George Zinkhan, a professor of marketing at the Terry School of Business at the University of Georgia, is a suspect in a shooting spree at a theater that left 3 people dead.
Hopefully, he’ll give up before he suffers from a .45-caliber brain tumor.
Archive for April 25, 2009
Your Character Always Catches You
As a kinda-sorta Phillies fan–I prefer the old Pirates of the Willie Stargell days, and the old Cincinnati Reds, but since I used to live in Philly I tend to root for the home team–I remember Lenny Dykestra. He was the hard-charging centerfielder who would make the headline-grabbing catch, gain that extra base through balls-out hustle, but also keep management pulling their hair out with his hard living off the field.
In spite of this, he was on two World Series teams, and had an otherwise successful sports career.
A few years ago, while listening to Jim Cramer, I recall him pulling Dykestra in for some hot stock picks. Dykestra was supposedly specializing in penny stocks (high risk) and options (also high risk when you use them for speculating).
Whenever you hear “options”, think “derivatives”. In one sense, stock options can be a good tool for hedging your investment portfolio. “Protective puts” are actually standard practice and considered prudent for mitigating losses. On the other hand, speculating in options can lead to disaster. Anyone who writes a “put” option, for example, is exposing himself to unlimited risk.
Along those lines:
- When you take big risks–such as buying on margin or speculating in options markets–you can earn very large returns. Hillary Clinton once turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures, into a $100,000 gain.
- Unfortunately, when you take big risks, you can also lose money faster than you ever thought possible. When you borrow in order to invest, it is called “leverage”. Trouble is, “leverage” is kind of like a tracer bullet: it works both ways.
- Even worse, having initial success–seeing large returns–can give a person a feeling of invincibility. That can encourage even more risk-taking than would otherwise be prudent. Combined with point #2, you are looking at a prescription for disaster.
Sadly, according to the latest reports, Lenny Dykestra–former baseball star and high financier–is flat-broke. I would surmise that much of his problems stem from his own investment style–he very likely waded too far into very high-risk areas at a time of very high volatility, and got clobbered–which was tied directly to his own character.
The same hard-charging, arrogant badass style that got him into the World Series, and earned him a fortune, has probably cost him a fortune.
I would submit that, if he regroups and learns his lessons, he can recover from this. He’s fairly young, he knows how markets work. If he steps back and looks hard at how he hit the ground, he will gain valuable insight as to how risks can bite you. If he gets in touch with Dave Ramsey–who himself was a victim of the same dynamic before he came to his senses–he may turn around and become a great success story.
But just as Dave Ramsey had to address fundamental matters of character, Dykestra must now do the same.
The first fundamental law of personal finance: personal finance is personal first and finance second. Failures in the latter are, more often than not, failures of the former.
In fairness to Dykestra, a lot of good people are getting creamed in this downturn.
When you have a mortgage and lose your job, you will also lose your house if you cannot find a job so you can keep making the mortgage payments. If you have an adjustable rate mortgage–or credit card debt, which is also adjustable rate–your payments can skyrocket beyond your ability to pay them, even if you have never missed a payment.
I’m under no illusions here: the same could easily happen to me. I have a mortgage. Thankfully, I have no credit card debt. I have a small debt remaining on my car. But all my debts are fixed-rate. As long as I keep my job long enough, the car debt will be gone this year or early next year. The mortgage is a 30-year, but I’m paying it off on a 20-year schedule.
Still, interruptions in my cash flow can put any of that into jeopardy. Before I bought the house, everyone clamored about how renting is “pouring money down the drain”.
Having been on both sides now, I can tell you that I am unconvinced that owning–via a mortgage–is that much more advantageous than renting.
This is because, at the end of the day, the borrower is slave to the lender. Everyone with a mortgage–who has thought past stage one–knows this. Dave Ramsey, seeing a financial empire crumble in the 1980s, knows this. Lenny Dykestra, now knows this.
Now is the character-building time. I hope Dykestra now chooses wisely.
Buchanan Was Right
In one of the greatest speeches since Paul’s sermon at Mars Hill, Pat Buchanan articulated–at the 1992 Republican Convention–what many Republicans today are trying to deny: that we are in a culture war. Back then, Buchanan was written off as a hack for clamoring for immigration reform. Back then, Republican elitists ran from Buchanan as he made the case against special rights for gays, against abortion on demand, against big government, against unconstitutional wars, against illegal immigration.
Four years after that, the debate regarding “gay marriage” started to materialize, as activists in Hawaii attempted to get that state to recognize gay unions. The thinking was that, due to the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution–in which states are required to accept the civil proceedings of other states–a “gay marriage” in one state must be recognized by the other 49.
This was why Congress passed–and President Clinton signed–the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA), which permitted states to disregard gay marriages that were otherwise accepted in other states. The problem with this legislation: it uses a federal law to circumvent the Constitution. The former must never be permitted to trump the latter, irrespective of what implications we are trying to avoid.
Other states have realized this dilemma, as–just like with the abortion issue–we are now one Supreme Court “landmark decision” away from forcing states to recognize “gay marriage”.
And with few exceptions, voters have consistently chosen to reject gay marriage, as bans have been approved overwhelmingly. Even in liberal states like Oregon and California.
Now, we have the foodfight over the Miss USA pageant, as Carrie Prejean–Miss California–gave a frank answer in opposition to gay marriage, when asked by teabaggerpageant judge Perez Hilton.
The backlash was as predictable as it was utterly dishonest. Now, the homogamists are fighting to silence Prejean:
The war between Perez Hilton and Miss California is far from being over since he lashed out against her for declaring that “marriage should be between a man and a woman” at the Miss USA pageant on Sunday night. But it seems the self-confessed Queen of Media has changed his tune a little, initially he lashed out that Prejean gave “the wrong answer” to his question but now he said he marked her down primarily because he disagreed with her facts more so than her opinion.
“She started off on the wrong foot, she was spieling inaccurate information,” Hilton told Tarts at the Us Weekly “Hot in Hollywood” party at MyHouse on Wednesday night, referring to Prejean’s statement that ‘we live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.’ “I live in the state of California and I can’t choose, the state doesn’t allow me. She was under pressure and she let the pressure get to her and dug a really deep hole for herself.”
But in any case, did Prejean really deserve to be called a “dumb b**ch”?
“She’s not apologizing and I’m not either. I would like to sit and coffee with her, but if she doesn’t want to meet with me, Equality California has also invited her out to dinner so hopefully she’ll accept their offer,” he added. “But I have to thank FOX, you guys have been up my ass but I don’t care — I can take it. I am thankful to FOX for keeping the gay debate ongoing.”
Meanwhile the Miss California State Director, Shanna Moakler (who has come under fire this week for reportedly ditching Prejean over her controversial answer) wants the 21-year-old to stop talking to the media and talk to Perez’s people instead.
“I know Carrie is very religious and God is a huge part of her life, but I was just surprised she went down that road and answered the question the way she did. I think it’s very necessary at this point (that she talk to Hilton or the Equality group) as we have a lot of openly gay sponsors who supported her and were not aware of her opinions on their lives and are now deeply hurt,” Moakler said. “Carrie is going to have to stop doing the press circuit about how great it is she used the First Amendment and her First Right, and really sit down with these people that she’s hurt.”
Well boo freakin’ hoo! Moakler and Hilton can attack Prejean in the media and the Internet, but they want Prejean to be quiet? What’s the matter, they can dish it out but they can’t take it?
All Prejean said was that she opposed gay marriage, that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and that this was the way she was raised. If that “hurts” someone who happens to be gay, well…they need to get the heck over it.
While my theology is conservative, my politics are quite libertarian: what consenting adults wish to do in their privacy is not the business of government to regulate. On that front, I would actually side with the gays. While my own sexual appetites–as a straight male–are quite moderate, I oppose anti-sodomy laws because (a) they target gays individually and (b) they can be easily used by government to harass, attack–and launch character assassinations against–any political enemies.
Still, if gay rights groups want respect, then they need to come to terms with reality:
- Most of us straight people do not appreciate gays touting their agenda in terms of “civil rights”. Perez Hilton is not Rosa Parks.
- Most of us straight people do not appreciate having a gay agenda crammed down our throats in schools and workplaces.
- Most of us straight people do not appreciate gays demanding that we recognize “gay marriage” at the same level as straight marriage.
If this were merely about them being left alone by government with respect to their privacy, they would have legitimate ground. We know that governments–liberal and conservative alike–have attempted to launch character assassinations against people based on whisper campaigns. From FDR to Johnson and Nixon, our FBI annals are littered with such cases. Gays deserve the same protections from government intrusion that any straight person enjoys.
On the other hand, for them to demand that we equate their lifestyles on the same moral planes as straight people, is childish bullying.
Carrie Prejean will have a fine career somewhere, assuming she manages to avoid becoming the next Anita Bryant.
Guys Like This
It’s guys like this that give you good ones a bad rap, especially since he’s a religious, never misses church – not even for his kids, Bible reading/studying/teaching, man.
My 11-year-old said to me today,
Mommy, you know why I hate daddy? Because I’m scared I’m going to say something that will make him angry, and he’ll hurt you. And I love you, Mommy! I don’t want daddy to hurt you.
Oh how that makes my blood boil! But I assured her that she need not worry about what she says … that she is not responsible for protecting me from her daddy. My girls know how much he hates me, and that scares them. But, I just laugh about it with them to lighten things up. We cannot change him, and I assure them that they are not responsible for his behavior.
There ARE great dad’s out there … my Fiance is one of them.