I just deleted a ten paragraph rant against the Republicans and Democrats because the two groups actually think they are doing well, it is just the fanatics of both parties that have lost it.
Sorry folks.
Republicans:
1. You have screwed up just about everything you have touched in the last 5.5 years.
2. What you haven't screwed up, you have ignored to our sure-to-be sorrow.
3. You have assumed that being the least of two evils was good enough to get elected.
Democrats:
1. Being the opposition party is not a platform.
2. The war on terror is not a video game that can be reset if we fail.
3. When the President turns to lead the country forward, it is NOT an invitation to stab him in the back.
4. Almost every single problem Bush and the Republicans have screwed up on BEGAN ON DEMOCRATIC WATCHES.
Our own government bureaucrats:
1. The State Department actively opposes the Administration.
2. The CIA intentionally intervenes in American politics.
3. The Immigration Department is corrupt and compromised.
Our own institutions:
1. The Mainstream Press considers national secrets political tools.
2. Colleges and universities are not teaching, they are breeding hatred of American culture and freedoms
3. The culture media (movies and music) work actively to destroy families and to support cultural segregation.
What are the right answers? Here is my problem, and ours:
1. The UN is not a democratic or freedom promoting institution and we should abandon it.
2. Islam is a threat to the freedoms and liberties we value and support.
3. Current common culture is worse than crass, it is vulgar and offensive.
4. Rights have responsibilities and for too long, we have ignored the disconnect that exists now.
5. Respect is EARNED, not bestowed.
6. Diversity is neither a goal, nor a means, it is a characteristic.
Some obvious examples of what is wrong:
1. A newspaper published details of two national secrets, but refused to publish an editorial cartoon because it might offend someone.
2. "The life of a pimp is hard" won an Academy Award.
3. A ban on partial birth abortion may be illegal.
4. A million illegal aliens are crossing our borders every year.
5. The spokesman for the Taliban is attending one of our top universities, gratis.
6. A Senator wants to sanction the President (an action with no other consequences than political gain) for attempting to catch people planning to kill innocents.
7. We had men on the Moon 36 years ago. We have had one shuttle launch in the last 4 years.
8. My daughter's school will be paid $250,000 this year to teach her and her 24 school mates. 90% of them will be unable to compete with the 5th graders in virtually every other industrialized country by the end of the school year.
Any suggestion I make to correct a problem we ALL agree exists, will be proclaimed as an assault on freedom of...., or offensive to...., or interference with...
And there in lies the problem that is at the heart of all our problems, only I can take responsibility for my actions, I can not force YOU to do the same.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Friday, March 10, 2006
In Wisconsin News - Part 2
Seems to be a day for Wisconsin stuff.
Other bloggers have commented on some recent rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) and the likely impact those rulings will have on the economic future of Wisconsin. I have not engaged nor commented on those rulings as law (for all my actual interest in it) is basically very boring to the average person.
Ok, slap me on the back of the head....it should not be I agree and my own response to the Bankruptcy Reform Act is an indication that I actually do pay attention and call others to do so also.
However, an authoritative voice making an analysis is worth listening to. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justise Diane Sykes gave a lecture about the recent WSC rulings and her concern is justified not just from the legal, but from the economic points of view.
Worth the read if you are from Wisconsin or do business here.
BTW: Milestone, this is my 100th post!
Other bloggers have commented on some recent rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court (WSC) and the likely impact those rulings will have on the economic future of Wisconsin. I have not engaged nor commented on those rulings as law (for all my actual interest in it) is basically very boring to the average person.
Ok, slap me on the back of the head....it should not be I agree and my own response to the Bankruptcy Reform Act is an indication that I actually do pay attention and call others to do so also.
However, an authoritative voice making an analysis is worth listening to. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justise Diane Sykes gave a lecture about the recent WSC rulings and her concern is justified not just from the legal, but from the economic points of view.
Worth the read if you are from Wisconsin or do business here.
BTW: Milestone, this is my 100th post!
In Wisconsin News
I have not been very verbose on Wisconsin politics because I am usually so negative on the whole lot that everything I try to write sounds shrill. Still, a couple of things just pissed me off yesterday that I have no choice today.
Item 1:
Herb Kohl, senior Senator from Wisconsin, while commenting on the Prescription Benefit program complained that the program was just political payback for pharmaceutical industry.
WELL SENATOR KOHL, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT WAS?
The Prescription Benefit program at least has the APPEARANCE of being pro-consumer. The Bankruptcy Reform Act (BARF to those of us that deal with consumers) has neither the appearance nor the intent to assist consumers at all. The Bankruptcy Reform Act was political payback for the over $100 MILLION paid by lobbyists to Congressmen on behalf of the credit/bank industry over the last 8 years.
Item 2:
Our daughter brought home her school newsletter Wednesday and I finally read it yesterday. A nice letter from Superintendent Art Rainwater on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Let me excerpt a couple of pieces:
Good, he recognizes the value of actually assessing student performance! But like any good reactionary, no positive can be left without a negative..
Stop there! "when the need for change is understood"? We have a 50% drop out rate from high school and a large percentage of students can not read by 6th grade and there is some question about the need for change????? Continuing:
Wait..."best practice"? Where and when might these best practices be determined? In universities where they teach our teachers to teach? There are no incentives for good teachers to teach well under the current (non-NCLB) system. I will admit that a big part of the problem is the parents that want their little tyke to have positive self-esteem, ability to read be damned. Continuing:
Is not that one of the major points that Rainwater acknowledges earlier? Assessment is a good thing?
Despite the political rhetoric to this point, Rainwater then states something that is SO stupid that it should be clear to anyone that our schools are in trouble not only because of the problems in the classroom and at home, but in their administration and management from the top:
That's right. Discussion illustrates a mathematical certainty that ALL schools will fail to make adequate yearly progress. Mathematical certainty used here is exactly the same tone as "I read somewhere", "they say".
Mr. Rainwater, our daughter is 11. Your JOB is to teach her, now. No one expects a perfect system and we fully expect things to continuously change and IMPROVE as time goes on, but she will not wait for you to get your system right, you have to make it work now. The "system" before NCLB was not working, and years of increasing spending was making it worse, not better. Left to your own (you, your staff and the entire educational system) devices, things were getting much, much worse. If you don't like the idea of sanctions, maybe you should consider a job in the real world, a place our daughter is going to face in about a dozen years. You know, a place where if you fail to meet expectations, you get fired.
Included in the newsletter was a page titled: What is the importance of standards-based curricula in mathematics? Subtitled: Research and Best Practice
An interesting paragraph illustrates my point and Rainwaters lack:
These are students not covered by NCLB. They were failed by the system that supported self esteem over concrete results.
Item 1:
Herb Kohl, senior Senator from Wisconsin, while commenting on the Prescription Benefit program complained that the program was just political payback for pharmaceutical industry.
WELL SENATOR KOHL, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THE BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACT WAS?
The Prescription Benefit program at least has the APPEARANCE of being pro-consumer. The Bankruptcy Reform Act (BARF to those of us that deal with consumers) has neither the appearance nor the intent to assist consumers at all. The Bankruptcy Reform Act was political payback for the over $100 MILLION paid by lobbyists to Congressmen on behalf of the credit/bank industry over the last 8 years.
Item 2:
Our daughter brought home her school newsletter Wednesday and I finally read it yesterday. A nice letter from Superintendent Art Rainwater on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Let me excerpt a couple of pieces:
The recognition of the importance in understanding our children's learning needs through good academic assessment has been a major positive change.
Good, he recognizes the value of actually assessing student performance! But like any good reactionary, no positive can be left without a negative..
Unfortunately, NCLB uses this very positive educational advance to create a punitive climate for change. Schools will not succeed because of the NCLB strategy of apply sanctions; schools will succeed when:
* the need for change is understood based on clear and convincing data;
Stop there! "when the need for change is understood"? We have a 50% drop out rate from high school and a large percentage of students can not read by 6th grade and there is some question about the need for change????? Continuing:
* well planned staff development provides teachers with "best practice" skills
Wait..."best practice"? Where and when might these best practices be determined? In universities where they teach our teachers to teach? There are no incentives for good teachers to teach well under the current (non-NCLB) system. I will admit that a big part of the problem is the parents that want their little tyke to have positive self-esteem, ability to read be damned. Continuing:
* progress is monitored for improvement
Is not that one of the major points that Rainwater acknowledges earlier? Assessment is a good thing?
Despite the political rhetoric to this point, Rainwater then states something that is SO stupid that it should be clear to anyone that our schools are in trouble not only because of the problems in the classroom and at home, but in their administration and management from the top:
NCLB takes a punitive approach by identifying schools that are not making adequate yearly progress (AYP) and applying increasing levels of sanctions. There has now been substantial discussion that illustrates the almost mathematical certainty that under the current system of identifying AYP schools, all of our nation's schools will eventually be on the AYP list.
That's right. Discussion illustrates a mathematical certainty that ALL schools will fail to make adequate yearly progress. Mathematical certainty used here is exactly the same tone as "I read somewhere", "they say".
The positive approach of using student date to inform instruction is negated by the certainty of ultimately being unsuccessful. If there is no hope for final success, it is difficult to undertake the journey.
Mr. Rainwater, our daughter is 11. Your JOB is to teach her, now. No one expects a perfect system and we fully expect things to continuously change and IMPROVE as time goes on, but she will not wait for you to get your system right, you have to make it work now. The "system" before NCLB was not working, and years of increasing spending was making it worse, not better. Left to your own (you, your staff and the entire educational system) devices, things were getting much, much worse. If you don't like the idea of sanctions, maybe you should consider a job in the real world, a place our daughter is going to face in about a dozen years. You know, a place where if you fail to meet expectations, you get fired.
Included in the newsletter was a page titled: What is the importance of standards-based curricula in mathematics? Subtitled: Research and Best Practice
An interesting paragraph illustrates my point and Rainwaters lack:
Extensive logitudinal studies show that the mathematics standards in many school districts in this country [note real studies, not discussions] are not as rigorous as those in other countries. In international studies, American students are not achieving world-class mathematics standards. U.S. students rated average by their teachers[note rated, not tested] may actually be performing at the basic level by international standards. Many high school graduates need remedial courses before attempting college-level mathematics; too many do not pass their beginning university courses.
These are students not covered by NCLB. They were failed by the system that supported self esteem over concrete results.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Initial reports - Bankruptcy Reform
The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys has issued a study looking at the first batch of consumers to run the gauntlet of bankruptcy reform.
A review of the agencies reporting results in the study:
*************************************************************
There are only 122 CCOs (credit counseling organizations) on the current list maintained by the US Trustee. Of these 122, 69 are approved in more than one district, fifteen of them in 10 or more districts.
The six CCOs listed in the report represent 5 of the CCOs with the largest footprints:
MMI 85 districts covered
Greenpath 77 districts covered
Springboard 84 districts covered
Hummingbird 86 districts covered
Institute for Fin Lit 86 districts covered
ByDesign 4 districts covered
First blush: The report covers 10/17/05 - 2/1/05. 61k consumers served. If all became bankruptcy clients/filers, then we get 250k annual rate of filing from that number...a 85% drop from the 1.6m filings the previous year.
The report says it approached ten CCOs, the 10 that cover the largest footprints are:
Consumer Credit Counseling Services of San Francisco 74
Credit Counseling Centers of America 75
GreenPath, Inc. 77
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta Inc. 80
Credit Advisors Foundation 84
Springboard Nonprofit Consumer Credit Management Inc. 84
Garden State Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. 85
Money Management International Inc. 85
Hummingbird Credit Counseling and Education, Inc. 86
Institute for Financial Literacy, Inc. 86
ByDesign only handles 4 districts...who else did they approach?
***********************************************************A review of the agencies reporting results in the study:
*************************************************************
There are only 122 CCOs (credit counseling organizations) on the current list maintained by the US Trustee. Of these 122, 69 are approved in more than one district, fifteen of them in 10 or more districts.
The six CCOs listed in the report represent 5 of the CCOs with the largest footprints:
MMI 85 districts covered
Greenpath 77 districts covered
Springboard 84 districts covered
Hummingbird 86 districts covered
Institute for Fin Lit 86 districts covered
ByDesign 4 districts covered
First blush: The report covers 10/17/05 - 2/1/05. 61k consumers served. If all became bankruptcy clients/filers, then we get 250k annual rate of filing from that number...a 85% drop from the 1.6m filings the previous year.
The report says it approached ten CCOs, the 10 that cover the largest footprints are:
Consumer Credit Counseling Services of San Francisco 74
Credit Counseling Centers of America 75
GreenPath, Inc. 77
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta Inc. 80
Credit Advisors Foundation 84
Springboard Nonprofit Consumer Credit Management Inc. 84
Garden State Consumer Credit Counseling, Inc. 85
Money Management International Inc. 85
Hummingbird Credit Counseling and Education, Inc. 86
Institute for Financial Literacy, Inc. 86
ByDesign only handles 4 districts...who else did they approach?
Let us start off with some info regarding credit counseling from a story from Bankrate.com on March 3. Approximately 38,000 debtors filed bankruptcy from Oct 17 to the end of the year. Based on the number of people covered by the NACBA study, most (maybe 90% or more) of debtors that filed bankruptcy until Jan 31/Feb 15 were counseled by the CCOs in the study. It appears the study does accurately reflect the majority of consumers filing bankruptcy post 10/17.
So far this year we are seeing between a 70 and 80% decrease in filings over last year same time (reported by attorneys in our discussion group). Our district is 80% down from last year, 81.5% down from the 2003/2004 average. The Bankrate release claims a 75% decrease nationwide.
The study reported that 97% of the debtors could not make any payments on debt, indicating that the average consumer looking to file bankruptcy post 10/17 has less than $125 per month excess income. The report does not note if the credit counselors are using the IRS allowed expenses or not. The report also does not indicate how many of the consumers were below or above the median incomes for their areas.
The percentage of consumers facing financial difficulties as a result of events beyond their control, 79% in the study, is lower than our experience, but still higher than many would believe.
As for the increase in filings pre-reform having a significant impact on the credit card industry...well...a minor bump in the road:
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 7, 2006--The most recent Fitch Credit Card Index results indicate charge offs improving dramatically by declining 359 bps to 3.29%. Correspondingly, one-month excess spread improved in the latest period by 306 bps to a robust 8.38%, bringing the three-month average excess spread up 112 bps to 6%. Last fall's spike in personal bankruptcy filings has finally worked its way through U.S. credit card master trusts' performance measures.
'The pig in the python has been fully digested,' said Darryl Osojnak, Senior Director, Fitch Ratings. 'The outlook for charge offs is positive over the near term and master trusts should benefit from increased levels of excess spread going forward.
'The pig in the python has been fully digested,' said Darryl Osojnak, Senior Director, Fitch Ratings. 'The outlook for charge offs is positive over the near term and master trusts should benefit from increased levels of excess spread going forward.
Isn't that nice! Do you think anyone is going to see a reduction in their interest rates?
The major banks have all reported profit decreases in the 4th quarter but this caught my eye:
<>The News Journal
<>01/24/2006
<>01/24/2006
A new bankruptcy law that's been criticized as bad for consumers also turned out to be bad for Bank of America in the final months of 2005.
Bank of America, now Delaware's largest private employer following its buyout of Wilmington-based MBNA Corp., said Monday that fourth-quarter profit fell 2 percent largely because of increased loan write-offs related to the new federal bankruptcy law.
Bank of America said it earned $3.77 billion, or 93 cents a share, compared with $3.85 billion, or 94 cents a share, in the 2004 fourth quarter. Excluding $59 million in costs related to the 2004 acquisition of FleetBoston Financial, the bank would have earned 94 cents a share.
About $20m reduction in profit, not a loss, just a minor glitch in the profit.
As for other banks:
Last week, JPMorgan Chase said earnings at its Wilmington-based credit card unit plunged 41 percent because of higher bankruptcy filings.
MBNA also saw its earnings slump in the fourth quarter, the credit card giant's last as an independent company. MBNA's net income slid 49 percent to $389 million, or 30 cents a share, as revenue dropped 11 percent to $2.5 billion.
But wait a sec, from WebBolt:
JPMorgan Chase & Co. reported 2005 fourth-quarter net income of $2.7 billion, or $0.76 per share, compared with net income of $1.7 billion, or $0.46 per share, for the fourth quarter of 2004.
And from a PPT from Bank of America with regard to MBNA:
Net income of $1,771 million in 2005 and $389 million in 4Q05
How terrible was the impact? Really?
Do the numbers reflect a significant decrease in consumers in financial trouble? From the same Fitch report:
The Fitch Credit Card index is published during the first week of each month and includes month end data from two months prior, resulting in about a 35 day lag. Fitch's Credit Card Index for charge offs was 7.52% for Nov. 2005, a 144 bps increase over the same period in 2004. February's prime charge offs of 3.29% represent an improvement of 423bps from the peak observed in the November reporting period. Fitch expects charge offs to remain below 6% for the remainder of the first half of 2006 for the majority of the prime issuers.
The acceleration of charge-offs also purged a significant percentage of receivables from the 60+ day delinquency status for many portfolios. The current Fitch Credit Card Index 60+ day delinquency rate was 2.19%, an increase of 10bps from last month, yet down 77bps from the same time last year.
The charge off rate for Nov 2005 was 7.52%, 1.44 above the previous year....meaning about 6.08% If the Feb numbers were only 3.29, then we have a better than 50% reduction in the charge off rate post-BARF. Great. Except they are not expecting it to continue. How much an impact the increased minimum payment requirement is going to have on these numbers was mentioned somewhere in a report lamenting the reduction in profitability of credit card issuers from lost interest revenue.
If the people filing now are the real hard core, those that have no choice about bankruptcy, then the idea that the new law would only impact 5% or so of filers is wrong. 15-25% of filers in the past had no choice but to file and the law has of course made it harder and more expensive. Can they still file? Yes. But at what cost?
The study, along with reporting of the impact on credit card issuers, indicates that 1) the impact of bankruptcy on the bottom line of the credit industry was negligible, 2) consumers are staying away from bankruptcy in droves, 3) consumers most likely to file bankruptcy, are the ones closest to financial bottom, 4) opponents to the bankruptcy law were basing their positions on conditions closer to the truth than were the proponents.
Here is an interesting statistic from our district:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Chapter 13 604 826 968 1125 1107 1123
Totals 5734 7432 8386 9371 9122 12687
Chapter 13 filings did not change AT ALL! The increase in filings was all Chapter 7.
An another:
From 1/1/05-3/1/05, our county had 68 foreclosures filed.
From 1/1/06-3/1/06, our county had 116 foreclosures filed.
Remember, foreclosures are usually filed only after consumers are more than 90 days behind in payments, meaning most of these consumers were in trouble PRIOR to the bankruptcy law changing.
The new law did nothing to stop the erosion of the financial condition of many consumers. For those with no where else to turn, the cost and difficulty of filing bankruptcy has added stress and expense when consumers can least afford them. The significant jump in bankruptcy filings did no more than cause an itch in bank profitability. With the change in credit card minimum payments and higher gas prices (fortunately a mild winter or heating bills would have been much higher), we are seeing more people in trouble and the law change is going to make it much harder for them to recover.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Jar Jar Binks Award goes to...
Ms Peggy Noonan!
I start with a dictionary definition, from American Heritage, not that anyone needs it because everyone knows what a lady is. It's a kind of natural knowledge. According to American Heritage, a lady is a well-mannered and considerate woman with high standards of proper behavior. You know one, the dictionary suggests, by how she's treated: "a woman, especially when spoken of or to in a polite way." Under usage, American Heritage says, "lady is normally used as a parallel to gentleman to emphasize norms expected in polite society or situations."
I would add that a lady need not be stuffy, scolding, stiff. A lady brings regard for others into the room with her; that regard is part of the dignity she carries and seeks to spread. A lady is a woman who projects the stature of life.
These definitions are incomplete but serviceable--I invite better ones--but keep them in mind as I try to draw a fuller picture of what it was like to be taken aside at an airport last week for what is currently known as further screening and was generally understood 50 years ago to be second-degree sexual assault.
Poor Ms Noonan. Her delicate sensibilities were offended...."No way to treat a lady" playing in the background as her Jar Jar Binks Award is placed on the mantel.
(HT to Soxblog )
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Dear Wisconsin
I hate liver, guacamole and eggplant. I hated Seinfeld, dislike wrestling, love golf, read science fiction and hate romance novels. I have freckles and fair skin. I work my ass off and snore. Is there any reason why I should be singled out for legislation opposing my choices for any of these items?
Exactly what threat do you think we represent to you? My partner and I have been together for more than 12 years, we are raising, what by all objection opinion is an intelligent, well adjusted happy 11 year old. We live in our community, participate in it's functions/events. We vote. We attend church weekly, are active in it's community. Our home is well maintained and appreciated by neighbors and visitors.
Apparently we are insufficient citizens. We do not rate similar legal protections as the majority of our neighbors. We are less of a family than other families in our state.
I am tired of hearing the excuses: we are not normal, we are shoving our lifestyle in your face, we corrupt the impressionable, it is against God. I will compare the hysteria concerning gay marriage to radical Islam's hatred of the United States.
Yes, it is the same. I am a NORMAL human being. I CHOOSE to be with another woman. Unlike many gays born to their preferences, I CHOOSE. And as an American, a veteran, I demand the right to the pursuit of happiness. Any attempt to abridge that right better have some serious support, and so far, DOMA and similar attempts are nothing but religious, arcane rants no different than those fanatics in the Middle East.
Grow up. The world changes, and right now, Wisconsin is about to join the likes of foot stomping fanatics screaming "it ain't right, it ain't right".
There has always been a small percentage of humans that have same-sex preferences. It occurs regardless of race, income, education, location. That in and of itself should be sufficient to support the concept that same-sex preferences are a normal variant of humanity.
Somehow my personal relationship is an affront to others. Apparently the United States is an affront to others. For hundreds of years, America has been a deviant. Democracy and capitalism a threat to the established order of the world. The only threat my relationship is to Wisconsin and the United States is that it might expose some for being less willing to accept freedom, liberty and democracy for others than for themselves.
Exactly what threat do you think we represent to you? My partner and I have been together for more than 12 years, we are raising, what by all objection opinion is an intelligent, well adjusted happy 11 year old. We live in our community, participate in it's functions/events. We vote. We attend church weekly, are active in it's community. Our home is well maintained and appreciated by neighbors and visitors.
Apparently we are insufficient citizens. We do not rate similar legal protections as the majority of our neighbors. We are less of a family than other families in our state.
I am tired of hearing the excuses: we are not normal, we are shoving our lifestyle in your face, we corrupt the impressionable, it is against God. I will compare the hysteria concerning gay marriage to radical Islam's hatred of the United States.
Yes, it is the same. I am a NORMAL human being. I CHOOSE to be with another woman. Unlike many gays born to their preferences, I CHOOSE. And as an American, a veteran, I demand the right to the pursuit of happiness. Any attempt to abridge that right better have some serious support, and so far, DOMA and similar attempts are nothing but religious, arcane rants no different than those fanatics in the Middle East.
Grow up. The world changes, and right now, Wisconsin is about to join the likes of foot stomping fanatics screaming "it ain't right, it ain't right".
There has always been a small percentage of humans that have same-sex preferences. It occurs regardless of race, income, education, location. That in and of itself should be sufficient to support the concept that same-sex preferences are a normal variant of humanity.
Somehow my personal relationship is an affront to others. Apparently the United States is an affront to others. For hundreds of years, America has been a deviant. Democracy and capitalism a threat to the established order of the world. The only threat my relationship is to Wisconsin and the United States is that it might expose some for being less willing to accept freedom, liberty and democracy for others than for themselves.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Bias, bigotry and the Ports
It has been my goal to give people the benefit of the doubt until or unless they have given me reason to think otherwise. Some of the bloggers I respect and read regularly have come down on the side of opposition to the Ports Deal and I have stated pretty clearly that I think their position is a reaction to "Arabs" in general, Dubai in particular.
It has been hard to read their posts complaining that they are being labeled racist or bigoted because of their position when they clearly state very good reasons to be concerned by Dubai's dubious past.
But after feeling guilty for maybe labeling them inappropriately, I come back to, were they against it before they were against it with good reason? Is prejudice justifiable once cause is found?
A commentor noted that after the Mosque bombing last week, many outlets were saying "see, civil war, warned you it was inevitable" but after a few days, things have begun to settle down and civil war has been averted yet again by Iraqis that truly want peace. The commentor lamented the speed at which some want to paint the Iraqis as incapable of peace and any violence is used to support that PREJUDICE. Are there any companies doing business in the Middle East (of any corporate origin) that do not act in ways that would be unacceptable in the United States but simply must be done there to actually get anything done? How many countries and companies that we (the United States) do business with act in ways that are not in our best interest all or even most of the time, but are good business decisions? How many French or German or Japanese companies have pasts that we ignore, even justify on the basis that they are our ally and that the past is history?
Dubai is not a perfect ally. It has to operate in an area of immense danger to itself and it's citizens. It is NOT always going to act in ways we agree with.
I feel bad that bloggers I generally respect disagree with me about the ports, but how many of them supported their position with real concerns before opposing the deal? Honestly? I am afraid fewer than I hope.
It has been hard to read their posts complaining that they are being labeled racist or bigoted because of their position when they clearly state very good reasons to be concerned by Dubai's dubious past.
But after feeling guilty for maybe labeling them inappropriately, I come back to, were they against it before they were against it with good reason? Is prejudice justifiable once cause is found?
A commentor noted that after the Mosque bombing last week, many outlets were saying "see, civil war, warned you it was inevitable" but after a few days, things have begun to settle down and civil war has been averted yet again by Iraqis that truly want peace. The commentor lamented the speed at which some want to paint the Iraqis as incapable of peace and any violence is used to support that PREJUDICE. Are there any companies doing business in the Middle East (of any corporate origin) that do not act in ways that would be unacceptable in the United States but simply must be done there to actually get anything done? How many countries and companies that we (the United States) do business with act in ways that are not in our best interest all or even most of the time, but are good business decisions? How many French or German or Japanese companies have pasts that we ignore, even justify on the basis that they are our ally and that the past is history?
Dubai is not a perfect ally. It has to operate in an area of immense danger to itself and it's citizens. It is NOT always going to act in ways we agree with.
I feel bad that bloggers I generally respect disagree with me about the ports, but how many of them supported their position with real concerns before opposing the deal? Honestly? I am afraid fewer than I hope.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Port Responsibility
A couple of years ago someone I know said that all white people were racist, because we were white. I was upset by that statement, racist that it was, because I worked hard to make sure that I did not respond to people based on their classification. So it has been with some dismay that my very first response to hearing that an Arab company was about to buy some American ports was one of "you got to be kidding?! Let me read the story..."
So I did, read some stuff about the deal that actually had some facts about what was going to happen and then made a clear headed decision(see post below). Would that more people did what I did.
It is NOT bias, prejudice or racism, if the INITIAL reaction was the same "you got to be kidding". We have seen 9/11, Madrid, London, the Cartoon Riots, the carnage in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, and the ongoing war between Israel and everyone else. We have seen many, many examples where Moslems have responded with bloodshed over the last five years. The concern that we would be welcoming them to come to the US and to control an entry point EVERYONE agrees is a major weak spot in our defense is a GOOD response...initially.
It is prejudice if after hearing that a foreign company has been running the ports for the last decade you continue to insist it is a bad idea for an Arab company to do so.
It is racist if after hearing about Dubai and it's assistance in the GWT and in Iraq that you continue to insist the deal should not go through.
Does this mean that we should allow Dubai or any other company to manage our ports without a thorough review? No. But we also have several other foreign companies/countries in our ports now! The emphasis on this being "yea, well it's Arabs!" clearly introduces racism into the argument.
One commentary suggested that last week we had a Hillary Clinton/George Bush brain transference in the debate. George Bush saying we had to be open to trade and working with Arab nations and companies if we are ever to bridge the cultural divide and Hillary Clinton all but proclaiming "not with THEM". The congresswoman that wrote the President "not only no, BUT HELL NO" portrays herself no less as racist than the KKK.
If Dubai Ports underwent the same review as other foreign owned port managers and was accepted, then I see no reason NOT to allow them to proceed with management of the ports. I do not believe any additional restrictions should be placed on Dubai Ports than existed under P&O. If that makes people concerned, GOOD! Maybe then more people would be pushing for greater security measures being introduced at ALL the ports.
Islam and Western values may never be compatible, but as we have seen with the Cartoon Riots, for Americans to allow Arab culture to dictate our response is to concede the point.
There is NO difference between the Cartoon Riots and our denying Dubai the right to legally purchase a company and operate that company according to our laws, on our soil. If you don't see it, or suggest I am being naive, then YOU have a problem.
So I did, read some stuff about the deal that actually had some facts about what was going to happen and then made a clear headed decision(see post below). Would that more people did what I did.
It is NOT bias, prejudice or racism, if the INITIAL reaction was the same "you got to be kidding". We have seen 9/11, Madrid, London, the Cartoon Riots, the carnage in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, and the ongoing war between Israel and everyone else. We have seen many, many examples where Moslems have responded with bloodshed over the last five years. The concern that we would be welcoming them to come to the US and to control an entry point EVERYONE agrees is a major weak spot in our defense is a GOOD response...initially.
It is prejudice if after hearing that a foreign company has been running the ports for the last decade you continue to insist it is a bad idea for an Arab company to do so.
It is racist if after hearing about Dubai and it's assistance in the GWT and in Iraq that you continue to insist the deal should not go through.
Does this mean that we should allow Dubai or any other company to manage our ports without a thorough review? No. But we also have several other foreign companies/countries in our ports now! The emphasis on this being "yea, well it's Arabs!" clearly introduces racism into the argument.
One commentary suggested that last week we had a Hillary Clinton/George Bush brain transference in the debate. George Bush saying we had to be open to trade and working with Arab nations and companies if we are ever to bridge the cultural divide and Hillary Clinton all but proclaiming "not with THEM". The congresswoman that wrote the President "not only no, BUT HELL NO" portrays herself no less as racist than the KKK.
If Dubai Ports underwent the same review as other foreign owned port managers and was accepted, then I see no reason NOT to allow them to proceed with management of the ports. I do not believe any additional restrictions should be placed on Dubai Ports than existed under P&O. If that makes people concerned, GOOD! Maybe then more people would be pushing for greater security measures being introduced at ALL the ports.
Islam and Western values may never be compatible, but as we have seen with the Cartoon Riots, for Americans to allow Arab culture to dictate our response is to concede the point.
There is NO difference between the Cartoon Riots and our denying Dubai the right to legally purchase a company and operate that company according to our laws, on our soil. If you don't see it, or suggest I am being naive, then YOU have a problem.
Friday, February 24, 2006
What happened to....
Cheney and hunting? This was a big story.....Cheney was hiding something....where is the outrage?
Gone.
Last Friday almost everything was about Cheney and the accident, by Tuesday there wasn't a word and I have looked for ANYONE to be making any further comment, gone.
So, the question is: was the Cheney story really a non-story, made a story because the press had nothing else to write about? Or was it just a non-story that died appropriately.
Gone.
Last Friday almost everything was about Cheney and the accident, by Tuesday there wasn't a word and I have looked for ANYONE to be making any further comment, gone.
So, the question is: was the Cheney story really a non-story, made a story because the press had nothing else to write about? Or was it just a non-story that died appropriately.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Inquiring Me whats to know...
My friend Tom over at Bizzyblog has a regular feature of questions he would like answers to, here are a few of my own:
1. Global warming: what effect has adding 4 billion people to the planet, each generating heat and CO2 over the last 100 years caused to the average temperatures? Related: cities are huge heat generators, what has been the effect of large heat generators(metro-complexes) over the last 100 years? Note: ignore the issue of buildings burning fuels to heat or cool, all the extra cars, focus just on the fact that all that concrete and steel retains heat that would not be retained by prairie or forest; people generate heat and CO2 just by walking around, we have added 4 billion people to the planet in the last 100 years, a 400% increase.
2. Inflation: a long time ago I wrote an essay about the money supply, inflation and drugs. Now that I have received my Bachelors in Economics (as of July 2005, started in 1987) , I will reiterate the question in the essay: People pay cash for drugs, that cash is pooled and eventually transferred to the source of the drugs - namely other countries - resulting in a separate cash economy denominated in dollars in those countries. Some of the cash gets returned via trade (that is accounted for as a deficit on our books) but a lot stays out of our economy. How much is anyone's guess, but it obviously affects the amount of currency in our economy, affecting velocity/money supply indicators, affecting inflation. What would happen if a consistent amount of currency flows changed? Say, by cutting drug trafficing?
3. Regulation: Congress is thinking about creating a law that says certain companies can not own businesses in the United States. Does anyone think this is a good idea? I am against allowing a company (based in another country or wholely or mostly owned by a foreign country) to take over production or service that is part of our national security - ie, I would not allow the takeover the operation of Oakridge, Las Alamos or Lawrence Livermore Labs (to name a few). Do ports rise to the same level of concern? I don't think so.
Related: Self-regulation: the original issue that started the Cartoon Wars was an author's concern that media outlets were self censoring themselves so as not to insult anyone...some in this country are calling for laws similar to European laws banning some speech, those laws are wrong for the US (they probably are wrong for those European countries but that is their problem, not mine).
4. Transportation: With minor changes, the means by which we move people and goods has remained unchanged for 60 years (ship, plane, train, truck and automobile - all combustion engines). The efficiency of the combustion engine is one of the few things unaffected by technological changed (yes, it has gone up...but certainly not as much as other areas of 'productivity'). How much has fuel economy improved when vehicle weight is considered?
1. Global warming: what effect has adding 4 billion people to the planet, each generating heat and CO2 over the last 100 years caused to the average temperatures? Related: cities are huge heat generators, what has been the effect of large heat generators(metro-complexes) over the last 100 years? Note: ignore the issue of buildings burning fuels to heat or cool, all the extra cars, focus just on the fact that all that concrete and steel retains heat that would not be retained by prairie or forest; people generate heat and CO2 just by walking around, we have added 4 billion people to the planet in the last 100 years, a 400% increase.
2. Inflation: a long time ago I wrote an essay about the money supply, inflation and drugs. Now that I have received my Bachelors in Economics (as of July 2005, started in 1987) , I will reiterate the question in the essay: People pay cash for drugs, that cash is pooled and eventually transferred to the source of the drugs - namely other countries - resulting in a separate cash economy denominated in dollars in those countries. Some of the cash gets returned via trade (that is accounted for as a deficit on our books) but a lot stays out of our economy. How much is anyone's guess, but it obviously affects the amount of currency in our economy, affecting velocity/money supply indicators, affecting inflation. What would happen if a consistent amount of currency flows changed? Say, by cutting drug trafficing?
3. Regulation: Congress is thinking about creating a law that says certain companies can not own businesses in the United States. Does anyone think this is a good idea? I am against allowing a company (based in another country or wholely or mostly owned by a foreign country) to take over production or service that is part of our national security - ie, I would not allow the takeover the operation of Oakridge, Las Alamos or Lawrence Livermore Labs (to name a few). Do ports rise to the same level of concern? I don't think so.
Related: Self-regulation: the original issue that started the Cartoon Wars was an author's concern that media outlets were self censoring themselves so as not to insult anyone...some in this country are calling for laws similar to European laws banning some speech, those laws are wrong for the US (they probably are wrong for those European countries but that is their problem, not mine).
4. Transportation: With minor changes, the means by which we move people and goods has remained unchanged for 60 years (ship, plane, train, truck and automobile - all combustion engines). The efficiency of the combustion engine is one of the few things unaffected by technological changed (yes, it has gone up...but certainly not as much as other areas of 'productivity'). How much has fuel economy improved when vehicle weight is considered?
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
February Rant #2
Olympics: We watch them (we love curling) and have been consistently doing so. One thing that has stood out for us is the lack of ability in American gold medal winners to actually sing the National Anthem....it is quite apparent they don't know the words...what is with that? Can't the Olympic Committee hand out the words to Olympians in their welcome packets?
Ports: Hillary is against it therefore, I am for it. Wait. Carter is for it therefore I am against it. Wait. I am against it because they are Arab? Racist? Me? Never...I am for it. Wait. How about some F.A.C.T.S!?! Until something changes, I am for Dubai getting the contract.
MSM: Is there really any reason to even bother with them anymore? 1) They never get their own information, it is either picked up from the wires or from some small hustling wannabe that actually gets the story; 2) EVERY story has a slant, a bias, a prejudice even if you can't see it right away. All reasonable sounding until someone else points out the fallacies inherent in the reports; 3) Did I really see a show over the weekend where the media was covering the story of the media and how it covers the media? A true result of self-esteem building navel gazing being taught in classrooms from kindergarten to graduate schools; 4) 1/2 of the stories are about MSM non-bias, 1/2 the stories are about other MSM failures to either report or report accurately, 1/2 the stories are about MSM itself, 1/2 the stories are about how bad non-MSM sources really are compared to the MSM, 1/2 the stories are about how America is destroying the world (globalism, imperialism, greenhouse gases), 1/2 the stories are about how American is doing nothing to save the world (hunger, poverty, democracy-opps...democracy is unnecessary); and last but not least, at least 3/4 of the stories are about how America, having done nothing, or everything, or too little or too much, is to blame for tsunami's, hurricanes, earthquakes, war, poverty, hunger, socialism failing, capitalism overpowering, religious strife, cartoons, freedom of the press/speech, killing Hitler... And I think my percentages are understated.
Cynicism: I have decided that I can not believe what anyone writes, reports, televises or tells me anymore unless I have heard it from at least two other completely unrelated sources, with at least two other conflicting opinions about what it means and if at all possible, two separate legal opinions that actually contradict what a reasonable, non-lawyer would think about the topic. If you think that I have too much time on my hands (I do, business sucks), or that I will never actually get all of the above on just about any topic, you are right(both counts). So, what would you do?
I'm thinking about chucking it all and moving to New Orleans to build houses and live in an RV. No actually I am not. (Victoria will read this and be worried). But come on. The world has a billion Moslems that consider my murder to be nothing more than stomping on a bug trying to crawl into their house, (moderate Moslems you say? Where? If they exist, they are hiding from the fanatics). There are a couple tens of millions of Christians that want nothing more than Armageddon, the sooner the better. Socialists (Communists with an inferiority complex) want everyone to pay everything so that everyone else will have everything they don't have but want because the Jones have it...as long as it is not invented, produced, manufactured, marketed or funded by anyone or anything American as that would be globalistic, imperialistic, capitalistic subjugation of impoverished peoples. Oh yea, and anti-union...
Iran wants a nuke, does ANYONE seriously believe that they are just going to let it sit on some well-lit pedestal to be admired? Does anyone seriously believe that if we ignore it and they use it, we will not be blamed for not acting unilaterally? Does anyone seriously believe that if we act unilaterally before they get a nuke and blow the shit out of them, that we will not be shouted down in every city in Europe, many here at home and UNIVERSALLY condemned?
Every single person I have ever known that has driven with me tells me I am a terrible driver, a threat to every decent driver on the road...but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, wants ME to drive if we are late!
I am tired of whiners and what the hell is a rant but whining?!?
Ports: Hillary is against it therefore, I am for it. Wait. Carter is for it therefore I am against it. Wait. I am against it because they are Arab? Racist? Me? Never...I am for it. Wait. How about some F.A.C.T.S!?! Until something changes, I am for Dubai getting the contract.
MSM: Is there really any reason to even bother with them anymore? 1) They never get their own information, it is either picked up from the wires or from some small hustling wannabe that actually gets the story; 2) EVERY story has a slant, a bias, a prejudice even if you can't see it right away. All reasonable sounding until someone else points out the fallacies inherent in the reports; 3) Did I really see a show over the weekend where the media was covering the story of the media and how it covers the media? A true result of self-esteem building navel gazing being taught in classrooms from kindergarten to graduate schools; 4) 1/2 of the stories are about MSM non-bias, 1/2 the stories are about other MSM failures to either report or report accurately, 1/2 the stories are about MSM itself, 1/2 the stories are about how bad non-MSM sources really are compared to the MSM, 1/2 the stories are about how America is destroying the world (globalism, imperialism, greenhouse gases), 1/2 the stories are about how American is doing nothing to save the world (hunger, poverty, democracy-opps...democracy is unnecessary); and last but not least, at least 3/4 of the stories are about how America, having done nothing, or everything, or too little or too much, is to blame for tsunami's, hurricanes, earthquakes, war, poverty, hunger, socialism failing, capitalism overpowering, religious strife, cartoons, freedom of the press/speech, killing Hitler... And I think my percentages are understated.
Cynicism: I have decided that I can not believe what anyone writes, reports, televises or tells me anymore unless I have heard it from at least two other completely unrelated sources, with at least two other conflicting opinions about what it means and if at all possible, two separate legal opinions that actually contradict what a reasonable, non-lawyer would think about the topic. If you think that I have too much time on my hands (I do, business sucks), or that I will never actually get all of the above on just about any topic, you are right(both counts). So, what would you do?
I'm thinking about chucking it all and moving to New Orleans to build houses and live in an RV. No actually I am not. (Victoria will read this and be worried). But come on. The world has a billion Moslems that consider my murder to be nothing more than stomping on a bug trying to crawl into their house, (moderate Moslems you say? Where? If they exist, they are hiding from the fanatics). There are a couple tens of millions of Christians that want nothing more than Armageddon, the sooner the better. Socialists (Communists with an inferiority complex) want everyone to pay everything so that everyone else will have everything they don't have but want because the Jones have it...as long as it is not invented, produced, manufactured, marketed or funded by anyone or anything American as that would be globalistic, imperialistic, capitalistic subjugation of impoverished peoples. Oh yea, and anti-union...
Iran wants a nuke, does ANYONE seriously believe that they are just going to let it sit on some well-lit pedestal to be admired? Does anyone seriously believe that if we ignore it and they use it, we will not be blamed for not acting unilaterally? Does anyone seriously believe that if we act unilaterally before they get a nuke and blow the shit out of them, that we will not be shouted down in every city in Europe, many here at home and UNIVERSALLY condemned?
Every single person I have ever known that has driven with me tells me I am a terrible driver, a threat to every decent driver on the road...but EVERY SINGLE ONE of them, wants ME to drive if we are late!
I am tired of whiners and what the hell is a rant but whining?!?
Friday, February 17, 2006
February Rant #1
Inherent in the liberal mindset is the belief that their position is based on compassion and rigorous intellectual effort. Therefore, anyone that does not share those beliefs is either not compassionate, ie evil, or lacking sufficient intelligence to reach a similar conclusion. The idea that most of human existence is nonlinear completely escapes them. (Nonlinear - more than 1 possible solution to 1 set of events)
Some examples:
"War is not the answer"
But is one possible answer. Of course the response to Pearl Harbor was war, but there were people that 1) blamed the US for Japan feeling it necessary to attack (sound familiar?) and 2) felt that we could negotiate with Japan. Chamberlain argued that Hitler could be talked to.
"Iraq is not our enemy"
Of course it was. As long as it was lead by Saddam, it was. North Korea is our enemy, Syria and Iran are. The PEOPLE of those countries may not be. Osama is not our enemy, he is a threat. Osama can not destroy the United States. He might be able to damage a part of it...but the liberals (and their press partners) have done more damage than 9/11...
You know what scared the shit out of the world? An America united and focused in anger. Not a single country (or group of them) could stand against us. The only real threat to the United States right now is being divided internally. And the liberals CLEARLY KNOW THIS.
Look back to 2002. Between the first attack on Afghanistan and the end of the year, the press caught on to the very small minority that blamed us for 9/11. It was our fault...not 19 murderers...not Osama...not the Taliban...we asked for it. Over the year, more and more it was printed that we were at fault...actually, Bush was at fault...
"Not in our name"
The arrogance of such a position. However, it is completely consistent with their idea that Iraq is not our enemy. It is also completely consistent with their "Bush is not my president". It all hinges on the concept that they are better than their countrymen. Understanding this position is simple: look how many of these people responded to 9/11 by demanding Afghanistan be blown 'back' into the dark ages. "How could they attack us...we are innocent....it was our government...not us!"
The liberal belief is actually based on a conservative ideal (no, really, give me a sec..): personal responsibility. Liberals believe each of us personally have a responsibility to help others less fortunate, lucky, skilled, educated than they (liberals) are. Their focus is on their own behavior...they have to help, they have to be the honorable ones, the ones that turn the other cheek...because the "others" are just not as good as they are...poor souls. And...and...we agree with ONE qualifier: did those "poor souls" arrive in their position as the result of their own choices, or choices out of their control? See, conservatives believe in personal responsibility also...we just expect OTHERS to held accountable too.
Some examples:
"War is not the answer"
But is one possible answer. Of course the response to Pearl Harbor was war, but there were people that 1) blamed the US for Japan feeling it necessary to attack (sound familiar?) and 2) felt that we could negotiate with Japan. Chamberlain argued that Hitler could be talked to.
"Iraq is not our enemy"
Of course it was. As long as it was lead by Saddam, it was. North Korea is our enemy, Syria and Iran are. The PEOPLE of those countries may not be. Osama is not our enemy, he is a threat. Osama can not destroy the United States. He might be able to damage a part of it...but the liberals (and their press partners) have done more damage than 9/11...
You know what scared the shit out of the world? An America united and focused in anger. Not a single country (or group of them) could stand against us. The only real threat to the United States right now is being divided internally. And the liberals CLEARLY KNOW THIS.
Look back to 2002. Between the first attack on Afghanistan and the end of the year, the press caught on to the very small minority that blamed us for 9/11. It was our fault...not 19 murderers...not Osama...not the Taliban...we asked for it. Over the year, more and more it was printed that we were at fault...actually, Bush was at fault...
"Not in our name"
The arrogance of such a position. However, it is completely consistent with their idea that Iraq is not our enemy. It is also completely consistent with their "Bush is not my president". It all hinges on the concept that they are better than their countrymen. Understanding this position is simple: look how many of these people responded to 9/11 by demanding Afghanistan be blown 'back' into the dark ages. "How could they attack us...we are innocent....it was our government...not us!"
The liberal belief is actually based on a conservative ideal (no, really, give me a sec..): personal responsibility. Liberals believe each of us personally have a responsibility to help others less fortunate, lucky, skilled, educated than they (liberals) are. Their focus is on their own behavior...they have to help, they have to be the honorable ones, the ones that turn the other cheek...because the "others" are just not as good as they are...poor souls. And...and...we agree with ONE qualifier: did those "poor souls" arrive in their position as the result of their own choices, or choices out of their control? See, conservatives believe in personal responsibility also...we just expect OTHERS to held accountable too.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Question....
If Dick Cheney had accidentally ran over Mr. Whittington with a golf cart resulting in a dangerous back injury would the current frenzy be occurring?
How about Mr. Whittington being hit by a golf ball and suffering a severe concussion?
How about Mr. Whittington tripping while walking down stairs with Cheney and suffering a broken neck?
Or is it only because a gun is involved?
And of the 18 hours. The shooting took place about 5:50pm. Assuming fast action and close proximity to a hospital, Mr. Whittington might have been in the hospital by 6:30 and no doubt Cheney was very worried about his long time friend. Give the doctors some time to determine his condition and call it 7:30pm. Apparently Bush was informed shortly thereafter and I am certain he was told Cheney pulled the trigger even if no one else is going to own up to it.
So...an accident occurs, the VP is not injured. Injuries to a private citizen appear non-life threatening. Put out the press release in the morning. Anyone got a problem with this? If Mr. Whittington had fallen off horse while riding and broke his neck, permanently paralyzed...VP issues a press release? How about the family? Any consideration there?
Or is it only because there is a gun involved?
I thought the left liked cowboys right now?
How about Mr. Whittington being hit by a golf ball and suffering a severe concussion?
How about Mr. Whittington tripping while walking down stairs with Cheney and suffering a broken neck?
Or is it only because a gun is involved?
And of the 18 hours. The shooting took place about 5:50pm. Assuming fast action and close proximity to a hospital, Mr. Whittington might have been in the hospital by 6:30 and no doubt Cheney was very worried about his long time friend. Give the doctors some time to determine his condition and call it 7:30pm. Apparently Bush was informed shortly thereafter and I am certain he was told Cheney pulled the trigger even if no one else is going to own up to it.
So...an accident occurs, the VP is not injured. Injuries to a private citizen appear non-life threatening. Put out the press release in the morning. Anyone got a problem with this? If Mr. Whittington had fallen off horse while riding and broke his neck, permanently paralyzed...VP issues a press release? How about the family? Any consideration there?
Or is it only because there is a gun involved?
I thought the left liked cowboys right now?
The Jar Jar Binks Award
Yes, I have decided to create an award for people who's sensibilities are harmed by the crassness of everyday life...
The Jar Jar Binks Award will be initially presented to James Risen, New York Times correspondent and author of "State of War". Dean Barnett offered a review of the book and mentioned two episodes that caught my eye:
Of course the Left is concerned with torture, after insuring the guns are unloaded, the interrogator's hands are tied, their response to "What are we going to use...HARSH LANGUAGE?!" is... of course not. As Jar Jar Binks would say, "Hawww ruudde!"
Congratulations James Risen, 1st recipient of the Jar Jar Binks Award.
The Jar Jar Binks Award will be initially presented to James Risen, New York Times correspondent and author of "State of War". Dean Barnett offered a review of the book and mentioned two episodes that caught my eye:
"You know where you are going. Before you get there, I'm going to find your mother and fuck her." Once again, Risen was so traumatized that he had to resort to putting the quote in italics to fully display his displeasure.
Risen's attitude in both cases shows you where he and his like-minded ilk stand. Note how his concerns here go well beyond the range of Andrew Sullivan-defined torture. While the belligerent CIA agent's comment will no doubt strike some as offensive and unnecessary, perhaps it is for the best that rough men like him are waging the war on terror rather than kindly sensitive types like James Risen.
Of course the Left is concerned with torture, after insuring the guns are unloaded, the interrogator's hands are tied, their response to "What are we going to use...HARSH LANGUAGE?!" is... of course not. As Jar Jar Binks would say, "Hawww ruudde!"
Congratulations James Risen, 1st recipient of the Jar Jar Binks Award.
OFF-TOPIC: Blogrolling
Yesterday I spent some time updating my blogroll. I wanted the list to more clearly represent what I am reading and recommending and my own idea about what blogging should be.
There are blogs that have literally a hundred blogs in their blogrolls. I am happy to appear in a few, however, I believe the best use of a blogroll should be to highlight blogs that you think others would benefit from reading. The blogs listed here I read regularly. Others that I visit only on occasion (either because I strongly disagree with their viewpoint or because like me, they don't post regularly) are omitted.
People like being listed in the blogrolls of popular sites...it MIGHT mean a few extra visitors and if the visitor count is important, worth the effort. However, the majority of us do not blog for dollars/visitors. So how about it? Trim your blogrolls, focus on those you would recommend to other busy readers and maybe blogrolls will become as valuable a resource on your page as it's position suggests!
There are blogs that have literally a hundred blogs in their blogrolls. I am happy to appear in a few, however, I believe the best use of a blogroll should be to highlight blogs that you think others would benefit from reading. The blogs listed here I read regularly. Others that I visit only on occasion (either because I strongly disagree with their viewpoint or because like me, they don't post regularly) are omitted.
People like being listed in the blogrolls of popular sites...it MIGHT mean a few extra visitors and if the visitor count is important, worth the effort. However, the majority of us do not blog for dollars/visitors. So how about it? Trim your blogrolls, focus on those you would recommend to other busy readers and maybe blogrolls will become as valuable a resource on your page as it's position suggests!
Monday, February 13, 2006
Incitement #2
Newspapers around the US are refraining from printing the editorial cartoons of Mohammad so as to not inflame the situation, insult Moslems, or provoke the wrath of the fanatics. So, tell me...exactly what were they doing with hundreds of pictures of prisoners in Abu Grab? Despite being told and shown, that publishing the pictures would do nothing but inflame the situation, the papers stated it was their duty to inform their readers and that without the pictures the story was incomplete.
John Gibson of FN pissed me off last week with his insistence that a Victorville California newspaper editor would act differently (they published one cartoon with an editorial) if they had a large Muslim population available to threaten their staff. (Note: I lived in outside Victorville while stationed in the Air Force and read the Daily Press most days).
If any media outlet published ONE picture of prisoner abuse from Abu Grab and they do not publish the cartoon(s) they have failed as an institution to live up to their mandate: stand and fight for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom from religious persecution. Is it any wonder they oppose the war on terror...
John Gibson of FN pissed me off last week with his insistence that a Victorville California newspaper editor would act differently (they published one cartoon with an editorial) if they had a large Muslim population available to threaten their staff. (Note: I lived in outside Victorville while stationed in the Air Force and read the Daily Press most days).
If any media outlet published ONE picture of prisoner abuse from Abu Grab and they do not publish the cartoon(s) they have failed as an institution to live up to their mandate: stand and fight for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom from religious persecution. Is it any wonder they oppose the war on terror...
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Incitement
Why should papers not publish the Mohammad cartoons now? Because it will further inflame the situation...
Sorry, but if those that want to protect the sensibilities of Moslems were to for a moment THINK about it, they would laugh at the Moslems protesting their poor insulted sensibilities. Sticks and stones may break our bones, but cartoons....please!
The Jordanian editor said it best, "which is more insulting, some cartoons or video of Moslems cutting off people's heads?" Blowing up civilians is ok, political cartoons are not? Why are we even having a discussion? I think every blogger, newspaper and news outlet should publish one editorial cartoon PER DAY for the next month poking fun at Islam and Mohammad. Why? Because if we are going to believe that the pen is mightier that the sword, we had better take them out of the pocket protectors and actually start using them....otherwise, the blood on the sword will soon be ours.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Cartoon - Laugh or cry
If one of you, just one of you that supported the publication of the editorial cartoons depicting Mohammad in European newspapers DARES to call Tole on his depiction of Rummy over a soldier's hospital bed, so help me....
Do not dare to marginalize our troops' sacrifice by suggesting anything but support for the editorial cartoon....you don't have to agree with it....but any call that it is over the line is itself over the line.
Do not dare to marginalize our troops' sacrifice by suggesting anything but support for the editorial cartoon....you don't have to agree with it....but any call that it is over the line is itself over the line.
Bankruptcy...(the new law, not the moral lack)
Judges have been rendering opinions about the new bankruptcy law since before it was passed and signed. The difference now is the opinions are legal....
Judge Frank Moore, Western District of Texas in case #05-20097
"Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers. One of the most absurd provisions of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual..."has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in 111(a) an individual or gropu briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Interent) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 USC 109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis"
"Simply stated, if a debtor does not request the required credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling service before the petition is filed, that person is ineligible to be a debtor no matter how dire the circumstances the person finds themselves in at that moment. "
"This Court views this requirement as inane. However, it is a clear and unambiguous provision obviously designed by Congress to protect consumers. "
"The Court's hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed. "
"An Order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased"
I don't know about Congress, but I am sure the mortgage company that has foreclosed and thrown the Sosa family out on the street is!
Judge Frank Moore, Western District of Texas in case #05-20097
"Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers. One of the most absurd provisions of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual..."has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in 111(a) an individual or gropu briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Interent) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 USC 109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis"
"This Court views this requirement as inane. However, it is a clear and unambiguous provision obviously designed by Congress to protect consumers. "
"The Court's hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed. "
"An Order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased"
I don't know about Congress, but I am sure the mortgage company that has foreclosed and thrown the Sosa family out on the street is!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)