The Balls are Flyin' Here in the City of Mahoganny
Two months ago, when the news was full of the Barry Bonds steroids scandal, I predicted that in another sixty days the whole thing would be forgotten. As long as Bonds kept hitting 'em out of the ballpark, I said, no one would care too much about steroids or growth hormones or any of the rest of it. Well, sixty days have passed and even though the steroids story hasn't disappeared completely from the news, it's clearly not the scandal it was a couple of months ago.
In fact, as I write this Bonds is closing in on Babe Ruth's record and news people from all over the world are flocking to San Francisco to cover it. Bonds' "quest for history" is what one local newscast is calling it, "epic achievement" is what I read in the paper, and it just seems like everyone wants to be here to witness baseball's greatest achievement by baseball's greatest player.
Don't want to gloat but I told you so.
What I couldn't predict was the backlash heaped upon the poor unfortunate's who authored a book and ignited the whole scandal in the first place. Rather than receiving acclaim and appreciation for "Game of Shadows" , the 2 authors have received subpoena's instead and been asked to disclose the source of the grand jury leaks . That's what's called an ironic twist. Instead of Bonds going to jail he goes to the Hall of Fame, and it's the author's who may end up doing time. Now isn't that a slap in the face. At least it is for the authors. Baseball fans are loving it.
Which only goes to prove my other point that fans really don't care about this steroids thing as much as people suppose they do. Sure, they'd rather that the players weren't doing drugs and doping up and all that, but as long as the players keep it private and out of the papers then it's nothing for the fans to worry about. Don't ask, don't tell is what they call it, and the last thing anyone wants to see is a lot of snoopy reporters sticking their noses in the player's business and ruining things for everyone else.
Of course there is just one more little fly in the ointment I haven't mentioned. Seems baseball has decided to launch an independent investigation headed by former senator George Mitchell to look into these steroid accusations. Some are calling it a PR move but others are afraid it may be more serious than that. I'm sure baseball is hoping it's nothing serious or they could find themselves on the wrong side of the fans. Which brings me to my next prediction. I predict that the commission will investigate the matter and find either (a) the steroid accusations are wildly overblown in which case baseball will breathe a sigh of relief, or (b) that there is rampant steroid use throughout the game in which case baseball will show shock and concern and then quietly bury the whole thing. In either case, however, baseball will not provoke it's fans nor put it's ticket sales in danger.
And that's all I can say about that. Face you old fart traditionlists out there, it's the new baseball and Bonds is it's greatest player. Might as well drink your beer and enjoy your peanuts because the old days are gone forever. And until some new drug is discovered and some new superstar comes along, Bonds is master of this game. After that, who knows. 1,000 home runs? 2,000 home runs? In one season? Stay tuned - you won't want to miss an action-packed moment.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
A Farewell, and then Forever
As a rule I try not to blog about celebrities, but sometimes you just have to say something. Like it or not, certain celebreties become important fixtures in our lives and leave us feeling a little bit older and emptier when they're gone. I felt it when John Lennon died, and then again when James Stewart died, and now I feel it again with the passing of Louis Rukeyser.
So what was it that made Louis Rukeyser so invaluable? I think it was this. The investing world has always been full of touts and self-promoters - those who claim inside knowlege or omniscience or the ability to predict the future. In fact, for many individual investors the whole basis of stock market investing is nothing more than seeking out these wizards for their " hot tips" and "inside scoops". Rukeyser and his panelists on Wall Street Week in Review were different. Instead of "hot tips" Rukeyser's prgram was all about the facts and healthy doses of common sense. That's why viewers faithfully tuned-in each Friday night and read his newsletters and attended his seminars. They were there to learn the investing basics, and they trusted that Rukeyser wasn't going to try to confuse them with a lot of jargon or claim to know the unknowable.
Over the years, as a faithful viewer myself, I got to see the him interview countless Wall Street movers and shakers, from both the fundamental and technical side of the investing spectrum, and I think it's fair to say that not once did I ever see Rukeyser let a guest blow a lot of smoke on his show and get away with it. If something wasn't clear the guest was asked to clarify it. If an outlandish claim was made then he was asked to justify it, and all the time Rukeyser would be probing with his unique blend of skepticism and wit. In this way I think millions of americans got to see that investing wasn't voodoo or black magic but rather an informed strategy based upon research and (here's that phrase again) common sense.
It would be a fitting tribute to Louis Rukeyser and Wall Street Week to say that his show changed the world and we are all better investors for having watched it, but unfortunately, for the vast majority of us, investing is the same today as it always was. Bring up the stock market in any casual conversation and it won't be long before someone asks you for a hot tip. Seldom does anyone ask for a strategy. But that wasn't his failure. Rather, the fact that so many learned so much from watching his show was his great success.
The most peculiar thing about Louis Rukeyser's death, at least for me, is that he was the same age when he died as my father was when he died, and he died of the very same disease. Multiple Myeloma took my father's life at age 73 (actually it was complications from the disease), and Mulitple Myeloma also took Louis Rukeyser's death at age 73. I won't say his passing is like losing a second father. No one could ever replace my father and frankly, Louis Rukeyser and I weren't that close. But I do feel like I lost an old friend.
May he Rest In Peace.
One other item in the news that caught my eye. In case you haven't heard Microsoft announced they were getting into the TV show biz today. Well, not exactly the cable TV show biz or the over-the-air TV biz but the internet TV biz. Turns out they are going to start producing original content for the MSN internet service through a service they're calling (suprise) MSN Originals. Geez, I hate to be negative but doesn't this seem like it's going to be one big...
DUD!
I mean, I wish Microsoft the best of luck with this but their track record for new initiatives hasn't been too spectacular lately. MSN search vs. Google? Dud. Plays for Sure vs. IPod? Dud. Origami? Dud. And now they're going to get in the TV business? Well, we all now how easy that's going to be. Just ask the WB and UPN how easy it is to come up with new, audience-grabbing content. Should be no problem.
Not that I'm one to criticize, mind you, because I know nothing about primetime TV. If they asked me how to make a hit show I wouldn't have a clue, although I do have this idea for live opera broadcasts on the internet. That'd be a hit, wouldn't it? I'm sure there are at least a couple dozen other people who'd like to see that too. Then again maybe not, and anyways I think MSN is going after a bigger demographic.
And who better to know what's hip with today's 18-34 year olds than Bill Gates.
Yeah, hate to say it but I just get a bad feeling about this MSN Originals thing. Not that I think it's a bad idea. In fact, if I was a betting man I'd wager that Microsoft is probably onto something here. The trouble is they won't be able to execute on it and some younger, hipper company is going to come along and eat their lunch. That seems to be their process these days. But then again, who knows. Good luck Microsoft, and I can't wait for the first show.
As a rule I try not to blog about celebrities, but sometimes you just have to say something. Like it or not, certain celebreties become important fixtures in our lives and leave us feeling a little bit older and emptier when they're gone. I felt it when John Lennon died, and then again when James Stewart died, and now I feel it again with the passing of Louis Rukeyser.So what was it that made Louis Rukeyser so invaluable? I think it was this. The investing world has always been full of touts and self-promoters - those who claim inside knowlege or omniscience or the ability to predict the future. In fact, for many individual investors the whole basis of stock market investing is nothing more than seeking out these wizards for their " hot tips" and "inside scoops". Rukeyser and his panelists on Wall Street Week in Review were different. Instead of "hot tips" Rukeyser's prgram was all about the facts and healthy doses of common sense. That's why viewers faithfully tuned-in each Friday night and read his newsletters and attended his seminars. They were there to learn the investing basics, and they trusted that Rukeyser wasn't going to try to confuse them with a lot of jargon or claim to know the unknowable.
Over the years, as a faithful viewer myself, I got to see the him interview countless Wall Street movers and shakers, from both the fundamental and technical side of the investing spectrum, and I think it's fair to say that not once did I ever see Rukeyser let a guest blow a lot of smoke on his show and get away with it. If something wasn't clear the guest was asked to clarify it. If an outlandish claim was made then he was asked to justify it, and all the time Rukeyser would be probing with his unique blend of skepticism and wit. In this way I think millions of americans got to see that investing wasn't voodoo or black magic but rather an informed strategy based upon research and (here's that phrase again) common sense.
It would be a fitting tribute to Louis Rukeyser and Wall Street Week to say that his show changed the world and we are all better investors for having watched it, but unfortunately, for the vast majority of us, investing is the same today as it always was. Bring up the stock market in any casual conversation and it won't be long before someone asks you for a hot tip. Seldom does anyone ask for a strategy. But that wasn't his failure. Rather, the fact that so many learned so much from watching his show was his great success.
The most peculiar thing about Louis Rukeyser's death, at least for me, is that he was the same age when he died as my father was when he died, and he died of the very same disease. Multiple Myeloma took my father's life at age 73 (actually it was complications from the disease), and Mulitple Myeloma also took Louis Rukeyser's death at age 73. I won't say his passing is like losing a second father. No one could ever replace my father and frankly, Louis Rukeyser and I weren't that close. But I do feel like I lost an old friend.
May he Rest In Peace.
One other item in the news that caught my eye. In case you haven't heard Microsoft announced they were getting into the TV show biz today. Well, not exactly the cable TV show biz or the over-the-air TV biz but the internet TV biz. Turns out they are going to start producing original content for the MSN internet service through a service they're calling (suprise) MSN Originals. Geez, I hate to be negative but doesn't this seem like it's going to be one big...
DUD!
I mean, I wish Microsoft the best of luck with this but their track record for new initiatives hasn't been too spectacular lately. MSN search vs. Google? Dud. Plays for Sure vs. IPod? Dud. Origami? Dud. And now they're going to get in the TV business? Well, we all now how easy that's going to be. Just ask the WB and UPN how easy it is to come up with new, audience-grabbing content. Should be no problem.
Not that I'm one to criticize, mind you, because I know nothing about primetime TV. If they asked me how to make a hit show I wouldn't have a clue, although I do have this idea for live opera broadcasts on the internet. That'd be a hit, wouldn't it? I'm sure there are at least a couple dozen other people who'd like to see that too. Then again maybe not, and anyways I think MSN is going after a bigger demographic.
And who better to know what's hip with today's 18-34 year olds than Bill Gates.
Yeah, hate to say it but I just get a bad feeling about this MSN Originals thing. Not that I think it's a bad idea. In fact, if I was a betting man I'd wager that Microsoft is probably onto something here. The trouble is they won't be able to execute on it and some younger, hipper company is going to come along and eat their lunch. That seems to be their process these days. But then again, who knows. Good luck Microsoft, and I can't wait for the first show.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Three Reasons Why You Should Never Blog When You're Tired
I had this idea for a political cartoon but unfortunately I can't draw so I'll have to describe it instead. It takes place in front of the capitol, and out in front there's a long continuous line of SUV's all climbing the hill with banners on the back saying "$3.00 a gallon gas", and in one of the SUV's there's this big fat guy leaning out the window and looking at the capitol with his fist in the air, and the caption reads "It's all your fault!"
Yeah, I know, pretty lame, but then I'm no cartoonist.
And that's not what I wanted to talk about anyways. What I want to talk about is Eric Steel. If you don't know who Eric Steel is then let's just say he is an important filmaker. How do we know he is an important filmaker? Well, because he's made an important film, that's how. Please, read on. This is very important.
Apparently, Eric Steel asked officials with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for permission to film the Golden Gate Bridge for a series of movies he was making on national monuments. Naturally, the bridge officials agreed and so Mr. Steel set up cameras that would shoot continuously throughout the daylight hours for most of 1994. That's a lot of footage, but it was for a good cause. Right?
Well, turns out our filmaker wasn't being exactly honest with the bridge officials. Instead, what he really wanted to shoot was not the bridge but people jumping off the bridge and comitting suicide. Not actors, mind you, but actual people jumping to their deaths. That meant he was able to film about 19 successful attempts during this period along with numerous aborted attempts as well. All he had to do was go through the footage, find all the good parts, and edit it something an audience could enjoy. Swell guy, this Mr. Eric Steel.
So there you have it. I guess the movie is finished now and awaiting release, and sure to be a hit with audiences bored by all the simulated violence they have had to witness over the years. Now, at last, we have a movie where audiences can go and see the real thing. Real human beings dying on film. "Kind of sick" you may be saying to yourself, "controversial" say others, not realizing that in these modern times, words like "sick" and "controversial" are just mediaspeak terms for...
"important."
You can practically hear the critics now. "Most important film of the year from one of America's most important filmakers." The folks associated with the bridge aren't to thrilled with it all, of course, and some are calling for renewed efforts to erect suicide barriers along the bridge, a move that would save lives but would diminish the aesthetic aspects of the world's most beautiful bridge. It's not an easy call.
I'm of two minds on this myself. Sure, we all want to save lives but there are other things to consider. I mean, if they erect the barriers how would people like Eric Steel get their kicks? Has anyone thought of that? This is an important filmaker we're talking about. Not some sick bastard who's looking to draw attention to himself by exploiting the misery and suffering of others. If they do build the barriers what will that do to him? Poor, miserable SOB. Perhaps he can find some other important project to enlighten us with. Something like child molestation perhaps? Sure, instead of just talking about it, why not shoot a film where we get to see actual children being sodomized on camera? Huh, don't tell me that wouldn't be important.
(I'm just kidding by the way. I know how seriously people take these blogs sometimes.)
Well, enough of that. If you want to read about Eric Steel the story can be found here. Now on to other (more important) things.
Do you live in California and, if you do, have you ever heard of the transfer tax? If you ever bought a home in California and actually managed to make it all the way through all the little numbers in your final closing papers then you might have. If not then let me explain.
The transfer tax is levied by your County Recorder when your Deed is presented to them for entry into the Official Record. This is a complicated process which involves stamping the document, photocopying it, and stuffing it in an envelope to be mailed back to you. In California all counties charge the same transfer tax of $0.55 per $500. That is, you take the sales price (or fair market value) of the property and divide that number by $500, rounded up to the next even multiple of $500, and then multiply the quotient by 0.55 to arrive at your final tax. For example, for a typical California home selling for around $700,000 you would divide 700,000 by 500 and then multiply by 0.55 to arrive at a tax of $770.
Ok, so what's the big deal. Well, it's not really a big deal, but did you also know that certain cities in California also charge their own separate transfer taxes that are levied in addition to the transfer taxes levied by the counties? If you read your closing papers you did, but in case you didn't then I found this great little website called dirtlawyer.com which gives an interesting breakdown of all the various transfer taxes charged by cities and counties in California. Quite an eye-opener if you're considering buying or selling property out here.
The good news is that in 47 out of 58 counties no additional city taxes are levied at all, and in the remaining counties only some of the major cities have such levies. In Santa Clara County, for examle, only the cities of San Jose, Palo Alto and Mt. View have the tax at a somewhat reasonable rate of $3.30 per $1000. Sonoma and Yolo Counties have much lower rates than ours (Cloverdale in Sonoma County, for example, only charges $1.10 per $1,000), but what really caught my attention was the incredibly high amounts charged by some other California cities. In San Francisco, for example, the rate is $6.80 per $1,000 for our hypothetical $700,000 home, but that pales in comparison to the taxes charged across the bay in Alameda County, where the cities of Oakland and Berkely charge a whopping $15 per 1,000.
Are you kidding me?
That means on a $700,000 home in Oakland, Alameda County would charge a $770 transfer tax and the City of Oakland would levy an additional $10,500, bringing the total transfer tax bill to a staggering $11,270. Holy Toledo, and that's just the tax you pay for recording your Deed. Compared to the $3,080 you'd pay in San Jose for that same sales price I'd say that San Jose seems like quite a bargain. At least it would to an old penny-pincher like me.
Anyways, it's an interesting chart of a little known tax. It also breaks down the tax on the basis of who pays what, so that in Alameda County for instance, the seller actually pays the county transfer tax and half the city transfer tax and the buyer pays the rest. That means in our hypothetical $700,000 transaction, the buyer would only pay $5,250 and the other $6,020 would be deducted from the sellers proceeds. Seems reasonable, eh?
I had this idea for a political cartoon but unfortunately I can't draw so I'll have to describe it instead. It takes place in front of the capitol, and out in front there's a long continuous line of SUV's all climbing the hill with banners on the back saying "$3.00 a gallon gas", and in one of the SUV's there's this big fat guy leaning out the window and looking at the capitol with his fist in the air, and the caption reads "It's all your fault!"
Yeah, I know, pretty lame, but then I'm no cartoonist.
And that's not what I wanted to talk about anyways. What I want to talk about is Eric Steel. If you don't know who Eric Steel is then let's just say he is an important filmaker. How do we know he is an important filmaker? Well, because he's made an important film, that's how. Please, read on. This is very important.
Apparently, Eric Steel asked officials with the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for permission to film the Golden Gate Bridge for a series of movies he was making on national monuments. Naturally, the bridge officials agreed and so Mr. Steel set up cameras that would shoot continuously throughout the daylight hours for most of 1994. That's a lot of footage, but it was for a good cause. Right?
Well, turns out our filmaker wasn't being exactly honest with the bridge officials. Instead, what he really wanted to shoot was not the bridge but people jumping off the bridge and comitting suicide. Not actors, mind you, but actual people jumping to their deaths. That meant he was able to film about 19 successful attempts during this period along with numerous aborted attempts as well. All he had to do was go through the footage, find all the good parts, and edit it something an audience could enjoy. Swell guy, this Mr. Eric Steel.
So there you have it. I guess the movie is finished now and awaiting release, and sure to be a hit with audiences bored by all the simulated violence they have had to witness over the years. Now, at last, we have a movie where audiences can go and see the real thing. Real human beings dying on film. "Kind of sick" you may be saying to yourself, "controversial" say others, not realizing that in these modern times, words like "sick" and "controversial" are just mediaspeak terms for...
"important."
You can practically hear the critics now. "Most important film of the year from one of America's most important filmakers." The folks associated with the bridge aren't to thrilled with it all, of course, and some are calling for renewed efforts to erect suicide barriers along the bridge, a move that would save lives but would diminish the aesthetic aspects of the world's most beautiful bridge. It's not an easy call.
I'm of two minds on this myself. Sure, we all want to save lives but there are other things to consider. I mean, if they erect the barriers how would people like Eric Steel get their kicks? Has anyone thought of that? This is an important filmaker we're talking about. Not some sick bastard who's looking to draw attention to himself by exploiting the misery and suffering of others. If they do build the barriers what will that do to him? Poor, miserable SOB. Perhaps he can find some other important project to enlighten us with. Something like child molestation perhaps? Sure, instead of just talking about it, why not shoot a film where we get to see actual children being sodomized on camera? Huh, don't tell me that wouldn't be important.
(I'm just kidding by the way. I know how seriously people take these blogs sometimes.)
Well, enough of that. If you want to read about Eric Steel the story can be found here. Now on to other (more important) things.
Do you live in California and, if you do, have you ever heard of the transfer tax? If you ever bought a home in California and actually managed to make it all the way through all the little numbers in your final closing papers then you might have. If not then let me explain.
The transfer tax is levied by your County Recorder when your Deed is presented to them for entry into the Official Record. This is a complicated process which involves stamping the document, photocopying it, and stuffing it in an envelope to be mailed back to you. In California all counties charge the same transfer tax of $0.55 per $500. That is, you take the sales price (or fair market value) of the property and divide that number by $500, rounded up to the next even multiple of $500, and then multiply the quotient by 0.55 to arrive at your final tax. For example, for a typical California home selling for around $700,000 you would divide 700,000 by 500 and then multiply by 0.55 to arrive at a tax of $770.
Ok, so what's the big deal. Well, it's not really a big deal, but did you also know that certain cities in California also charge their own separate transfer taxes that are levied in addition to the transfer taxes levied by the counties? If you read your closing papers you did, but in case you didn't then I found this great little website called dirtlawyer.com which gives an interesting breakdown of all the various transfer taxes charged by cities and counties in California. Quite an eye-opener if you're considering buying or selling property out here.
The good news is that in 47 out of 58 counties no additional city taxes are levied at all, and in the remaining counties only some of the major cities have such levies. In Santa Clara County, for examle, only the cities of San Jose, Palo Alto and Mt. View have the tax at a somewhat reasonable rate of $3.30 per $1000. Sonoma and Yolo Counties have much lower rates than ours (Cloverdale in Sonoma County, for example, only charges $1.10 per $1,000), but what really caught my attention was the incredibly high amounts charged by some other California cities. In San Francisco, for example, the rate is $6.80 per $1,000 for our hypothetical $700,000 home, but that pales in comparison to the taxes charged across the bay in Alameda County, where the cities of Oakland and Berkely charge a whopping $15 per 1,000.
Are you kidding me?
That means on a $700,000 home in Oakland, Alameda County would charge a $770 transfer tax and the City of Oakland would levy an additional $10,500, bringing the total transfer tax bill to a staggering $11,270. Holy Toledo, and that's just the tax you pay for recording your Deed. Compared to the $3,080 you'd pay in San Jose for that same sales price I'd say that San Jose seems like quite a bargain. At least it would to an old penny-pincher like me.
Anyways, it's an interesting chart of a little known tax. It also breaks down the tax on the basis of who pays what, so that in Alameda County for instance, the seller actually pays the county transfer tax and half the city transfer tax and the buyer pays the rest. That means in our hypothetical $700,000 transaction, the buyer would only pay $5,250 and the other $6,020 would be deducted from the sellers proceeds. Seems reasonable, eh?
Ah, homebuying is so much fun. Maybe in the future we can talk about property taxes and earthquake insurance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
