Obamacare- A Foolish Term Used by Fools

Finally, today the Supreme Court told us what we should have known all along. The more people you can include in the healthcare system, the better off we all are. The heartless opponents of the plan call the plan Obamacare, to try to make the Act sound problematic and pin the problem on the President. The Act is called the Affordable Health Care Act and any member of the media who uses the term Obamacare makes themselves sound like a classless moron. It is a major victory for the President and the American people.

Anyone who doesn't think so should watch Michael Moore's film Sicko and see how far behind we are in taking care of our citizens. Even this plan is only a first step in that direction. Ultimately we need to replicate the single payer system in place in Great Britain, where people get taken care of for free. All the economic arguments in the world pale in comparison to the benefits afforded to all citizens under that kind of system. That will only happen when we put the health of every American ahead of the profits of the healthcare companies.

Charlie Sheen Bounces Back

Okay, I have to admit the truth. Last year, when Charlie Sheen had his very public meltdown, I stood on the sidelines and cheered it on. I thought he was a complete idiot for screwing up the sweet deal he had on Two and A Half Men and for looking like an ever bigger fool on his subsequent comedy tour. I was particularly mad because I loved Two and A Half Men. It was a very funny show, although the episodes had grown somewhat stale since the “half man” grew up.

There were the reports of Mr. Sheen's violence and over the top drug abuse and I felt most sorry for his young children, who seemed to be right in the middle of the mess.

But, as incredible as it seems, Charlie Sheen is having the last laugh. His new show, Anger Management debuts next week, while his replacement on Two and A Half Men, Ashton Kutcher, has created a mess of his own. Two and A Half Men is now unwatchable. And it is clear that I am not the only person who thinks so. The show's ratings have gone through the floor since he stepped into Charlie Sheen's role.

As the New York Times put it recently, Charlie is unrepentant. I have to ask, why should he be repentant at all? He seems to risen above the mess, he is working on making his personal situation right and I'm willing to bet his new show will eclipse Two and A Half Men in the ratings in its first two weeks.

I can't say I'd be willing to follow in his footsteps but I do have to admire the man's resilience. The only thing I can do is tip a shot of Macallan Scotch and wish he and his children good luck in the future.

Why Does Yahoo Suck So Much?

Back when the Internet was born, way back around 1995, centuries ago, I had an AOL account. It was the thing to do. Everyone was on AOL. It was all the rage. I remember reading in the late '90's that AOL was signing up 10,000 customers a day.

Then it went bust and it became totally uncool. I abandoned it and became a Yahoo customer. For a long time, Yahoo was my sole online e-mail account. It was easy to read, it was free and it worked well.

But in the past few years Yahoo seems to be having a mid life performance crisis. It is positively clunky compared to Gmail. It slows down, it has glitches, and it signs you out at unexpected times.

I remember when Yahoo! went public. It was a highly anticipated offering, just as Facebook was recently. The history of Yahoo could be a foreboding prediction of the history of Facebook. I would hope not. Yahoo peaked in December of 1999 at just over 108. This was about three months before the beginning of the decline of the Nasdaq, which at the time was around 5500. Predictions were that it would overtake the Dow in the next couple of years.

But for the past few years, Yahoo stock has been mired in a dusty ditch between $15 and $20. Its five year average return stands at -43%, (that's negative 43 percent.) Despite expanding their offerings, Yahoo has not been able to innovate or appear cool to the perpetually wired generation now growing up. I know we old people don't matter to Internet companies, but an astute observer can easily see that Yahoo is fading faster than we are.

Today was the final straw. Yahoo was down all day and I didn't see an explanation given anywhere. In fact, it was most noticeable that no one noticed. I won't be closing my Yahoo account because I have a lot of contacts associated with it, but my confidence will be forever shaken.

I would say that at a price around $15 it might be a takeover target. But it has nothing to offer to a prospective buyer other than a large database of subscribers. But those same subscribers have by now diversified their Internet presence, just as I have.

I will not be surprised to see Yahoo go the way of the buggy whip in the next few years. The same thing will probably happen to AOL as well. Prepare yourselves for the two minute transition to a new e-mail account

Alec Baldwin: A Top Ten Jerk

What is it with Alec Baldwin? The man cannot control himself. He and Mel Gibson should be locked in a cell together for six months and be forced to endure each other. Maybe then they would both see what insufferable idiots they are and learn to curb their colossal egos.

What does Alec Baldwin have to brag about anyway? He is a second rate actor who has been in one good movie his entire career, The Hunt for Red October, and that was thirty years ago. Now he is an awkward actor who is stiffer than an oak tree on screen.

He also thinks he has the right to impose his maniacal political views on others and absolutely will not listen to the opposing side. I remember him making a few appearances on the Howard Stern radio show. Howard was perfect at goading Alec Baldwin into sounding like a complete moron. It could have been taken as a joke back then, but Alec keeps putting his out of control ego on display so often its now more sad than funny. You would think he could admit that he has a problem and try to make a positive change in his life. Ego is a very powerful force. Someone should hand him a copy of Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth. It just might be enough to help him erase his legacy of buffoonery. 

Stirring the Pot, the Sporting Way

One of the main subjects in sports today was the US Open golf tournament, which begins tomorrow. One sports programs I always try to catch is Around the Horn with Tony Reali and the somewhat regular rotation of sports writers, my favorite of which is Woody Paige.

The question was brought up as to whether Tiger Woods should be considered the US Open favorite. Bob Ryan of the Boston Globe argued vehemently and convincingly that Tiger's best days are behind him. Since Tiger's infamous Thanksgiving dinner, as he called it, every major golf tournament has been won by a different person. Therefore, no one can be considered the favorite in this year's Open. When I heard it, it seemed like a pretty hard argument to refute.

Yet when Channel 7 gave its one minute of coverage to the start of the Open, they showed Tiger Woods at a press conference, and the caption under his name read “US Open favorite.” I guess they figured it was easier to call him the favorite rather than explain to the audience why he isn't.

At Jets minicamp today the talk was, and will continue to be, about the two quarterbacks competing for the starting job. Mark Sanchez had a subpar season last year and, in my opinion, regressed as a quarterback. Tim Tebow was a media darling and the hottest topic in the entire NFL from the moment he stepped into the starting spot on the Denver Broncos.

In the offseason, the Broncos took a gamble and signed Peyton Manning, which has got to be an upgrade from Tebow's uneven performance. Tebow suddenly became expendable, so Denver unloaded him to the Jets, who picked him up for several reasons, some which seem sound and some which seem like they badly want to take the spotlight off the Giants, won their fourth Super Bowl in very unlikely fashion.

It seems almost certain that Tim Tebow will get his chance to start at least a few Jets games, which will most likely give those games a tremendous ratings boost and give the Jets a chance to shed their second citizen status, which they have unwillingly held for at least 25 years.

I know that I will be tuning in to see if Tebow can handle the New York spotlight. The initial reports are that Tebow has made some significant strides in the offseason, which will fuel the speculation as to how quickly he will replace Mark Sanchez. I would hate to be in Mark's shoes.

Personally, I feel that Tebow should be given his chance as soon as possible. The young man has incredible charisma and leadership abilities. He has also shown that he can come through in clutch situations, something the Jets need badly. Given the stellar example of both sportsmanship and citizenship he has demonstrated, he would be a very refreshing frontman for Jets publicity, a welcome change from the vulgar behavior of the head coach and a large swath of his teammates.

Shameless Self Promotion, Needless Nostalgia

It must have been a slow news night at ABC.

Anyone who knows me for more than five minutes can tell that I am both compassionate and sincere. I respect the sanctity of all forms of life. I feel I must state this before I say that what ABC news did tonight was a shameless example of self promotion.

One of the hosts of Good Morning America, Robin Roberts, was diagnosed with a rare disease that affects the bone marrow. Just the other day they were congratulating her for being elected to the Woman’s College Basketball Hall of Fame. On the news tonight they showed a clip of a little meeting they must have had of the mutual admiration society on GMA this morning. After that the medical reporter Dr. Richard Besser talked about what this disease is and its rarity. All told they spent 6 or 7 minutes covering a total non-story. Along the way, they also chose to mention that Good Morning America is now the highest rated morning show in the country.

Certainly I hope that Ms. Roberts recovers from her unfortunate illness. At the same, there has to be more important issues to talk about. It looked a lot like they were going for the sympathy angle to promote their top rated morning show. If they want to do a feel good story then talk about someone who is working to alleviate the suffering of hungry American children. I'll bet if they looked, they could find someone who is doing that kind of work and battling an illness. Now that would get some ratings and draw my personal admiration.

Two out of the next three stories were nostalgia pieces. First, they spent a minute or so talking about the 30^th anniversary of the release of ET. As if anyone cares.

Two stories later they were talking about the 50^th anniversary of the men who escaped from Alcatraz and how they never found any bodies. They talked with some cop who says he is still following up leads in the case. Talk about a thankless and pointless job.

I wonder what would happen if they actually found the three men. Would they throw them back in jail, now that they would all be in their eighties? What would be the point of that? Do they still owe some retribution to the State of California? I think we could find plenty of elected officials who have done more harm to the welfare of the people of California and they're all walking free.But that's really a whole other issue.

Let's hope the ABC Nightly News team can find something a little more substantial to report on tomorrow night or I might be changing the channel. I'm sure they don't care because deep down they know they are no better or worse than their major network rivals. The bar is set pretty low, so they never worry if they violate the standards of objective journalism. No one in the audience, except I guess for me, is complaining.

News Invention

Every morning when I get up I turn on Channel 11. Maybe a year ago or so they changed the format of all their news programming. I still like the way they present the 10 o'clock news at night. But the morning show has steadily deteriorated.

The two hostesses of the morning show, Sukanya Krishnan and Frances Rivera are fine enough to look at but grueling to listen to. Far too often they display a flippant attitude that makes my skin crawl. It's an arrogant sense of anti-intellectual self righteousness that is an insult to the audience.

They often promote stories for the next segment by saying things like “you will be outraged when you see this.” I can't understand why they need to tell their audience how they are supposed to feel. That is not objective journalism. I suppose they are trying to entice their audience to stick around during the commercials. As far as I'm concerned, it's early morning and I am not in the mood to channel surf anyway. Just show me your “outrageous” story and let me decide how I want to feel.

That is just background for this entry however. The news invention happened yesterday. They had on a guest who they introduced as a body language expert. Her intention was to demonstrate that an appearance President Obama and former President Clinton made together might demonstrate some enmity between the two men. She showed how one patted the other on the back and then Clinton walked in front of the President to supposedly demonstrate his dominance. This is supposed to be evidence that maybe the two men aren't getting along as well as everyone thinks they are.

That is news invention. What are the facts? The fact is that no one except Bill Clinton and Barack Obama knows how these two men feel about each other. Anything else is just pure speculation. All Channel 11 is trying to do is stir the pot and keep the audience titillated with the possibility that the two famous “alpha” men are engaged in a private battle for dominance. Its completely unnecessary. I would have a much better feeling if Channel 11 presented a piece about how the two men are working together on the re-election campaign or maybe an economic plan. There is a decidedly negative undertone to the piece that assumes that all the audience wants is dirt so that they can have something to talk about all day at work.

Empower the audience with knowledge instead of degrading them with dirt.

The Fake Facebook Frenzy

My first entry is a perfect example of the point I made in my manifesto. Facebook completed its long awaited initial public offering last month amid an absolute media frenzy.

The initial frenzy is understandable. The Facebook IPO was the third largest ever and the largest ever for a technology company. That is a big deal. The stock market has been languishing in a certain price range ever since the Great Recession began. Big stories have been few and far between. All of the economic news has been negative so Facebook was supposed to be a ray of sunshine against a gloomy horizon.

Except it wasn't. Shares of Facebook rose approximately 10% on their first day of trading but finished that same day just barely above the opening price of $38. Since then the price of a share has slid almost 30%, setting off a second media frenzy trying to figure out what went wrong.

So what went wrong? A couple of things. First, IPO prices are historically volatile. Facebook traded over 500 million shares in its first day of trading and according to Yahoo Finance it has averaged 114 million shares each day since. In my experience as a retail stockbroker in the late 1990's I watched many IPOs experience huge price swings. Now, the late 1990's was a dramatically different time in the stock market and the country as a whole.

However, a story in Journalist's Resource which was published on May 23^rd of this year, confirms my previous experience. This article examined a study published in 2010 in The Journal of Finance entitled “The Variability of IPO Initial Returns.” The study examined the price performance of over 8000 IPO's from 1965 to 2005.

Two of the findings in the study are particularly relevant to the price performance of Facebook. First, “IPOs that feature an intense marketing period are associated with more volatility and thus a less accurate initial share price.” Coverage by the media of the impending Facebook IPO could easily be described as intense. Second, “The problems are particularly acute for technology firms.” Facebook is clearly classified as a technology firm. The study concludes by saying, “Our results raise serious questions about the efficacy of the firm-commitment IPO underwriting process.”

The second thing Facebook did wrong was pricing the shares at the top of the range recommended by its underwriters. Doing this certainly contributed to the probability of both errors in its pricing and the volatility of its trading. At an initial price of $38, the price earnings ratio of the stock based on the last 12 months of earnings was almost 100. Compare that to the long run historical P/E ratio of the S&P 500, which is right around 16, and it becomes clear that buying Facebook at the IPO price is more a gamble than an investment. Imagine if the underwriters had decided to price Facebook at 20 times earning instead of 100. The IPO price would have been in the range of $7.50 to $8. I don't think we would be experiencing the same post-IPO wave of negativity under those circumstances. Of course, Mark Zuckerberg and the other principals would have made billions less, but those investors who had the stomach to buy Facebook and figured they had a sure thing would have lost billions less.

So that begs the question, is Facebook a good investment now? In my opinion, the answer is a definite maybe. Facebook is the unquestioned leader in the social media industry. As of the end of March 2012, Facebook had over 900 million registered users. The number is expected to surpass 1 billion by the end of the year. That sounds like an incredible treasure trove of opportunities to be mined for data and profits, but it also has a downside. Even in a new industry like social media, Facebook is the most mature member. The growth rate of its membership is bound to slow down as time goes on. I would like to have seen it go public when it had 50 million members. The expected growth rate of membership would have been much higher, which might have made it easier to justify its currently bloated P/E ratio.

Still, Mark Zuckerberg has proven himself to be a smart businessman and philanthropist and I get the feeling that Facebook will figure out a way to make its advertising more effective and will venture outside of the social media arena to fuel its future growth. So in the long run I think the stock will do well.

Personally, I wouldn't touch the stock until the average volume dies down a little and the 90 day waiting period is over, so I can see what the insiders, including Mark Zuckerberg, do with their shares. In the meantime, if you are one of those unfortunate millions who got caught up in the hype and bought shares at $38, I would recommend holding on. Remember, it isn't really a loss until you sell and as I just stated, I think your patience will be rewarded over the long term. If you've got any investment capital left, you might also consider picking up some shares at today's closing price around $26 which will automatically drop your cost basis to around $32. That might help you sleep a little better.

Don't listen to what the media says about Facebook and the aftermath of the IPO. They get paid to make you feel as if you made a mistake and it lets them know they are succeeding if you get really upset about it. Let it be a learning experience and let the patience you learn as a result help you to make better investment decisions in the future.

My Manic Manifesto

This is the first entry in a new blog that I am calling the Manic Media Observer. I have had other blogs but I have never been able to coalesce my thoughts around a single idea before. Now I think I have.

The problems of this country are so deeply rooted that they have become the accepted norm. The leadership vacuum that has completely engulfed Washington has created an apathetic, anti-intellectual society that has no notion of the concept of self sacrifice that once made this country great. So now all we do is wallow in the pool of shit we have created for ourselves while conveniently pointing the finger at others so we can absolve ourselves of guilt and make it through another day. Its expeditious but its also willfully blind.

This lack of action and thought is constantly displayed in a daily barrage of media images that serve to reinforce the dysfunctional status quo. I have said and written many times that the most serious problem plaguing this country is a lack of self respect. I know that the way the media makes money is to give the people what they want. But what has become crystal clear is that what people want amounts to nothing more than further self degradation. Misery loves company.

Before going any further I want to define what I mean by media, especially since this definition has changed so drastically in recent years. Since everyone is now connected on a 24/7 basis, media now means anyone or any organization that broadcasts a message. So besides the major news organizations and entertainment networks, we have Facebook and Twitter feeds and many other social media outlets that are available at any time so people can feel connected to something larger than themselves.

But what is most distressing to me is that the sum total of these messages is cacophony. It has been drummed into our heads our whole lives that diversity is strength, and I agree with that statement. But it is equally true that unity is strength and division is weakness. By emphasizing the need for diversity we have forgotten the need for unity. What we have created are endless opportunities for divergence while marginalizing the need for unity. In an effort to satisfy everyone we end up satisfying no one.

This is what the media feed off of. As long as there is no unity then there will be a proliferation of diverging opinions and the media can spend day after day stirring the proverbial pot and feel no guilt for contributing nothing meaningful to the conversation. They just report the news in as sensationalistic and anti-intellectual a manner as possible then report their profits on a quarterly basis.

If you want to get some media attention these days then all you have to do is add something to the cacophony. Make some statement that is essentially divisive in nature and the media becomes a puppet you control. Eventually, however, the tables turn and the speaker becomes the puppet of the media, held accountable for every divisive statement he or she makes. Of course, the media doesn't hold itself accountable which makes it completely hypocritical. But you don't hear anyone talking about that at all.

That is why this blog will exist and flourish. The constant hypocrisy gives me an endless stream of instances to comment on. I would hope to stir some conversation of my own. But I want it to be constructive and I want it to be unified. I'm sure that some people will perceive my future posts as potshots taken for my own aggrandizement. But nothing could be further from the truth.

Did you ever ask yourself the question of what you are? I have and after years of searching I have found the answer. And it is the universal answer. We are spirit, we are essence and we are lucky to be an embodied speck of this essence, which is nothing more than the universal force of love that created the universe and keeps it alive. As long as our bodies have breath it is our responsibility to make the best use of this essence and develop our bodies and minds to the fullest. If we as a nation we ever aware of this fact we have forgotten it. So when I write something that seems critical of someone, it is not because I want to give my own ego a boost, it is because I feel the person is failing to live up to their responsibility to develop themselves fully and preach a message of unity and tolerance that is so desperately needed in this society.

If you are not doing that, and are instead preaching a message of divisiveness in order to aggrandize your ego, then you are living an unconscious life and are contributing nothing towards the greater good.

I am not perfect and I am not preaching. I am simply pointing out example after example of hypocrisy as it presents itself. When considered in its totality, this hypocrisy is a mass insanity that has overcome every one of us so that we have forgotten that there is a more reasonable path to take. The result of the exposure and elimination of this hypocrisy would be an America far too powerful to consider attacking and far too productive to be experiencing a downward trend in its standard of living.

This is my goal. This is my vision. I hope to find readers out there who share this vision and want to contribute to the conversation.