Wall Street and the Influenza Puercina

OK - please explain this to me - why would the increase of Mexican deaths to the swine flu (to 150 up from 100) cause the Dow to retreat from a midday gain? What could this possibly have to do with stocks?

I know it's certainly not because the investors care about human lives - God knows they would invest in your spleen if they thought you'd croak in the next halfhour and they could harvest and sell it for a 10% profit.

Somebody explain this to me. The investors must be thinking something along the lines that a flu outbreak will somehow tighten resources, stop the normal flow of business, and threaten their money.

You know, I'm coming to think that this whole problem is not the CEO's after all. It's these investors everybody keeps talking about. And who are these "investors" anyway? Nobody ever says who they are! Just "the investors were shy on wall street today" "The investors rallied at end of day trading." "The Dow closed down sharply based on investors fears that Godzilla was stomping up the Western seaboard."

So, the Swine Flu made them jumpy. Great. You know, we truly need to get all our money out of the stock market. If you want a return in your investment, go out and start your own business. Make it successful and enjoy all the profits. Or just go out and get another job. Save everything you can in some CD somewhere. All this stuff about what makes the investors jump or slide just makes me sick to my stomach.

sorry about the rant - I gotta go now. Not feeling well. A little feverish, you might say.

Bet that makes the stocks take a dive in early morning trading tomorrow, eh?



VG

Cream in the Coffee: Mechanical vs. Chemical

As I sat stirring the cheap powdery cream into my lukewarm coffee this morning, I noticed that it clumped and stuck to the edges of the mug and the rim of the plastic spoon. The mug had still been half full, yet cold, when I poured in a remaining half of hot, then followed that with cream.

This must be why the cream was not dissolving. However, as I was stirring, I felt that it should mix into the coffee, yet it wasn't - not very well, at least.

I know that when all the coffee is hot, then it stirs very easily. The heat must be the trick.

Yet, doesn't the act of stirring itself generate heat? Probably not as much as the heat generated by the coffee pot.

Then I imagined myself one of those old Newtonian scientists, who did everything by observation. What I am observing, I thought, is the difference between Mechanical recation and Chemical reaction. The mechanical will be effective, but only over time - if I stir for five minutes all the cream may eventually be dissolved. However, the coffee pot so energizes with heat the molecules of the coffee that their very heat breaks apart the cream as soon as it hits the liquid, and even though it requires stirring, the stirring is much less than when the coffee is cold.

Thus, would the reaction of the heated molecules of the coffee assist in the chemical reaction/breakdown of the cream molecules? And when there is no heat to assist the reaction, it must all be mechanical, and as we have proven, mechanical takes time.

Therefore, there is an inverse reaction between heat and time. Were I a mathemetician I would make it into a formula, like

T = s/h, where T is time, s is stirring, h is heat. Thus, if stirring is a constant and we increase the heat, then we decrease the time. Time is actually inverted, the higher the heat.

And I promise you, dear readers, that I didn't plan on this, but reviewing my formula, and using i for inverse, I must now present to you my new formula for what it takes to stir powdery cream into coffee, and thereby reveal to you that

I am full of

s/h = (i)T




Didn't see that one coming!

VG

Arrogance for Strength

For too long we in this country have mistaken arrogance for strength, and although the right-wing hate radio listeners will have a hissy fit for me saying this - the last eight years we have been led badly by a President who thought that a unwavering and rigid adherence to a policy of arrogance was actually presenting a strong face to the world.

This was wrong.

Last week on some hate radio station I heard some DJ asking one of his dimwitted listeners what exactly President Obama has done to show America's strength.

This is exactly the wrong question to ask. I would counter, "Why does he have to show America's strength?"

Why are we such cowardly playground bullies that we have to make these false shows of strength?

What about showing American compassion? What about showing American willingness to work for the common benefit of the entire world? What about showing American giving? American charity? American acceptance?

All of these are nobile qualities - what about American dignity? (I'll admit there's precious little of that!) but American honor! American faith! American hope! American dream!

Books could be written about the subject, but to put it succinctly - Arrogance is not strength; in fact, it is the very opposite of strength. For too long we have believed that by flexing our muscles the world would be afraid of us and thus leave us alone. We have been lying to ourselves. We can flex our muscles all we want and the world doesn't care - the world is stronger than we are. As soon as we realize that, the better for all of us.

True strength lies in the ability to hold firm to our ideals of fairness and decency, but also to be able to reach for common ground for the betterment of all.