Roll Your Own Matrix, Part 2
If my last post bored you, there is no hope for you. I dare say that you should be voting Democrat as you will be living off welfare checks for the rest of your life by ignoring my advice.
If my last post intrigued you, and you said “hey, why don’t I learn a little programming, as a hobby of sorts” – this post is for you.
Let me again sell the merits of VBA, from a coding perspective.
- You can “program” with no code at all, or use the Macro Recorder as a testing tool. If you want to do something but don’t know how to code it, use the Macro Recorder to do it first. Or, if you just don’t want to take the time to code, you can use the Macro Recorder for that.
- VBA was designed as a teaching language. It’s called “BASIC” for a reason. It’s so easy a caveman can do it, metaphorically speaking.
- The same syntax is used for every Office application. Word, Excel, Outlook, PowerPoint, Access, Visio, etc., etc. all use VBA in its standard form. Obviously, certain programming “objects” are different depending on the program (Excel deals with cells while Word uses paragraphs), but the style remains consistent.
- Intellisense. Like predictive text for your phone, the VB Editor attempts to divine what you’re trying to do. You don’t have to remember a specific object or property – the Editor will attempt to help you through that. Crucial for those who don’t want to have print-outs of programming vocabulary.
- VBA scripts can be automated or called on demand. Say, for instance, that I want a specific format to be applied to a word. Let’s say that every time I type “government,” I want it highlighted in red and black with devil ears on the side. I can have the program do that formatting every time it sees “government,” or I can have that program called at the press of a button. Your call.
If you’re looking to start with VBA for Word, look here for more.
If you’re looking to start with VBA for Excel, look here for more.
If you’re looking to start with VBA for Outlook, look here for more.
If you’re looking to start with PowerPoint or Access, don’t. While they work just the same, PPT and Access are not as easy to code given their nature. Word, Excel or Outlook would be better for first attempts.
Enjoy…
Donning the Red Cap of Liberty
Today, le quatorze Juillet, the French celebrate their independence from the tyrannical rule of King Louis XVI who, by the time of the end of his reign, had totally destroyed the glory days of Louis XIV, the Sun King. Today, Americans should bite their tongues and express gratitude for the sacrifices the French made in the late 18th century to help turn the tide against the British in our own Revolutionary War – sacrifices that sunk France into such a debt as to cause revolution there too.

"Aux armes!" (French for "To arms!")
On July 14, 1789, French revolutionists, identifiable by their red head coverings – also known as the red cap of liberty – stormed the Bastille prison, freeing all 7 of its prisoners. This seems silly, but storming the Bastille Prison would be akin to, say, toppling the IRS headquarters on Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC – at night, when 7 janitors were emptying wastepaper baskets.
Okay, okay – stop laughing and be serious: it was a symbolic strike against tyrannical power in Paris. The toppling of the prison paved the way for the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a political/legal and philosophical/metaphysical document that established first principles for man’s freedom, equality, and duty to others (liberté, égalité, fraternité).
Washington correspondent for Agence France-Presse (AFP) Olivier Knox (@OKnox on Twitter, and one among 50 journalists that Craft Media/Digital recommends following) passes along this clip from the American film Casablanca – a stirring rendition of La Marseillaise (the French national anthem), sung in Rick’s café to drown out the Nazis singing the Reich’s anthem:
Incidentally, this is one of only two films in history that showcases La Marseillaise in its entirety – I have blogged previously about the other film in which it appears.
Americans and Brits alike love to joke often about the French. We think they’re stuffy and snotty about their food (and ours), and unappreciative of the sacrifices we made on their behalf in World War II. And let’s face it – a lot of that stuff is frickin’ hilarious:
But today – Bastille Day – we shouldn’t laugh off the causes of personal liberty and economic freedom. Culturally, the French behave to each other’s faces the way Americans behave in the political blogosphere (read: often behind a veil of anonymity or geospatial distance – kind of makes us seem a bit cowardly in our political discourse) – and despite their hostile disagreements, they are still, at the end of the day, proud to be French and proud to be free. Today, we should all don the red cap of liberty, and celebrate the independence of our quirky cousins, the French.
Conservatives, Libertarians, and Purity Tests: Can These Groups Win Without Each Other?
After running across this piece in the Economist today, I was reminded of that timeless adage “You’ll attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.” That’s a woefully good reminder for the Right as Election Day draws nearer.
Plenty of noise has been made in the past few weeks about the abrupt resignation/firing of Dave Weigel from the Washington Post blog “Right Now.” I have been a defender of Weigel’s, in large part because I think people’s expectations of Weigel were too high – and that’s not to disparage Weigel at all, whose work I have followed for a couple of years. The problem was, in my view, that lots of activists expected him to counter Ezra Klein’s “Wonk Book” with an editorial style, using his platform at the Post to propel the Tea Party to the revery where so many believed it belonged. Another part of the problem is that, as Dan Gainor at the Media Research Center notes, the Post was never clear about why it had hired Weigel in the first place. Reporting? Check. Opinion? Maybe? I still think Weigel does a good job of reporting, and if he’s guilty of anything, it’s a preoccupation with man-bites-dog narratives. Aside from all that, I don’t have much to add to the gallons of punditry sloshing around the Internet about Weigel-gate.
The reason I bring Weigel’s short-lived stint at the Post back up for discussion is that the reaction from the activist community to Weigel’s resignation – particularly on Twitter – was pretty vicious, with lots of “Good riddance” and “we told you so.” Then came the announcement that Weigel would be a paid MSNBC contributor on Countdown with Keith Olbermann – and activists were once again a-Twitter with disgust. Thankfully there was an equivalent outpouring of support for Weigel. I disagree with Keith Olbermann frequently, particularly when it comes to his sneering punditry and progressive worldview. I appreciate that he was the first (and for a long time only) mainstream media personality to cover the devastating flooding in my hometown of Nashville earlier this year, and he and I share in New York Yankees fan-dom. But why the Weigel witch-hunt on the Right?
And then it hit me: the Right and center-right are still obsessed with (plagued by?) litmus tests that, unchecked, can be impossible to pass. And not normal litmus tests either – sure, nobody wants to see another John McCain presidential campaign – I mean the conservative base is so energized right now that it has become bloodthirsty, and it’s beginning to feed on itself. Long-time allies to conservatives – the libertarians – have begun to take notice.
I urge everyone to check out this written exchange between Cato Institute’s Brink Lindsey, AEI/National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, and FreedomWorks’ Matt Kibbe, a debate on where libertarians belong on the 21st century ideological spectrum, and how they can, should, and might play in the activist/political component of the Tea Party movement. Romantic libertarians like yours truly hope wistfully one day to inform a more rigorous social policy agenda – one that actually gets government out of people’s lives, including their marriages and sex lives – to complement existing tenets of economic freedom upon which, for the most part, everyone right-of-center seems to reaching consensus. But because of these purity tests, many libertarians worry that the emergence of centrist rhetoric at Tea Party rallies is nothing more than a ruse to grab handfuls of votes on Election Day 2010 and 2012, and then Big Government conservatism does us all in – again.

Remember: if the base were 100% correct, they'd be in power, and would never have to relinquish that power because they'd always be right.
I am sympathetic to Brink Lindsey’s point in this respect. Libertarians – who often sacrifice opportunities to “get involved” in lieu of safeguarding transcendent philosophical values for the sake of practical virtue – should not compromise their core beliefs just because Sarah Palin said we need less government and more personal responsibility. But I also think Matt Kibbe makes great points – the Tea Party movement is as fascinating a paradigm shift in American politics as I will likely ever see in my lifetime. It has unbundled the Left almost completely, who has tried to use every tool at its disposal – from race-baiting in formal media outlets to unscientific opinion polling – to couch the Tea Party movement as garden-variety Republican, and quintessentially racist, xenophobic, and homophobic. Kibbe insists that many Tea Partiers don’t know where to place themselves on an ideological scale, and notes that many have never been involved in political discourse before now. This groundswell provides libertarians with that romantic opportunity to inform the policy debate – especially issues like gay marriage, which Tea Party groups support, and like Kibbe, I think it’s hasty to accept Lindsey’s premise with open arms. So Lindsey’s libertarian protectionism can be just as dangerous and self-defeating as the Gainor conservative witch-hunts.
The Tea Party movement is still today very fragile, despite the noise the movement has made and the support it has drummed up. If libertarians and conservatives can agree about anything, it’s opposition to power-drunk Democrats; it’s probably best that everyone focus on that for now, instead of running rampant and reckless with purity tests – and when Republicans win, it will be up to them to follow through on promises they’re making to people getting involved for the first time. Those people don’t know where they lie on the ideological spectrum, but they know that the government is screwing them.
Cross-posted at TheNextRight.com.
Roll Your Own Matrix
From time to time, it amuses me to extend my prophecies from the general “state of affairs” sort of postings to a style that might be known as “wisdom from the mountains.” I find myself in such an evening tonight.
Below, in referencing the sage analysis of Mr. Rajan, I mused that education will continue to have a disproportionate effect on the job prospects of many Americans as we continue to drift toward a service economy. I believe that many service workers will benefit from having programming knowledge of any sort. My reasons are as follows:
- We are increasingly a computer-based economy. Few (to no) offices are computer-less, and most tasks that were done manually are now keyed into a computer. You know all this, so let’s move on.
- Programming demonstrates a control over a computer far beyond that of the average employee. If you and I have equal communication skills, are equally well-liked by our co-workers, have comparable intelligence but I can control my work tool better, who has a stronger set of skills? It’s the difference between using a hammer or using a nail gun, if we have an equal knowledge of architecture.
- Programming might just get you out of having to go into the office. Let us say that you demonstrate epic productivity in the office, via well-executed programming skills. Who is better positioned to apply to work from home – you, or your co-worker who always looks like he’s struggling to stay afloat? You, of course. Which leads me to my next point..
- Programming can help you eliminate stress. Let us say that you periodically receive an email with invoices from a supplier. And let us say that you always have to save these invoices to a certain folder before processing. What if you could program your email application to just pull the attachments out and save them without you having to deal with it? Wouldn’t that save you, say, 15 seconds an email? If you’re getting 40 of those a week, every week – that’s a lot of seconds saved. Clearly, you can come up with your own ideas here.
The typical stigma is that someone who knows how to program must be a special kind of computer geek who prefers to sit in a lab and not talk to anyone all day. Yet, everyone respects said computer geek because he churns out a fine product and makes all the stuff work around the office. THEREFORE, if you could combine his skill-set with your innate ability to win friends and influence people – well then, you have won yourself a promotion.
“But Prophet!” say thee. “How would I learn to program? I cannot go back to school right now and I don’t have time after work to learn this myself.”
“FEAR NOT,” say I. “Learn VBA instead.”
VBA is a programming language built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook – the entire Office suite. This language can only be fully utilized by individuals running Windows and MS Office – which I imagine is most of your corporate lives. For the rest of you, sorry. You can learn something else.
VBA stands for “Visual BASIC for Applications.” It was initially designed as a training language for new programmers, but has since been fully integrated into Office as a customization tool. Allow me to get you started..
- Open Word or Excel. Type a phrase for some dummy text. Then find your “Macro Editor,” which will be in a different place if you’re using Office 2003 or 2007.
- Click Record Macro. Then, do something to the text. Highlight it, bold it, delete it. Go crazy. Then Stop Recording.
- Make some more dummy text. Then go to Macros, and run your Macro. BAM. It will repeat the exact same stuff you just recorded, automatically. “HOLY CRAP,” you say. “I JUST PROGRAMMED.”
- Then you say “wait, Prophet. I thought programming was all codes and variables and suchlike.” Well, you see, it is. Microsoft just created the code for you.
- Hit Alt+F11 on your keyboard, and the VBA Editor will pop up. Then you shall see your mystical “code.” Voila. You have programme.
Granted, these are only the most basic (pun?) examples. Office allows you to create those little automated fragments of code, but you can get into much greater detail if you learn the language. This is an area where I, being a generous man, will gladly start you off on the path. If you wish for further direction in these matters, say it in the comments.
Who knows? Maybe one day, your job will depend on it.
Where Do Libertarians Belong?
That’s the subject of this event I’m attending tonight at Reason Magazine. Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online, and Brink Lindsey of the Cato Institute will have it out about “where libertarians belong” in American politics. This has, of course, been an interesting and important question this election cycle, since libertarians make up a sizeable contingent of the Tea Party movement.
As much as I think it’s cool to be able to blog from my phone, live-blogging will probably be kept to a minimum for this. I will probably tweet more than blog in long form, because I’m interested to see where an activist, a journalist, and a think tank scholar believe libertarians can/will/should play in American politics. If you’re not on Twitter, you can click here and just refresh the page a lot.
Update 1
So I didn’t actually tweet a whole lot. Jonah Goldberg said something funny though…he said “For the record, I never really jived with George W. Bush’s philosophy, the whole ‘compassionate conservatism’ thing…My name is ‘Goldberg,’ I tend to be a little more Old Testament…I like my conservatism with a little more smite and wrath.”
Update 2
It doesn’t look like they have video of the event turned around and uploaded yet, but you can check back at either Reason’s YouTube channel (which is chock full of other good stuff), or Reason.TV. I’m sure the video will be up in another day or two.
On Rajan’s Explanation for the U.S. Recession
Raghuram Rajan, the former chief economist of the IMF and a Chicago professor, has a completely different take on the U.S. recession. There are different reasons for the global recession – not all of them tied to the fact that the U.S. economy is just freaking huge – but his explanation is fantastic.
I’ll summarize Mr. Rajan’s article:
- Wages have been growing much faster for workers in the 90th percentile of the wage distribution than those in the 50th percentile. Technology has changed rapidly since then, and growth reached fever pitch in the ’90s. Those who had the necessary skills – or the education necessary to learn those skills – could advance. If all you had to offer the American economy was the strength of your back, your job got outsourced. Just look at the chart here. If you’ve got a professional degree, you only have a 2.3% chance of being unemployed. If you only have a high school degree, that’s 9.7%.
- Rajan: “The everyday consequence for the middle class is a stagnant paycheck and growing job insecurity. Politicians feel their constituents’ pain, but it is hard to improve the quality of education, for improvement requires real and effective policy change in an area where too many vested interests favor the status quo. Moreover, any change will require years to take effect, and therefore will not address the electorate’s current anxiety.”
- Thus, politicians opted instead to make credit easy to come by. Rather than the middle class utilizing the new credit facilities to go back to school, they bought houses. And keep in mind that the ease of credit was aided by Fannie and Freddie, but it can’t be blamed totally on them – Glass-Steagall had to be repealed as well.
- Rajan: “The problem, as often is the case with government policies, was not intent. It rarely is. But when lots of easy money pushed by a deep-pocketed government comes into contact with the profit motive of a sophisticated, competitive, and amoral financial sector, matters get taken far beyond the government’s intent.”
Before all is said and done, we will witness the U.S. in decline in a global economy that knows how to educate its populace. Unless, of course, the government takes the steps to improve the long-term educational capabilities of our fine nation. And for all that Mr. Obama has done wrong, he at least has not wholesale supported the teachers’ union as I expected. Union-busting will help, but America had better be emotionally ready to stop “blaming the teacher” for everything that has gone wrong. The baby boomer generation supported lower expectations of their children at school and grade inflation – something that will need to go away as well.
Oh, and if you’re in the workforce now, you’d better start educating yourself on something you don’t know how to do. Chances are, your job will depend on it one day.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Austerity
Congratulations, good Republicans, you terrified the nation with talk of “deflation” and “1932″ and various things of that nature. All the while, your various and sundry discussions of market panic drove investors into things like Treasury bills and U.S. dollars, allowing the Good President Obama to continue his spending plans at any cost.
Let me tell you, sirs, that on a classical level, austerity should not result in anything but epic pain for investors. Yet, in a contradiction to my previous post, I am going to condone the use of austerity in the name of market sentiment.
In a move that doesn’t make any damn sense whatsoever, Americans are begging and pleading for less money. Indeed, I think many of them are willing to take personal hits to their own pension plans, provided that the unions take hits to theirs (granted, I would have thought that actually owning a company like GM would be an embarrassing enough hit, but whatever). I foresee, much in the same way that Democrats took Congress in 2006 after Mr. Bush had proven himself to be a fantastic jogger but not much of a president, that Republicans of the “Paul” variety will come into Congress in spades. Not that there will be enough of them to do foolish things like get rid of the Federal Reserve, but perhaps they shall make a stir.
After said Republicans offer a referendum on the Good President Obama’s fiscal policy, Mr. Obama will finally turn out to not be that bad of a president after all. Rather, I imagine he will turn out to actually be a true tight-budgeter, and will welcome the inevitable “corrections” to his earlier policies. Thus, Mr. Obama will be re-elected in 2012, just in time for the world to end.
All these things being said, I believe our most pressing issues in the economy can be solved with austerity. Our economy is run by right-leaning individuals with anger in their hearts (read: corporate CEOs and various smaller business leaders), while the government is run by political science majors who are quite sure they know what is best for the world. It is unfortunate, but the economy is currently being held hostage by pissed-off baby boomers who lack the requisite courage to stick their neck on the line and make some deals, Cornelius Vanderbilt style.
If an austerity pitch injects confidence into business, then maybe our people will start putting some of that cash to work. It is good for the health of the country that consumers are paying down debt and not spending at the moment, but now it’s time to really give the people what they want. Britain’s doing it. Why can’t we?
Some Comments on BP, As An Investment
I have recently been asked questions regarding BP as an investment choice. And, for those of you who don’t know, I don’t just randomly get asked questions about investing in large oil companies – I teach an investments class to undergraduates and MBAs. Once again, this information is not provided to you by a registered broker-dealer, nor am I advising you to buy or sell any securities. You do so at your own risk, and at the risk that God may kill a kitten if you do.
BP is currently speaking to sovereign wealth funds in the Middle East and a few companies in Singapore. The company is worried that with market value severely depressed, another oil major will attempt to gobble them up. A sovereign wealth investment could fight that off. Sovereign wealth may reject the investment option, having been burned by Citigroup earlier. Or they may reject it and the stock price falls anyway – blocking a takeover that would force a premium price. Consider that Investment Risk #1, in the book of the Prophet.
Consider also that the well is still not capped. Investment Risk #2.
Consider that the relief well may fail. Investment Risk #3.
The fourth, and perhaps scariest risk, is that the seafloor is compromised beyond repair. If that’s the case, we might have to drill multiple relief wells in an attempt to cap the well. Worst case scenario – this Mount Everest of oil fields just has to empty into the Gulf. Investment Risk #4.
A special note on Investment Risk #4: Warren Buffett used to say that he wouldn’t invest in anything he didn’t understand. I don’t understand geology, and BP is restricting a lot of that information anyway.
I also have not forgotten the Administration’s earlier attempt at climate change legislation, via cap-and-trade and various alternative energy deals. Let’s face it: the BP oil spill is a great marketing tool for any sort of alternative energy plan. I also have complete faith in the Good President Obama’s skill to lampoon the British company with epic lawsuits, much in the same way they did with Goldman Sachs in the SEC case. These things are well within the scope of a Chicago politician. Thus, Investment Risk #5 is the ability of the federal government to make an example out of BP in order to promote its own ends.
In short, I consider the bankruptcy risks of BP to be more than I care to stomach. I prefer companies like RIG or HAL, if you wanted to get in on oil spill plays (/enjoy pure, unmitigated evil). But that’s all mere opinion.








