Up One Level TEDlines TEDitorial TZ (Tips by Zeck)



Letters to TEDitor IF IT BLEEDS... SPAM!






By Ann Coulter Wed Jul 19, 8:04 PM ET

I knew the events in the Middle East were big when The New York Times devoted nearly as much space to them as it did to a New York court ruling last week rejecting gay marriage.

Some have argued that Israel's response is disproportionate, which is actually correct: It wasn't nearly strong enough. I know this because there are parts of South Lebanon still standing.

Most Americans have been glued to their TV sets, transfixed by Israel's show of power, wondering, "Gee, why can't we do that?"

Democratic National Committee
Chairman Howard Dean says that "what's going on in the Middle East today" wouldn't be happening if the Democrats were in power. Yes, if the Democrats were running things, our cities would be ash heaps and the state of Israel would have been wiped off the map by now.

But according to Dean, the Democrats would have the "moral authority that Bill Clinton had" -- no wait! keep reading -- "when he brought together the Israelis and Palestinians." Clinton really brokered a Peace in Our Time with that deal -- "our time" being a reference to that five-minute span during which he announced it.

Yasser Arafat immediately backed out on all his promises and launched the second intifada.

The fact that Israel is able to launch an attack on Hezbollah today without instantly inciting a multination conflagration in the Middle East is proof of what Bush has accomplished. He has begun to create a moderate block of Arab leaders who are apparently not interested in becoming the next Saddam Hussein.

There's been no stock market crash, showing that the markets have confidence that Israel will deal appropriately with the problem and that it won't expand into World War III.

But liberals can never abandon the idea that we must soothe savage beasts with appeasement -- whether they're dealing with murderers like Willie Horton or Islamic terrorists. Then the beast eats you.

There are only two choices with savages: Fight or run. Democrats always want to run, but they dress it up in meaningless catchphrases like "diplomacy," "detente," "engagement," "multilateral engagement," "multilateral diplomacy," "containment" and "going to the U.N."

I guess they figure, "Hey, appeasement worked pretty well with ... uh ... wait, I know this one ... ummm ... tip of my tongue ..."

Democrats like to talk tough, but you can never trap them into fighting. There is always an obscure objection to be raised in this particular instance -- but in some future war they would be intrepid! One simply can't imagine what that war would be.

Democrats have never found a fight they couldn't run from.

On "Meet the Press" last month, Sen. Joe Biden was asked whether he would support military action against Iran if the Iranians were to go "full-speed-ahead with their program to build a nuclear bomb."

No, of course not. There is, Biden said, "no imminent threat at this point."

According to the Democrats, we can't attack Iran until we have signed affidavits establishing that it has nuclear weapons, but we also can't attack North Korea because it may already have nuclear weapons. The pattern that seems to be emerging is: "Don't ever attack anyone, ever, for any reason. Ever."

The Democrats are in a snit about North Korea having nukes, with Howard Dean saying Democrats are tougher on defense than the Republicans because since Bush has been president, North Korea has "quadrupled their nuclear weapons stash."

It wasn't that difficult. Clinton gave the North Koreans $4 billion to construct nuclear reactors in return for the savages promising not to use the reactors to build bombs. But oddly, despite this masterful triumph of "diplomacy," the savages did not respond with good behavior. Instead, they immediately set to work feverishly building nuclear weapons.

But that's another threat the Democrats do not think is yet ripe for action.

On "Meet the Press" last Sunday, Sen. Biden lightly dismissed the North Koreans, saying their "government's like an eighth-grader with a small bomb looking for attention" and that we "don't even have the intelligence community saying they're certain they have a nuclear weapon."

Is that the test? We need to have absolute certainty that the North Koreans have a nuclear weapon capable of hitting California with Kim Jong Il making a solemn promise to bomb the U.S. (and really giving us his word this time, no funny business) before we -- we what? If they have a nuclear weapon, what do we do then? Is a worldwide thermonuclear war the one war Democrats would finally be willing to fight?

Democrats won't acknowledge the existence of "an imminent threat" anyplace in the world until a nuclear missile is 12 minutes from New York. And then we'll never have the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" because we'll all be dead.

Don't try to tell Max Paredes, an engineer in Rogers, Ark., that gas prices aren't that high.

"I used to pick up my kids from football. Now they need to get rides from other people," he said.

But, DO tell Max Paredes that he's a cheapskate, a crybaby and a complete idiot.

(D) Wisconsin

You must be joking.

Guest TEDitorial


for the
YARDI manual writer:

The term for the little dot-in-circle selector is

Brought to you by

The Left Blamed Bush For Job Losses.
Will They Give Him Any Credit Now?

The Labor Department reported Thursday that applications for unemployment benefits dropped by 35,000 to 291,000, the smallest number since Sept. 23, 2000, when the economy was in the concluding months of the longest economic expansion in history.

How Many Guesses Do You Need?

"The REAL Tragedy"
is the misinformation
that 12 miners survived?




Expresshole:  a shopper at a supermarket/ store that checks out at the express line when they clearly have more items than the maximum. this makes everyone behind them wait.  "Look at this expresshole!  He has 20 items when you can only have 5 on this line!"

Bad News is Bad News
Good News is Bad News

I can understand the market's reaction to a drops in consumer confidence, new home sales and durable goods orders but, when it's all good, traders still seem to find a way to look at the hay in a gift horse's mouth and only see manure!

A trifecta of better than expected economic data bolstered early buying efforts; however, such strong growth also raised concern about further Fed rate hikes, closing the indices near session lows. Consumer confidence climbed to 98.9, the most in more than two years, from 85.2, the lowest level since Oct. 2003. Such upbeat sentiment was also echoed after Oct. new home sales unexpectedly rose 13% to a record 1.42 million units (consensus 1.20 million). Further, Oct. durable goods orders rebounded, rising 3.4% after falling 2.0% a month earlier, reflecting strong business investment -- a major factor that has kept GDP growth above long-term trends for two years. Nevertheless, while such data boosted stocks at the open, helping investors reclaim some of yesterday's broad-based consolidation following seven consecutive up-ticks for the S&P 500, bond traders thought the data was perhaps a little too strong.

DOW -$2.56 and NASDAQ -$6.66

My FLYING DAY$ Are Numbered

Latest inflight fee: $2 for a pillow

The fee frenzy at many big U.S. airlines is increasing: as of this month, a pillow on most Air Canada flights costs you $2. And a seat in the exit row (with more leg room) on most United flights now has a price tag of between $24 and $99, unless you're an elite-level frequent flier.

Continental:  is there an extra charge for the long brown hair I found on my pillow last flight?

Florida "Fixes" Voting

Dade County Registrar of Elections, Emma Fink (D) monitors new voting terminals.

This Just In: Customers Hate Their Software Vendors

By Joshua Greenbaum Sat Oct 1, 5:00 AM ET

Being the pack rat that I am, my digital archive is replete with the old, the outdated and the obsolete. But every once in a while there's something truly worth a second look, as in the old survey of Oracle applications customers I unearthed recently. The report, dated January 2002, was written by none other than Charles Philips, once the dean of enterprise software analysts and now the Duke of Oracle. In it, Charles offers the following observation on behalf of Oracle's customers: "Customers need to see the love—now."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

To be fair, Oracle customers aren't the only ones who need to see the love. You can find the disgruntled, the annoyed, the furious and the beleaguered in every vendors' customer base. In fact, love is one hell of a scarce commodity in the world of enterprise software. It's hard to survey a customer base and find anything even remotely approaching universal love. In fact, customers often hate their software vendors more than they love them. Surprised? Then you just haven't been listening hard enough.

How do customers hate thee, o software vendor? Let me count the ways:

The software is too expensive. This isn't just about being cheap, it's also about perceived value. Vendors and customers are both guilty of not working hard enough on understanding the value of software, and in designing and implementing toward that goal. And many customers feel trapped by the do-or-die aspect to owning expensive enterprise software: damned to expensive maintenance and upgrades if you do, noncompetitive (and out of business) if you don't. The result is the same loathing reserved for oil companies, mass transit providers and other monopolists. Hate and desperate need often go hand in hand.

Of course, to be fair to vendors, all customers secretly wish their enterprise software were free. Greed is all too often a two-way street.

The last implementation was a total disaster. Of course, it was the implementer's fault, but let's not cloud the issue with facts. Anyway, it really is the vendor's responsibility to make sure that its partners are doing a good job. Being an enterprise software vendor means having to sell against the sins of the past every day. And the past was pretty sinful—software was expensive and hard to implement. And often still is.

Service and support suck. That's putting it mildly. I spent a couple of weeks talking to customers about their ERP vendors' service and support, and there weren't a lot of kind words. Of course, the corollary to "the customer wants the software for free" is that the service should be intuitive, proactive, instantaneous and, by the way, free. And never necessary. I guess it doesn't hurt to dream.

Upgrades are expensive and too frequent. Another legitimate beef: Keeping up with vendor upgrade cycles can be like breeding mice. Before you've even begun to wean the latest litter, mommy is in the family way again. Sound familiar? Maybe in this case a little less frequency might be a good thing.

TCO and ROI numbers are misleading. You know what the number-one gripe of Hummer owners was in a recent J.D. Powers survey? Gas mileage. Even the king of the gas guzzlers posts misleading miles-per-gallon figures. Same thing with software: Even the best-intentioned vendors have trouble providing real TCO and ROI numbers.

So what's the vendor and the customer to do about all this dysfunction? If this were a marriage, we would all be in therapy or divorce court. If this were the United Nations, all of us would be at war. It's sad that two groups—users and vendors—can be so intertwined and yet so far apart. A lot of this problem starts with the adversarial nature of the sales and contracting process, and it goes downhill from there. At a minimum, that problem needs to be fixed—now.

How about making the contract free of gotchas and tricky language, basing the salesperson's compensation more on satisfaction than total license cost and keeping marketing hyperbole from getting in the way of the truth? Maybe love is too strong a term, but how about some respect, a little honesty and an understanding of the power of mutual self-interest? Why can't vendors and customers just get along?

Joshua Greenbaum is a principal at Enterprise Applications Consulting and has been covering the software industry for more than 20 years. Write to him at


FOOL is right! And, I quote: "Finally, one little approach I'm taking is to buy gas frequently. Since the price seems to be going nowhere but up for the foreseeable future (though I hope I'm wrong, of course), when my tank is down a quarter, I fill it up. I figure I'm probably saving a little money, because if it costs me $2.65 per gallon to buy four gallons today, it might cost me $2.80 to buy those same four gallons in a week or two."

You mean you would waste 10 minutes to save 60 cents? Even if it took but FIVE minutes, that means your time is worth $7.20 per hour. You must be very familiar with the question, "Do you want fries with that?", because you must say it all day long. Jeesh!


The Best of Demotivators
from my Special Edition 2005 Calendar

If a pretty poster and a cute saying are all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job.
The kind (that) robots will be doing soon.

It's always darkest just before it goes pitch black.

Hard work often pays off over time, but laziness always pays off now.

There are no stupid questions, but there are a LOT of inquisitive idiots.

The journey of a thousand miles sometimes ends very, very badly.

If you're not a part of the solution, there's good money to be made in prolonging the problem.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

The downside of being better than everyone else is that people tend to assume you're pretentious.

You can do anything you set your mind to when you have vision,
determination and an endless supply of expendable labor.


None of us is as dumb as all of us.

Sometimes the best solution to morale problems is just to fire all the unhappy people.

From Wisconsin State Journal:
"Great letter, but we need your address and phone number for verification purposes. Thank you!"

Not just for the rich and famous

Mr. Beiswanger of Madison opined last week that, “Only people making well above average income have the money available to put in a health savings account.”  Sir, that’s a Hyundai, not a Hummer, sitting in my driveway. 

When my UW-PP HMO monthly premium went from $238 to $285 on January 1, 2004, I reluctantly accepted the ridiculous, but predictable, 20% annual increase.  But when it was scheduled to rise to $450 on May 1, 2004 – the first month following my 50th birthday – I knew there had to be a better way.  That better way is a high-deductible health insurance policy piggy-backed with a Health Savings Account.  Instead of use-it-or-lose-it HMO premiums totaling $5,400 per year, I now pay less than $2,000 per year for a $2,600 deductible policy AND $2,600 INTO A 4% INTEREST-BEARING HSA!  Let’s check the math:  $800 less out of pocket and up to $2,600 (plus compounded interest) left in MY account.  I can see that this is going to require a second mortgage on my condo. 

I figure that once I get past my first year without tapping the account, I’ll be perpetually “deductible-proof.”  And what I never need to spend on deductible medical expenses will available for retirement, burial expenses and to pass on to heirs.

In a Bush-coined “ownership society,” the citizen-consumer has choices.  And choices have outcomes, both for the individual and the society as a whole.  When an individual has an unambiguous stake in outcomes, the individual may make far different (hopefully wiser) choices than if there was no personal cost/benefit relationship.  Choosing to take better care of oneself and choosing NOT to see a physician every time one sneezes, might be “selfish” choices to avoid paying deductibles.  However, in the long run, these choices may result in a greater good for society in reducing the burden of trivial (nuisance) cases for heath care providers, health insurance carriers and, with any luck, the courts. 

And maybe, just maybe, such selfishness on a global scale may start a snowball effect to lower healthcare costs and health insurance premiums.  Maintaining our $10 co-pay, $0 deductible, cradle-to-grave mentality, on the other hand, won’t give that possibility even a snowball’s chance. 

Ted Zeck, CPA

So, what DOES consulting COST (anywhere else)?

MySQL Makes Database Consulting Easy & Affordable

MySQL Architecture & Design -- 2 days for US $5,000 or EUR 4,000

In this two-day engagement, a dedicated, on-site MySQL certified consultant will work closely with a client's IT team to review application plans and provide an analysis of how to architect their database for current and future needs. This will accelerate the development process by ensuring the application is architected correctly - and minimize re-architecture if business requirements change over time.

MySQL Performance Tuning & Optimization -- 3 days for US $7,500 or EUR 6,000

In this three-day engagement, a MySQL consultant will help clients to pinpoint and improve performance bottlenecks, while explaining and implementing critical architecture and tuning optimizations. While typical performance improvements range from 50 to 100 percent, customized tuning may result in even higher increases, often reducing the need for expensive hardware upgrades.

MySQL Migration Jumpstart -- 5 days for US $10,000 or EUR 8,000

In this five-day engagement, MySQL will help clients plan and start executing the migration of their applications to MySQL from Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft SQL Server, DB2, Informix, and other proprietary databases. The veteran MySQL consulting team will use their experience with these databases to transfer knowledge and skills to the client project team -- reducing time and budget costs, while minimizing project risk through better assessment of migration efforts and project scope.

You have to buy the $10,000 package to get beyond the planning stage!!!


Quote of the Moment

Paul Hornung
NFL Hall of Famer

When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.


I was having lunch with one of my favorite clients last week and the conversation turned to the government's recent round of tax cuts.  "I'm opposed to those tax cuts," the public housing property manager declared, "because they benefit the rich.  The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and me and that's not fair."

"But the rich pay more in the first place," I argued, "so it stands to reason that they'd get more money back."   I could tell that my client was unimpressed by this irrefutable logic.  Even some FOR-PROFIT property managers are a prisoner of the myth that the "rich" somehow get a free ride.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that everyday ten men go to dinner.  The bill for all ten comes to $100.  If it were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18.  The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner threw them a curve.  "Since you are all such good customers, he said, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."  Now dinner for the ten only costs $80.

The first four are unaffected.  They still eat for free.  Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.  And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59.  (Note that the percentage cut for the tenth man is significantly less than that of the others!)

Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out the $20," declared the sixth man pointing to the tenth, "and he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man.  I only saved a dollar, too.  It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!

"That's true," shouted the seventh man.  "Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?  The wealthy get all the breaks."

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.  "We didn't get anything at all.  The system exploits the poor."

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important.  They were $52 short!  (You might argue that the nine are only $44 short, because the bill might be $8 less...but then, when, if ever, has the federal government cut the budget by 10%?)

And that, boys and girls and property managers, is how the tax system works.  The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.  Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.  There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.


Don't ask for help if that help is to figure
out a way to do something incorrectly!

And then, don't bite my head off because you think I'm forcing you to do something MY way.
It's not MY fault if MY way is the right way and your accounting firm employs complete idiots.

I was already doing multi-state consolidated financial statements and income tax returns
when that genius in the three-piece suit with the fancy briefcase was still in DAY CARE!

Brought to you by

OWNER 1099s?

Not from my YARDI!

I know it's offered in YARDI in
Report>Owner>Owner 1099...
probably by uninformed popular demand.

But, will someone please tell me...
why would an owner get a 1099
from a property management company?

For rent?
No; tenants, not the PM, pay rent.

For the "bottom line?"
No; have you tied out every number?

For owner draws?
No; draws are not taxable income.

What would I give owners?
Trial Balance
General Ledger
Bank Account Reconciliations
Bank Account Statements
Loan Account Statements
and other reports and documents as available

What should be done with these?

A COMPETENT accounting/tax professional should tie out every Balance Sheet balance in order to prove the Income Statement.  This includes, but is not limited to, cash, prepaid expenses, accounts receivable, accounts payable and prepayments (these four on accrual basis only), fixed (land, buildings, equipment, etc.) and intangible assets, related accumulated depreciation and amortization, mortgage and other loan balances, owner contributions and draws and any other Balance Sheet items that can be quantified.  After any necessary adjustments to the Balance Sheet and/or through the Income Statement, income and expenses are input on the appropriate tax return:

Individual - Form 1040
Partnership - Form 1065
S Corporation - Form 1120S
C Corporation - Form 1120
LLCs, etc. - as formed for tax purposes

For most entities other than Individual, a Schedule K-1 is provided to the partner, shareholder or member who in turn uses the K-1 figures on their own Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040.

Note:  this generalization is not offered as tax advice.
You should always consult your own PAID tax professional.