Really Silly Bits

I had a couple of things that I was debating in writing about for a weekend rant and some of them seemed very serious indeed.  While they may be important, I now clearly recognize that most of them are clearly in fact, quite silly.  Besides, I was having a great deal of difficulty in deciding which of them to choose, and by treating them as they deserve, I don't need to choose at all.  So here they are in no specific order.  All by the way, relate to fairly simple ma mathematical computations.

--------------

Now I may not be an economist and I've never played one on TV, but even I can figure out that the approaching Fiscal Cliff is a big deal for this country.  Since the last couple of the Bush Administration, the federal government has been pursuing the policy of a reduction of taxes and an increase in spending; and when the Obama Administration took the reins of power, they accelerated the process (at least on the spending side).  Now it doesn't take a degree in advanced mathematics to see that neither the trends for revenue generation or spending add up very well for the American people and that they never will.  

What also doesn't add up is that a bunch of people who make a very good living were sent to Washington DC to address situations exactly like this, and seem to have no interest in taking on this problem, though they've been perfectly willing to kick the can down the road before going on to talk about how important addressing it is on cable news networks.  The President is in fact pulling down $400K, the Speaker and Majority Leader earn $223K, Cabinet members are at $200K, and Senators and Congressman see $174K in annual salary.  Now normally when people get paid that much, it's because they have the ability to solve problems or steer companies away from them.  All of these high priced politicians however seem to think that solving this problem means putting off til next year, what you shouldn't have put off til tomorrow.

At the invitation of the President, Representatives of this august group met this week in the White House on Friday to talk about this very serious situation for an hour.  REALLY?  A WHOLE HOUR!  Why that's 1/4 of the time that it would take the President to play a round of golf. That's less time that it would take Speaker Boehner to fly back from Washington to his home in Ohio.  And not only did they spend less time in this doomed effort of national importance than Jerry Springer spends on the average day talking about brothers who cheat with each other's wives, but they did it late enough on a Friday so that their all but planned failure to make any real progress could come light barely in time to make it into the Friday 'take out the trash' news cycle and go all but unnoticed.

------------

 
Speaking of modern math, the next time I hear from a Democrat about big business pouring too much money into political campaigns, I'm going to (as they say in Python's 'Holy Grail'), "fart in their general direction".  Labor unions poured $400 million into the President's re-election, and still had enough money to pour hundreds of millions more in state and local initiatives.  According to the Wall Street Journal, in the case of California's Prop 32, an initiative which would have banned using automatically deducted dues for political purposes, in fact "Labor contributed about 90% of the $62 million spent to defeat Prop 32, including $21 million from the California Teacher's Association and $13 million from SEIU." 

They successfully bankrolled a school collective bargaining reform initiative in Idaho with $3.4 million, a South Dakota initiative to overturn a law installing merit pay for teachers by outspending them 5 to 1, and set aside $2 million to roll back an emergency financial manager's law in Michigan because it allowed contracts to be restructured in troubled cities like Detroit.  

So for all of you standing on your tired soapboxes complaining that the Supreme Court's 'Citizen's United' decision has handed politics over to rich white guys and major corporation, maybe you should take a closer look at who is actually giving and to what ends.  The numbers don't seem to add up.

-------------

 
Most of you not living in a cave this week are now well aware that Hostess bakeries has all but shut down and that it plans to liquidate its assets.  Most of you have likewise heard the story that the tasty snack treats this company manufactures have fallen on hard times due to the changing eating habits in this country, multiple bankruptcies, and in the fine print, a strike from their bakers union.

It's true that Hostess is going through it's second recent bankruptcy in a decade and that eating habits in this country are changing. (Though to hear politicians speak, they're getting worse; which should have been good for Hostess.)  Some are now instead trying to get the message out that the Hostess demise comes not from the way it operated, but because greedy management and private equity funds were draining it of profits.  I guess the fact that Hostess did $2.5 billion in sales, but lost $341 million last year is equally lost on anyone attempting to define the concept of profits.  Apparently a company that just lost $341 million asking its employees for pay cuts (also for the second time this decade) is likewise unreasonable under the circumstances.  

According to a Wall Street Journal article from the November 16th however, what you haven't heard is,  "The snack giant endured $52 million in workers' comp claims in 2011, according to its bankruptcy filing this January. Hostess's 372 collective-bargaining agreements required the company to maintain 80 different health and benefit plans, 40 pension plans and mandated a $31 million increase in wages and health care and other benefits for 2012."  On top of which, existing collective bargaining agreements prevented bread products (like Wonder Bread) and cake products (like Twinkies) from being delivered to the same location by the same truck, nor could the guys who loaded cake products into trucks also load bread products.  It should go without saying therefore (but won't) that the drivers of neither the cake or the bread product trucks could have anything to do with loading their own vehicles.

I should stop here and also point out that a company management that is constantly seeking bankruptcy protection is as bad as a Union constantly seeking more from a company that doesn't have it.  Teamsters had already settled, and perhaps this Union might have sought a greater stake in the company's future than a bigger piece of a pie that was long gone, but they didn't.   And for those of you who might be wondering about Hostess's biggest competitor, Little Debbie....   Well, they're actually able to offer similar products in larger portion sizes than Hostess while still managing to remain profitable.  Of course Little Debbie's is a company consisting of  non-union bakeries.

Fortunately however, the 18,500 layoffs that will be caused by this layoff and liquidation did not happen before the election, and will not therefore be counted until long after any recall ballots already have.  From the sounds of things, Hostess will probably not have much of an impact on unemployment numbers anyway, since so many firms are likewise sending people home in the wake (pun intended) of the election.

                                    

The Twinkie Is On Life Support (Updated)

Those of you not paying particular attention to financial events critical to this nation's survival may not realize that Hostess Brands Inc., makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Ho Hos, and Cupcakes is on life support today.  You were warned of course, I wrote about the potential demise of the Hostess Brands some ten months ago here; as its battles with the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Miller Union.  (Some have hinted the biggest impediment to an agreement is the aggravation caused by repeating the Unions name over and over again during negotiations.  There has been no confirmation to these rumors.)  

Now let's face it, a management group that's constantly taking the company through bankruptcy protection is a lousy one.  As badly as they've served the stockholders however, the Union however took it to the next level when went on strike last Friday.  A company so often in bankruptcy has little if anything to negotiate with.  As a consequence, Wednesday Hostess announced that it will liquidate the entire company if enough workers aren't back to work by 4 PM today. 

Now I don't know what the strike's about and I don't care.  I am however begging anyone out there who is or even knows a striking worker to go back on the line.  

MY GOD PEOPLE , WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO MORE TWINKIES HERE!

How can Americans be asked to face the impending financial crisis, the continuing lack of well-paying jobs, and the increasing pressure of the boot of government on our necks without the solace of these creme-filled, angel cake beauties?

I'm sorry ladies and gentlemen, I am simply too overwhelmed to go on.  With only hours to go on this death watch saga however, I ask you to visit your church, temple, synagogue, or mosque and pray that this purveyor of heavenly treats survives to see another sunrise.

As for me, if you are on the streets he in Mission, you undoubtedly will find me at one of my local grocery outlets, attempting to buy out their Twinkie inventory, lest the worst-case-scenario occurs.  If your efforts fail, the expiration date on Twinkies insures that I will have an ample supply, and should at least have enough to stave off the worst effects of TWS (Twinkie Withdrawal Syndrome).  I may even become a wealthy many if, as I suspect, the world abandons both fiat currency and gold, and goes on the "Twinkie Standard".  If your efforts succeed, I will undoubtedly lock the door to my apartment and binge on my inventory on what can only be considered a Biblical scale, at which point your prayers may again be required ... this time for me.

_____________

Update:

 

Hostess Brands made it official and pulled the plug as they had promised.  The company has officially filed with the Courts for formal liquidation.  This process will not only cost approximately 18,000 jobs; but also deprive the general public of one of the few government non-approved treats left in the world.  And while some of Union persuasion have been attempting to blame these job losses on management, it should be remembered that this same management will likewise be losing their jobs, even though they never went on strike.

While we must truly say "Requiescat In Pace" to the Hostess Brands (at least for now), this is not yet the death of the Twinkie, since their 20-year shelf life means that for those of us who recently began to hoard them, there are years of creme-filled pleasure to look forward to.  And as the Financial Cliff of 2013 occurs, there many of us out here who may yet survive the financial holocaust as the price of silver, gold, and even diamonds plummet in favor of the "Twinkie Standard" of economic exchange.

And so let me say in closing that, "We come not to bury Twinkies, but to praise them (and maybe snack on a few)."

 

                                             

Presidential Debate Zingers

(Anyone expecting serious political analysis in what follows will find themselves disappointed at best.)  

Well we're only one day away from what the media has been hyping as the most momentous political event of this year's presidential election (at least so far).  It's not that I don't understand how the media has lost all sense, other than their own sense of self-importance, can believe that watching two politicians dodging direct answers to often set up questions in front of cameras is in any way unusual, let alone consequential (at least in a sarcastic way).  After all, there are going to be three more debates for presidential candidates, and one for their running mates.  Of course, such contestation will be on every regular and all the news networks, giving it some significance; but given that many will choose to ignore such posturing, they might also want to consider the importance of the day when the nation's electorate actually gets to cast ballots (unless of course, you think that some of them will be similarly be voting four times) as a day of equal or greater importance.

I've examined the records of these two debate participants (part of the job), noting in passing that this first face-off will be heard in the Rocky Mountain state, and have come to the conclusion that this one may well be shaping up to be as exciting as a singing contest between Coloradans John Denver vs Dan Fogelberg.  Both have delivered some outstanding efforts in the past (Denver and Fogelberg, not Obama and Romney), but neither seems likely to produce an outstanding performance this week, having achieved room temperature some years back (pick your pair here).

The incumbent President's talking heads are already saying that it's likely that Romney will likely win this first debate, citing his experience in recent full contact efforts in the Republican primaries.  This seems somewhat strange, considering in how little esteem they hold any Republicans.  When you add that these same people believe that their candidate is the smartest person on the planet and therefore one who finds such mundane duties as security briefings and meetings with foreign leaders as unnecessary, such pronouncements seem rather incongruous.  There's also something almost tawdry in setting the nation's expectations about your candidate's ability to lead so high, and his ability to defend the way he's done so the last four years so low.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's opponent has shown himself over the last two election cycles as a true 'plain Jane, white bread' Republican, often full of retread ideas; coming off as dull as only a politician can, and as compelling as an allergy commercial.  Being a mainstream Republican, one must also keep in mind his party's latent ability to as the WSJ's Stephen Moore has said, "never to pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity", refusing to recognize or take advantage when their opponents expose a policy weakness in a very public way.  

Failure to allow any other serious candidates into the debate since the Ross Perot debacle now means that there's something to be said for the idea that both the media and the two major political parties have turned presidential dialectics into a 'Last Comic Standing' event.  There's compelling evidence to make one think they've succeeded so well, that it's now little more than two clowns doing extended stand-up tours full of their best 'one liners'.  There are those who go even further to say that the tragic humor in this process is that there's far less difference between the party platforms (routines) than they'd like us to believe; much like there's far less difference in the speed at which they're driving the nation off of the 'Thelma and Louise' cliff approaching.

Unfortunately, it's the very media that has been hyping the upcoming contest as critical to deciding who the next leader of this nation is (close elections make good television), that will immediately be casting aside 90% of what's said after the debate is over.  They will instead make a big deal out of a couple of the 'Zingers' delivered by one candidate or another.   The President himself in a recent speech in Las Vegas reinforced this point, hinting that his opponent might even have a 'Zinger advantage'.  

(For those who may not know, a 'Zinger' is a term used to describe a witty remark.  Real Zingers however are cake treats with creme filling, shipped to stores under both the Hostess and Dolly Madison brands, though both are owned by the same Interstate Bakeries.  Neither of the tastier versions unfortunately, will be delivered by either candidate at the debate venue.)         

Based on the writing skills available to current politicians, it seems likely that a memorable line or two might come out of these debates.  Unfortunately, it's equally likely that little else will be remembered from each night's event.  Regardless of political persuasion, these lines will be played ad nauseum on the news, and used in paid political ads as well.  Most are occasionally clever, seldom truly memorable, and usually of far more concern to the media repeating them than to voters who they expect to judge candidates by them.

Without being able to predict the winner of the first debate, let alone the four that follow (including that of the VP's), and without being able to anticipate the eventual victor in election itself; there is one conclusion that I have already been able to come to regarding the entire debate process and its Zingers however:  

I always liked Twinkies better anyway.

   

JBS Alert: Starvation Potential or Investment Opportunity

While many of you out there have been idling away your time in fruitless pursuits (no not watch reruns of American Idol or new episodes of Glee, but watching the debates or voting in the Republican primaries) the staff at 'Just Blowing Smoke' have been tirelessly keeping their eyes open for the next potentially world-changing story.  Kept locked in the JBS research center for hours on end on a diet of Cheetos and Mountain Dew, it's probably not surprising that these labors eventually bore a tasty result. 


So for those of you who missed the announcement in the business news earlier this week, I can and should now inform you that on Wednesday Hostess brands filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.  The victim of an increasing antagonism to its products, Hostess is but the latest corporation to fall victim to bad press and the nefarious plots of an evil consortium of yogurt and granola producers.  For those who because of recent fever or long-term stupidity still haven't quite understood the implications here, let me say this as plainly as I can.  This means NO MORE TWINKIES!  


Long attacked for unsubstantiated charges of large-scale population poisoning, Hostess was long seen has having evil design bent on shortening human lifespans through the sale and consumption of unhealthy snacks (Frito Lay has faced similar dubious charges over its products).  The truth however, is that the makers of the Twinkie were merely serving the public dietary need for Calcium and Sodium Caseinate, Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60 and Stearoyl Lactylate (and of course yellow #5 and Red #40 dye). 


The implications of the potential demise of this 87-year old, privately-held baked goods organization however, are truly staggering when fully considered. Laugh if you will my friends, but these little sponge cake beauties contain three of the major food groups:  sugar, cake, and chemically produced, non-dairy cream filling.  Dip them in chocolate and wrap them in bacon before deep frying them, and you will have surpassed your daily dietary requirements for all the foods that make life worth living. 


Hostess however, is apparently yet the latest in a series of US corporations about to fall prey to its poorly negotiated union contracts over the years.  Long grown fat and happy (pun intended) as the 'snack bubble' grew, Hostess chose to mostly ignore the warning signs of a trend towards healthier eating habits.  With that bubble now apparently burst and burdened under contracts with the Teamsters that provide lavish health and pension benefits, it's in fact Hostess's health and future that are in jeopardy. 


Little is know of the dim beginnings of the dysfunctional relationship between Hostess and its Unions.  It's rumored however, that some of the names of others of their most famous products came as a result of their negotiations.  'Ding Dongs' is rumored to have come from the name Teamster negotiators used in describing their corporate counterparts for many years.  'Ho Hos' is likewise said to have come from a comment made by one of the Teamsters sitting at the table when asked by a reporter how their negotiations of their most recent contract were going.  (There was a parallel rumor that this term described the way that Union negotiators treated management over the years, but this 'blue version' cannot be corroborated.)  Few are apparently laughing however, when viewing the implications of a temporary, let alone a permanent Hostess shut down.


Of course there are potential immediate health risks involved to the general public, as those suffering from gastronomic addiction attempt to overcome TWS (Twinkie Withdrawal Symptoms).  There is likewise considerable concern that without Twinkies, long seen as a 'gateway snack', users will eventually turn to more debilitating confections like strawberry shortcake, chocolate mousse, or banana pudding; and eventually suffer addiction to those most dangerous of substitutes ... cheesecake, turtle pie, and creme brulee. 


While certainly some of us may survive for a limited period of time if the maker of Ho Hos and Ding Dongs goes belly up (metaphorically speaking of course, as a steady diet of these bad boys permits no other position), the fact we are looking at the demise of the Twinkie (even to those who have stockpiled them) is perhaps yet another sign that Armageddon may in fact be in sight.


I don't know about you my friends, but it's my intention to make stops at all of my regular grocery and snack outlets to obtain as many of these pastry delights as I can lay my hands on this weekend.  I do this not only in a show of solidarity with my Hostess brothers and sisters, but in the hopes of putting as many Twinkies into storage as my one bedroom apartment allows (I'm even considering renting a storage area).
  
Laugh if you will, but it's my guess that in the years ahead (Twinkies have in fact proved in government funded studies to have a half-life equivalent to that of Uranium-235), that this stockpile may in fact serve me very well indeed as a retirement investment. Real estate prices (as we have recently seen) may rise and fall, currencies may likewise command respect and be heaped with scorn, even the price of gold and silver may rise and fall over time; but the value of the Twinkie when none can be found on the shelves (like the efficacy of the pastry itself) will live forever. The Twinkie standard of exchange may not be one currently accepted on the world markets, but many of you will rue the day that you failed to join me in the purchase of what will become the first truly edible form of exchange.