Republicans? Aren't they Americans too? This expression has been used by both parties whenever one or the other is out of power, and it sickens me whenever I hear it. We are all in this together and we must find common ground. After all the speechifying is over, I just hope whomever becomes president can remember that.
Ultimately, I still think that Obama will end up like Jimmy Carter if he becomes president. He's too certain of his ideas to work with Congress. I think he will get stonewalled, the country will roll along aimlessly for another four years, and he'll be out. For all his cult of personality, I don't think he can articulate a vision for the U.S. that everyone can rally behind.
So, now we get to hear what the Republicans have to say for themselves. Just like the Democrats at their convention in 1968, the Republicans won't have too much to crow about. All they can offer is a shaky promise that McCain will be better. Given McCain's unimaginative views presented so far, I can't believe their arguments will be convincing. This is going to be another depressing election.
I'm not entirely sure why Obama insisted on choosing such a grand place to make his acceptance speech rather than simply doing it at the convention hall like all other presidential candidates have. Some said it was to commemorate the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. It is remarkable that in less than half a century we have gone from separate water fountains to having the first African-American presidential candidate nominated by one of the major political parties. It still felt awfully showboat-y to me. I'm sure some Republican pundits will liken the scene to one of Hitler's rallies. I won't do that, but every time I heard the audience cheer, I was waiting for the words "Seig Heil!" to filter through.
Now don't think I'm comparing Obama to Hitler in terms of their political positions, or that I expect Obama to be some evil dictator or anything. I'm more concerned about the cult of personality that surrounds Obama. He so charming, smooth, and articulate, you can't help but be mesmerized. He's got the same "it" factor that Reagan and Clinton had. However, unlike Reagan and Clinton, he doesn't appear to have the political saavy to navigate Washington.
I thought his speech was about as good as he could have made it. He addressed his critics who find his "Change" mantra too vague by laying out some specific policies he wants to initiate. He offered an olive branch to the Republican Party by outlining points of agreement both sides have on the issues of abortion and the energy crisis. He picked on McCain a bit, but not in a belligerent way. All in all, it was a speech presenting an earnest man with an earnest mission to bring the country together and improve the dismal state we find ourselves in.
That's wonderful. I wish I could believe it. I just feel that there is a certain piety about Obama that will be his undoing. In his acceptance speech, he mentioned the men and women of our armed services who are fighting not for red states or blues states but for the United States, implying that he wants to focus on our country as a whole and not a country divided by political polarities. And yet, on the previous night, Obama pulled out that horrid expression, "taking back America." Take back America from whom? The Republicans? Aren't they Americans too? This expression has been used by both parties whenever one or the other is out of power, and it sickens me whenever I hear it. We are all in this together and we must find common ground. After all the speechifying is over, I just hope whomever becomes president can remember that.
Ultimately, I still think that Obama will end up like Jimmy Carter if he becomes president. He's too certain of his ideas to work with Congress. I think he will get stonewalled, the country will roll along aimlessly for another four years, and he'll be out. For all his cult of personality, I don't think he can articulate a vision for the U.S. that everyone can rally behind.
So, now we get to hear what the Republicans have to say for themselves. Just like the Democrats at their convention in 1968, the Republicans won't have too much to crow about. All they can offer is a shaky promise that McCain will be better. Given McCain's unimaginative views presented so far, I can't believe their arguments will be convincing. This is going to be another depressing election.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Who Are These People?
No, this isn't a blog about Seinfeld.
My Aunt Mildred died a couple months ago, and her daughter sent some old pictures to my mom that my aunt had in her possession. I told my mom it might be a good idea if I scanned them and saved them on a disc for her in case the originals got lost or damaged. She agreed and gave me the photos, which I searched through to make sure I knew who everyone was (I wanted to add captions to the photos as well). Most of the people I recognized as very young versions of family members, but I came across one shot that made no sense to me. Here it is:
This was taken at an old beach resort on the Eastern Shore of Maryland called Betterton. The town still exists, but it is no longer a resort. Once upon a time, before there was a Bay Bridge for automobile traffic to cross the Chesapeake Bay, people from Baltimore would take a steam ship to this sleepy town to escape the summer heat. After the Bay Bridge was built, people drove to the larger Ocean City and the resort business of Betterton died off. Anyway, here was this picture amid all the family photos with two guys clowning for the camera. Now, I believe the chubby man on the far right is my grandmother's father, Fred Frampton, and the woman next to him, partially obscured by the two goofy guys, is my Aunt Mildred. But why did we have a photo of these two unknown characters.
"Who are these guys?" I asked my mother.
"Oh, I think they were friends of my grandfather," my mom replied.
I accepted that answer as the best I could get, but days later, when I set about scanning and photoshopping all the pictures my mom gave me, I couldn't help but ponder this particular one. What were these guys' backgrounds? What did they do for a living? How did they know Fred Frampton? Who's the little boy next to them, laughing at their antics? Is that little boy still alive? I'm not exactly sure when this photo was taken, but I'm guessing the 30s, based upon the clothes and the general look of things in the photo.
Old photos fascinate me. The original intent of the person taking the photograph was undoubtedly to capture the friend or family member in the middle of the shot, but as time goes by, the really interesting parts of a photo are all the little details in the background. When you look at this photo, just seeing the signage and that gasoline pump in the background, you know this is from a much older era. The world doesn't look like that anymore.
And I love how people dressed back then. Given the fact that this is Maryland in the summer, it has to be at least 80 degrees there, but the men are wearing long pants, hard shoes, and hats. Granted, everything is light colored and probably cotton, but nowadays everyone would be wearing shorts, T-shirts, and sneakers or sandals. And those folks didn't have a nice air-conditioned room to go back to. They had to stay in the creaky barn of a place they called the Betterton Hotel. I stayed there once or twice as a little kid during the waning days of the resort, and it felt like living in a haunted house. The place was so remote, the room was completely black at night when you turned the lights out. I would fixate on the tiny spear of light seeping through the old-fashioned keyhole from the hallway. It was a lifeline of safety until I finally fell asleep.
But getting back to the two jokers in the picture, I guess they will be a family mystery. They look like they may have been fun to have around, or maybe they were insufferable attention-grabbers who thought more of their humor than everyone else did. Who knows? The past is so permanently closed to us.
My Aunt Mildred died a couple months ago, and her daughter sent some old pictures to my mom that my aunt had in her possession. I told my mom it might be a good idea if I scanned them and saved them on a disc for her in case the originals got lost or damaged. She agreed and gave me the photos, which I searched through to make sure I knew who everyone was (I wanted to add captions to the photos as well). Most of the people I recognized as very young versions of family members, but I came across one shot that made no sense to me. Here it is:
This was taken at an old beach resort on the Eastern Shore of Maryland called Betterton. The town still exists, but it is no longer a resort. Once upon a time, before there was a Bay Bridge for automobile traffic to cross the Chesapeake Bay, people from Baltimore would take a steam ship to this sleepy town to escape the summer heat. After the Bay Bridge was built, people drove to the larger Ocean City and the resort business of Betterton died off. Anyway, here was this picture amid all the family photos with two guys clowning for the camera. Now, I believe the chubby man on the far right is my grandmother's father, Fred Frampton, and the woman next to him, partially obscured by the two goofy guys, is my Aunt Mildred. But why did we have a photo of these two unknown characters.
"Who are these guys?" I asked my mother.
"Oh, I think they were friends of my grandfather," my mom replied.
I accepted that answer as the best I could get, but days later, when I set about scanning and photoshopping all the pictures my mom gave me, I couldn't help but ponder this particular one. What were these guys' backgrounds? What did they do for a living? How did they know Fred Frampton? Who's the little boy next to them, laughing at their antics? Is that little boy still alive? I'm not exactly sure when this photo was taken, but I'm guessing the 30s, based upon the clothes and the general look of things in the photo.
And I love how people dressed back then. Given the fact that this is Maryland in the summer, it has to be at least 80 degrees there, but the men are wearing long pants, hard shoes, and hats. Granted, everything is light colored and probably cotton, but nowadays everyone would be wearing shorts, T-shirts, and sneakers or sandals. And those folks didn't have a nice air-conditioned room to go back to. They had to stay in the creaky barn of a place they called the Betterton Hotel. I stayed there once or twice as a little kid during the waning days of the resort, and it felt like living in a haunted house. The place was so remote, the room was completely black at night when you turned the lights out. I would fixate on the tiny spear of light seeping through the old-fashioned keyhole from the hallway. It was a lifeline of safety until I finally fell asleep.
But getting back to the two jokers in the picture, I guess they will be a family mystery. They look like they may have been fun to have around, or maybe they were insufferable attention-grabbers who thought more of their humor than everyone else did. Who knows? The past is so permanently closed to us.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Football is Back!
Football season officially starts for Baltimore tonight as the Ravens play their first preseason game against the New England Patriots tonight at 7:30, and I can't be more excited! Not that preseason games are all that interesting, and we all know that the Patriots will beat the pants off us, but I still love watching football and rooting for the Ravens no matter how bad they play. I tried to settle my burning football itch this summer by watching the Orioles, and when they were winning early on, I have to admit I felt like perhaps I might become a baseball fan. But as the weeks dragged on and the Orioles slipped further and further below .500, the early goodwill faded away and now I can't bring myself to watch a complete game anymore. Plus, I started to remember why I never liked baseball all that much: there's too many games! How can any one game or any one play matter when you have to play 165 freakin' games per season? In football, everything matters because there are only 16 games to prove yourself, and each playoff game has to be a win or you're out.
I know most people discount preseason games. They say they don't mean much and they don't count for anything. I don't subscribe to that mentality. I suppose if your favorite team is the Patriots or the Cowboys or the Colts, the preseason is meaningless because you already know you have a team full of seasoned pros who will sail into the playoffs no matter what. When you're a Ravens fan, these "meaningless" games give us a chance to see if there are any new gems in the mix who might take us to the promised land, because the Ravens always seem a few steps away from being great. That goes double for the offense.
Of course, we long-suffering Ravens fans can never count on the coach or GM to make the correct assessments from these rookie tryouts. I remember the summer of 2005, when we had already suffered through two seasons of the struggling Kyle Boller as starting quarterback, and we had just acquired Derek Anderson. While Boller and Anthony Wright showed that they were both still the bumbling twins, Anderson looked like a real quarterback. I was so excited that we might finally have a true starter in our midsts. Of course, our "offensive guru" Brian Billick saw things differently, cutting Anderson from the team and sticking with his boy Kyle. Last season, while we were still struggling and Anderson was becoming a shining star with the Browns, Billick gave one of his long-winded explanations about why he had to drop Anderson, rambling on incoherently about other priorities and such nonsense. The man could never admit a mistake, regardless of how many he made. We may not have Anderson this season, but thank God we don't have Billick this year either.
We've put our faith in an untested coach with John Harbaugh. I like Harbaugh as intensely as I hated Billick because he is the anti-Billick. He's honest, straight-forward, and not at all flashy or egotistical. His focus is on team-building and tough training camps. He's not going to pamper his veterans and put up with the thuggish attitude issues that have plagued the team in the past. If it costs us some of those high-priced prima donnas in the process, I say so be it. We're building a team for the future, and I don't mind if we lose a bunch of games this season so long as we weed out the dead wood and put together a cohesive team.
Along those lines, I'm encouraged to read about how well some of our draft picks are doing. I would love for running back Ray Rice to play great and give us the chance to dump that flake Willis McGahee. I don't know why Billick and GM Ozzie Newsome were so willing to take on players who were problem cases for other teams. They're just distractions. I hope Harbaugh will kick him to the curb. I also hope that Troy Smith and Joe Flacco give us a reason to have faith in them as our quarterbacks of the future. I like Kyle Boller as a person, but I just don't think he has what it takes to be a starting quarterback. Another Billick mistake we need to correct.
I know I don't have any profound insights on the subject of football, but I've watched enough ESPN to know that those guys don't know any better than I do what's going to happen. They base their opinions on how teams played the previous season, and in the NFL, most teams never look like they did the previous season. Between the draft, free agency, and the salary cap, few teams can maintain any continuity. As much as I hate the Patriots and Bill Belichick, I have to give them credit for having a consistently strong team year after year. I think it all starts with a team mentality, and that no one player is bigger than the team. That's an attitude I think Harbaugh will bring to the Ravens. Billick was all about star making, including for himself. I've had a bellyful of that and look forward to the Ravens becoming a team that Baltimore can be proud of, not just because of wins, but because they play cleanly and professionally. Time will tell, and I'm so glad that time starts tonight.
I know most people discount preseason games. They say they don't mean much and they don't count for anything. I don't subscribe to that mentality. I suppose if your favorite team is the Patriots or the Cowboys or the Colts, the preseason is meaningless because you already know you have a team full of seasoned pros who will sail into the playoffs no matter what. When you're a Ravens fan, these "meaningless" games give us a chance to see if there are any new gems in the mix who might take us to the promised land, because the Ravens always seem a few steps away from being great. That goes double for the offense.
Of course, we long-suffering Ravens fans can never count on the coach or GM to make the correct assessments from these rookie tryouts. I remember the summer of 2005, when we had already suffered through two seasons of the struggling Kyle Boller as starting quarterback, and we had just acquired Derek Anderson. While Boller and Anthony Wright showed that they were both still the bumbling twins, Anderson looked like a real quarterback. I was so excited that we might finally have a true starter in our midsts. Of course, our "offensive guru" Brian Billick saw things differently, cutting Anderson from the team and sticking with his boy Kyle. Last season, while we were still struggling and Anderson was becoming a shining star with the Browns, Billick gave one of his long-winded explanations about why he had to drop Anderson, rambling on incoherently about other priorities and such nonsense. The man could never admit a mistake, regardless of how many he made. We may not have Anderson this season, but thank God we don't have Billick this year either.
We've put our faith in an untested coach with John Harbaugh. I like Harbaugh as intensely as I hated Billick because he is the anti-Billick. He's honest, straight-forward, and not at all flashy or egotistical. His focus is on team-building and tough training camps. He's not going to pamper his veterans and put up with the thuggish attitude issues that have plagued the team in the past. If it costs us some of those high-priced prima donnas in the process, I say so be it. We're building a team for the future, and I don't mind if we lose a bunch of games this season so long as we weed out the dead wood and put together a cohesive team.
Along those lines, I'm encouraged to read about how well some of our draft picks are doing. I would love for running back Ray Rice to play great and give us the chance to dump that flake Willis McGahee. I don't know why Billick and GM Ozzie Newsome were so willing to take on players who were problem cases for other teams. They're just distractions. I hope Harbaugh will kick him to the curb. I also hope that Troy Smith and Joe Flacco give us a reason to have faith in them as our quarterbacks of the future. I like Kyle Boller as a person, but I just don't think he has what it takes to be a starting quarterback. Another Billick mistake we need to correct.
I know I don't have any profound insights on the subject of football, but I've watched enough ESPN to know that those guys don't know any better than I do what's going to happen. They base their opinions on how teams played the previous season, and in the NFL, most teams never look like they did the previous season. Between the draft, free agency, and the salary cap, few teams can maintain any continuity. As much as I hate the Patriots and Bill Belichick, I have to give them credit for having a consistently strong team year after year. I think it all starts with a team mentality, and that no one player is bigger than the team. That's an attitude I think Harbaugh will bring to the Ravens. Billick was all about star making, including for himself. I've had a bellyful of that and look forward to the Ravens becoming a team that Baltimore can be proud of, not just because of wins, but because they play cleanly and professionally. Time will tell, and I'm so glad that time starts tonight.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Did the World Ever Look This Good?
When I was a kid in the 70s, gazing at these ads from old National Geographic magazines, I thought something horrible had happened to make the world so much less interesting than it was in the 40s and 50s. To a certain extent, I think the 60s did drain an awful lot out of our collective aesthetic. It's as if people stopped trying. Clothes got uglier, interior design got uglier, architecture got uglier. A complete, mass hypnosis which caused a total rejection of everything aesthetically pleasing.But more to the point, I think when advertising shifted away from commercial art and placed a greater emphasis on photos, we lost the romantic interpretation of the product/service. Modern advertising shows you (more or less) what something really looks like. Advertisements like this showed you what you wanted that product/service to be. It was wish fulfillment. Sure, it may have been slightly deceitful, which is probably why advertisers moved away from it, but it sure made whatever they were selling look far more appealing.
A cruise to Hawaii is pretty exotic to begin with, but just look at how elegant this cruise is. All the people look so sophisticated. They all know which fork to use and have read the latest bestsellers and will be attending the opening night of the latest Rodgers & Hammerstein musical when they get back to "The City." Mighty appealing to some Joe who just a few years ago was slogging through the snow and mud of the Ardennes, went to college on the G.I. Bill after his discharge, and was just beginning to work his way up at a leading insurance firm. The high life was just within reach, which was more than his old man could say.
And that picture at the top of the ad. Can't you just hear the dialog like an old MGM movie:
"Oh Brad, isn't it just grand? Who would've thought that a country girl from Iowa like me would win a trip to Hawaii just by sending in some box tops? Then I meet a man who went to Harvard and has ancestors who came over on the Mayflower. Now we're in love and after we marry, we'll live on your pineapple plantation and raise beautiful, sun-kissed children. It's more than my heart can stand!"
"Sheila darling, I must come clean. You're far too beautiful and lovely to be deceived any longer. I'm not the man I told you I was. I don't have a wealthy family, or a pineapple plantation on The Big Island. I don't even know where Harvard is! I'm just plain old Brad Grant from Fort Lee, New Jersey. After scraping together the money for my passage, I barely had enough left over to buy this lavender dinner jacket. I intended to work the ol' Brad Grant charm on some rich, widowed socialite and marry her for her money. How was I supposed to know I'd meet and fall in love with the greatest dame in the whole world. I'm a cad, Sheila, and I wouldn't blame you one bit if you slapped my face and walked out of my life right now. But if you do stay with me, I promise to change. I'll make you the happiest woman in the world!"
At least that's what went through my head as I stared at this ad in the basement of my house on a rainy Sunday afternoon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
