The headline might be a bit misleading, as I am not going to write about Ukraine. I am not really going to be writing about the NCAA Men's College Basketball Championship either, except tangentially. Just a few minutes ago saw a tweet from the OFA account that uses Obama's name and it quoted the president as lamenting that, by only being able to pick one winner, the fans of the other 63 colleges involved would be mad at him.
Poor, tormented Mr. Obama.
So, we see that the President has filled out his brackets for March Madness, and we all expect that he will be embarrassingly wrong with his predictions. I don't see anybody really getting upset over his predictions either, because whether or not he picks your favorite team to go out in the first round, it has no influence over the actual games. At the end of the tournament, we will look back at his brackets and have a good laugh at his expense. Some will laugh louder than others, but nobody really thinks that the President's predictions should be taken seriously, not even those suffering from the deluded belief that Obama is the most supreme super-genius to ever occupy the White House. That is truly a good thing.
I saw the tweet from the Barrack Obama account earlier and thought, "Don't be such a baby. So people get upset over what is essentially a meaningless distraction. The results of the actual games will either vindicate you or your detractors, no harm done." No harm done, because we are in America and sports are a fun and the Presidential Brackets are but a meaningless distraction. Could you imagine a scenario where the leader's predictions of sports outcomes were to be taken seriously? Say that Iraq had their final 64 tournament about to kick off and Saddam published his bracket. Would the players take his predictions to be more than a fun outlet? How much influence would this have on the players on the court or the outcome of the game? I used to hear rumors that the Hussein sons would torture athletes who made poor showings in international competitions; what if national competitions were also given the same importance?
Alright, the scenario where a dictator makes his predictions and the games then turn out according to those predictions because the players fear the retribution that could take place for those who dare mock la grande fromage by losing at the wrong time or beating a team to which you were supposed to lose is incredibly hyperbolic. Still, it is nice to think that we are living in a world where the desires of the ruling class do not really affect many of the mundane aspects of life.
2014-03-21
2014-03-14
Little Ado About Everything
Yes, once again I have allowed myself to neglect this little blog for too long. I usually write out longer posts on a single subject, but this time I am going to attempt to hit a lot of subjects really quickly. machine gun style.
At this point, I don't see how Ukraine keeps Crimea. They don't have the werewithal to keep Russia from snatching it, and the EU, and US sure aren't going to stand up to Putin over that little bit of land. What we should be doing immediately is easing regulations here to make it easier to drill and gather natural gas, and allow its export to Europe. As long as Russia can monopolize the energy supplies of Europe, the EU will be perfectly willing to throw Baltic and Balkan states under the bus to keep from a confrontation. An alternative supply of energy sources probably won't be enough to stiffen Western Europe's spine, but without it there is no way they will be willing to take any actions.
Flight MH370. Weird story that sounds like it could only be a story on Coast to Coast radio. I initially assumed it went into the water, but even if it was whole when it went down, the impact on the water would probably have left some debris. The Pacific Ocean is a big place, so a crash is still my default assumption, but word getting out that the engines were still sending signals for hours after it disappeared from radar is freaky. How low would it have to fly to be below radar detection?
Florida 13 Special Election. I have not gotten in the weeds about the candidates in the race, and I am rather happy that the Republican won, but I get the impression that Jolly really is not the type of person I really want to see in Congress. I realize that Congress is, always has been and always will be filled with douchebags, and generally even the douchiest Republican will be better for the country than an angelic Democrat, but we should take no pleasure in sending questionable people just because of their party affiliation.
Speaking of douchebag Congressmen, what is up with that crybaby Cummings? The meeting was over, and he acted like an undisciplined child in Toys R Us who was just told he can't have a new G. I. Joe. The real question I have is why did Issa recall Lerner if she wasn't going to say anything?
Rugby- RBS Six Nations has its final matches this weekend. If Ireland beats France, they have take the trophy. If they don't, then it looks like England will win the championship. The Ireland vs. France match up should be the most competitive game this weekend- look for England to stomp Italy and Wales to beat Scotland by at least two tries. If form from the fourth round of play keeps up, the Ireland/ France game might not be all that competitive either. I just plan on sitting back and enjoying the games if my internet stays connected and my livestream doesn't konk out.
Alright people, have a good day. Remember, being awesome isn't just a state of mind, but you can't be awesome with a inferior mental attitude.
At this point, I don't see how Ukraine keeps Crimea. They don't have the werewithal to keep Russia from snatching it, and the EU, and US sure aren't going to stand up to Putin over that little bit of land. What we should be doing immediately is easing regulations here to make it easier to drill and gather natural gas, and allow its export to Europe. As long as Russia can monopolize the energy supplies of Europe, the EU will be perfectly willing to throw Baltic and Balkan states under the bus to keep from a confrontation. An alternative supply of energy sources probably won't be enough to stiffen Western Europe's spine, but without it there is no way they will be willing to take any actions.
Flight MH370. Weird story that sounds like it could only be a story on Coast to Coast radio. I initially assumed it went into the water, but even if it was whole when it went down, the impact on the water would probably have left some debris. The Pacific Ocean is a big place, so a crash is still my default assumption, but word getting out that the engines were still sending signals for hours after it disappeared from radar is freaky. How low would it have to fly to be below radar detection?
Florida 13 Special Election. I have not gotten in the weeds about the candidates in the race, and I am rather happy that the Republican won, but I get the impression that Jolly really is not the type of person I really want to see in Congress. I realize that Congress is, always has been and always will be filled with douchebags, and generally even the douchiest Republican will be better for the country than an angelic Democrat, but we should take no pleasure in sending questionable people just because of their party affiliation.
Speaking of douchebag Congressmen, what is up with that crybaby Cummings? The meeting was over, and he acted like an undisciplined child in Toys R Us who was just told he can't have a new G. I. Joe. The real question I have is why did Issa recall Lerner if she wasn't going to say anything?
Rugby- RBS Six Nations has its final matches this weekend. If Ireland beats France, they have take the trophy. If they don't, then it looks like England will win the championship. The Ireland vs. France match up should be the most competitive game this weekend- look for England to stomp Italy and Wales to beat Scotland by at least two tries. If form from the fourth round of play keeps up, the Ireland/ France game might not be all that competitive either. I just plan on sitting back and enjoying the games if my internet stays connected and my livestream doesn't konk out.
Alright people, have a good day. Remember, being awesome isn't just a state of mind, but you can't be awesome with a inferior mental attitude.
2014-02-26
The Cost of Not Expanding Freedom
The Arizona legislature passed SB 1062 last week, which is labeled "An Act Relating to the Free Exercise of Religion". It was passed seemingly in response to court cases in other states that mandate businesses to provide services for events they find violate their religious tenets, including the case of a baker in Colorado who was told he must provide wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples.
I have read claims likening this bill to the re-institution of Jim Crow laws, and the belief that this bill becoming law will usher in widespread discrimination against gays, and possibly other groups. People who support this bill state that it protects the religious freedom of business owners.
This situation reminds me of a not as well known controversy from about seven years ago. Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport would refuse service to people carrying alcohol, stating that transporting alcohol would violate their religious beliefs. The Metropolitan Airports Commission there even went so far as to impose a thirty day suspension of a cab driver's license if they refused to pick up a passenger for having alcohol, which was upheld by a state appeals court.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal in a cabbie at an airport refusing service, since there are usually a myriad of taxis waiting to transport passengers at airports and if one cabby refuses you, the next one is just as good. Even if the percentage of Muslims driving cabs in Minnesota is so high that some passengers with a bottle had to wait up to 20 minutes to find a cab willing to take them to their destination, is the time inconvenience for these people really any less egregious than the inconvenience the cab drivers suffered for having to transport the alcohol?
Almost everywhere you go, there are competing interests vying for your business. If one florist doesn't want to provide petunias for your party, go to the one next door or across town. There are plenty of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers to fulfill everybody's needs, so you shouldn't have to sue one to get what you want. I personally would not want to give my money to somebody who didn't want to serve me anyway, and I would be sure to tell all my friends, family and whatever random strangers will lend me an ear all about that business's disdainful lack of service.
I see the overarching principle at stake here as one of personal freedom. If the government forces a person or business into conducting any transaction, that is a violation of their personal rights. It is not even a matter of asserting a religious conviction, just a personal preference. This right of association is a personal right, and does not extend to the government itself, or governmental agencies and employees. While a priest can refuse to officiate at a gay wedding, a clerk of court cannot refuse to certify the marriage certificate in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.
Just as there are limits on the right to free speech, (I am sure you are all familiar with the old crowded theater trope by now,) there are limits to this freedom of service. While it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to refuse perform abortions, he should not be allowed to withhold needed care for a woman because of complications from an abortion performed by another doctor, and an ambulance driver should not be allowed to deny transportation for any reason other than immediate personal safety. However, the general principle is that people should be left alone to choose who they associate with, whether for business or social reasons, without any government interference.
Not everybody believes that businesses have the right to deny service. There have been threatened boycotts of Arizona if this bill becomes law.
Allow that to sink in for a moment before I continue.
There are people who are threatening to boycott Arizona over this bill, and they don't find it to be a violation of logic.
People who want to boycott Arizona over SB 1062 are basically asserting their right (and it is undoubtedly their right) to decline doing business with or in the state because they find it morally wrong for the state to say its residents have the right to decline doing business with those they find whose actions are morally wrong.
The proposed boycott seems to have a good chance of keeping this bill from becoming law. In fact, because of the boycott threats, especially an implied threat from the NFL that the Super Bowl, which is scheduled to be played in Arizona in 2015, could have a change of venue if the bill becomes law, has influenced three members of the Arizona Senate to write a letter to Governor Jan Brewer asking that she veto the bill.
I have read the text of Arizona's SB 1062. Why is it so controversial? Reading the actual bill, I couldn't tell you. It does not substantially change the law in any way other than to clarify that the use of that particular part of the Arizona Revised Statutes (the state law) can be used in trials that do not involve the state, state agencies or subordinate governments (e.g. county governments). It also clarifies what a person must establish (which I read as a synonym for "prove") in order to invoke the statute. This is where I have to really question the purpose of even passing this bill. Does it really expand or safeguard personal freedom? I do not see that it does. Does it encourage discrimination as opponents of the bill claim? I would say it no more encourages discrimination than the current law does.
I am not a lawyer, and have not followed the cases of the Muslim cabbies and Christian baker, or the few other related cases, closely enough to know what laws the states those cases were litigated in have on the books that purport to protect the religious rights of businesses, and I honestly don't know how much of a real effect this law will have on day to day life. It would seem to me, it should not really change much one way or the other. As I already wrote, it appears to only extend existing law to one's interactions with other private citizens, and I don't see why one should be compelled to violate one's conscience in service to other citizens if one cannot be compelled to do so in service to the state.
So, my final take on SB 1062 is that its intent is perfectly reasonable in hoping to protect the rights of Arizonans (Arizonians? Those sun-burnt kids and the retirees?) The people in support of the bill have a better moral case in that matter than those who oppose the bill. However, I do not believe that the statute as amended by this bill really expands or safeguards religious freedom any more than the statute as currently written does.
Not only do I see the bill unnecessary for this reason,but also I would take into account that three of its supporters in the senate have, for all intents and purposes, changed their vote on the bill after the fact. The margin of victory was 17-13. If we now consider these senators as having changed their vote, the new margin would be a 14-16 failure. For these reasons, I think that Governor Brewer should veto the bill.
I do not see the efficacy of signing the bill into law as it is. The minimal benefits of the bill are not worth the probable costs that will result from the expected boycotts of tourism and business transactions. I do not see a purpose of starting a war when the entire purpose of the battle would be to re-establish the status quo antebellum.
I have read claims likening this bill to the re-institution of Jim Crow laws, and the belief that this bill becoming law will usher in widespread discrimination against gays, and possibly other groups. People who support this bill state that it protects the religious freedom of business owners.
This situation reminds me of a not as well known controversy from about seven years ago. Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport would refuse service to people carrying alcohol, stating that transporting alcohol would violate their religious beliefs. The Metropolitan Airports Commission there even went so far as to impose a thirty day suspension of a cab driver's license if they refused to pick up a passenger for having alcohol, which was upheld by a state appeals court.
Honestly, I don't see the big deal in a cabbie at an airport refusing service, since there are usually a myriad of taxis waiting to transport passengers at airports and if one cabby refuses you, the next one is just as good. Even if the percentage of Muslims driving cabs in Minnesota is so high that some passengers with a bottle had to wait up to 20 minutes to find a cab willing to take them to their destination, is the time inconvenience for these people really any less egregious than the inconvenience the cab drivers suffered for having to transport the alcohol?
Almost everywhere you go, there are competing interests vying for your business. If one florist doesn't want to provide petunias for your party, go to the one next door or across town. There are plenty of butchers, bakers and candlestick makers to fulfill everybody's needs, so you shouldn't have to sue one to get what you want. I personally would not want to give my money to somebody who didn't want to serve me anyway, and I would be sure to tell all my friends, family and whatever random strangers will lend me an ear all about that business's disdainful lack of service.
I see the overarching principle at stake here as one of personal freedom. If the government forces a person or business into conducting any transaction, that is a violation of their personal rights. It is not even a matter of asserting a religious conviction, just a personal preference. This right of association is a personal right, and does not extend to the government itself, or governmental agencies and employees. While a priest can refuse to officiate at a gay wedding, a clerk of court cannot refuse to certify the marriage certificate in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.
Just as there are limits on the right to free speech, (I am sure you are all familiar with the old crowded theater trope by now,) there are limits to this freedom of service. While it is perfectly acceptable for a doctor to refuse perform abortions, he should not be allowed to withhold needed care for a woman because of complications from an abortion performed by another doctor, and an ambulance driver should not be allowed to deny transportation for any reason other than immediate personal safety. However, the general principle is that people should be left alone to choose who they associate with, whether for business or social reasons, without any government interference.
Not everybody believes that businesses have the right to deny service. There have been threatened boycotts of Arizona if this bill becomes law.
Allow that to sink in for a moment before I continue.
There are people who are threatening to boycott Arizona over this bill, and they don't find it to be a violation of logic.
People who want to boycott Arizona over SB 1062 are basically asserting their right (and it is undoubtedly their right) to decline doing business with or in the state because they find it morally wrong for the state to say its residents have the right to decline doing business with those they find whose actions are morally wrong.
The proposed boycott seems to have a good chance of keeping this bill from becoming law. In fact, because of the boycott threats, especially an implied threat from the NFL that the Super Bowl, which is scheduled to be played in Arizona in 2015, could have a change of venue if the bill becomes law, has influenced three members of the Arizona Senate to write a letter to Governor Jan Brewer asking that she veto the bill.
I have read the text of Arizona's SB 1062. Why is it so controversial? Reading the actual bill, I couldn't tell you. It does not substantially change the law in any way other than to clarify that the use of that particular part of the Arizona Revised Statutes (the state law) can be used in trials that do not involve the state, state agencies or subordinate governments (e.g. county governments). It also clarifies what a person must establish (which I read as a synonym for "prove") in order to invoke the statute. This is where I have to really question the purpose of even passing this bill. Does it really expand or safeguard personal freedom? I do not see that it does. Does it encourage discrimination as opponents of the bill claim? I would say it no more encourages discrimination than the current law does.
I am not a lawyer, and have not followed the cases of the Muslim cabbies and Christian baker, or the few other related cases, closely enough to know what laws the states those cases were litigated in have on the books that purport to protect the religious rights of businesses, and I honestly don't know how much of a real effect this law will have on day to day life. It would seem to me, it should not really change much one way or the other. As I already wrote, it appears to only extend existing law to one's interactions with other private citizens, and I don't see why one should be compelled to violate one's conscience in service to other citizens if one cannot be compelled to do so in service to the state.
So, my final take on SB 1062 is that its intent is perfectly reasonable in hoping to protect the rights of Arizonans (Arizonians? Those sun-burnt kids and the retirees?) The people in support of the bill have a better moral case in that matter than those who oppose the bill. However, I do not believe that the statute as amended by this bill really expands or safeguards religious freedom any more than the statute as currently written does.
Not only do I see the bill unnecessary for this reason,but also I would take into account that three of its supporters in the senate have, for all intents and purposes, changed their vote on the bill after the fact. The margin of victory was 17-13. If we now consider these senators as having changed their vote, the new margin would be a 14-16 failure. For these reasons, I think that Governor Brewer should veto the bill.
I do not see the efficacy of signing the bill into law as it is. The minimal benefits of the bill are not worth the probable costs that will result from the expected boycotts of tourism and business transactions. I do not see a purpose of starting a war when the entire purpose of the battle would be to re-establish the status quo antebellum.
2014-02-23
Sticks, Stones and a Blindside Tackle May Break My Bones...
I read a report on ESPN's website, or mobile site, or some site claiming an affiliation with ESPN, that the NFL is considering instituting a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for use of racial slurs. Actually, the story pretty much states one epithet in particular. It is a bit uncertain whether the penalty would be invoked for all ethnic/homophobic phrases.
My initial reaction upon reading this was, as long as you can still tell another player that you are going to run down to the red light district and pay $15 dollars to violate his mother after the game, there really shouldn't be a problem.
I try to avoid the use of ethnic slurs and demeaning language, and support efforts to cut them back, but trying to penalize players for what they say to one another on the field is a bit on the ridiculous side. Nobody likes to be called names, and nobody likes to be talked down to, but you should know when stepping out on the field that, along with the possibility of being injured, there is a good chance that the players on the other team will be saying mean things to you in hopes of breaking your concentration. Part of your job as a competitor it to ignore it and carry on with the task at hand.
There is also the question of how far is the league going to even try to take this. The article to which I linked only referred to one particular slur, but mentioned the rules committee could discuss others. Will they differentiate between uses of that word? Will an African-American player who says the word but pronounces it with an "a" get the same penalty as a European-American who annunciates the "er" ending? Does this mean we can expect the home team to get penalized if a song by the collective band of Easy E, Dr. Dre and Ice T is played over the stadium PA system?
More than that, suppose a cornerback tells a receiver, "You ain't getting by me, boy." Is that going to warrant a yellow flag? If a nose tackle tries to get an offensive guard discombobulated by telling him "Wow, those pants really do show off your assets, baby," will that get the ref's whistle blasting? Should a player be kicked out of the game for asking an opponent who is complaining to the side judge after every play, "Does that whine go with cheese and a cracker?"
I honestly don't know how much of a problem this really is in the NFL right now anyway. I am not anywhere near the playing fields during the games, so I don't know what they really say. I know that bullying has become a visible issue as a result of Richie Incognito's bullying of Jonathan Martin, so the league probably feels some pressure to do something about the situation, but that was mostly in the locker room and the practice field and the game time rule would not have much effect on that. Having spent over twenty years in the military and knowing what we would kid each other about, and remembering how we would refer to the enemy, I can imagine that participants in a violent game might be prone to a few off color remarks occasionally, especially during tense situations.
Should players be more respectful of one another and just shut up and play the game? Of course they should. Efforts toward increasing sportsmanship during sports is a great idea, but to invoke such a severe penalty against a player and his team for something that does no real harm to other players and gives no undue advantage to his own team is taking it too far. This isn't Scrabble. Let the players' actions decide the outcome of the game, not their words.
My initial reaction upon reading this was, as long as you can still tell another player that you are going to run down to the red light district and pay $15 dollars to violate his mother after the game, there really shouldn't be a problem.
I try to avoid the use of ethnic slurs and demeaning language, and support efforts to cut them back, but trying to penalize players for what they say to one another on the field is a bit on the ridiculous side. Nobody likes to be called names, and nobody likes to be talked down to, but you should know when stepping out on the field that, along with the possibility of being injured, there is a good chance that the players on the other team will be saying mean things to you in hopes of breaking your concentration. Part of your job as a competitor it to ignore it and carry on with the task at hand.
There is also the question of how far is the league going to even try to take this. The article to which I linked only referred to one particular slur, but mentioned the rules committee could discuss others. Will they differentiate between uses of that word? Will an African-American player who says the word but pronounces it with an "a" get the same penalty as a European-American who annunciates the "er" ending? Does this mean we can expect the home team to get penalized if a song by the collective band of Easy E, Dr. Dre and Ice T is played over the stadium PA system?
More than that, suppose a cornerback tells a receiver, "You ain't getting by me, boy." Is that going to warrant a yellow flag? If a nose tackle tries to get an offensive guard discombobulated by telling him "Wow, those pants really do show off your assets, baby," will that get the ref's whistle blasting? Should a player be kicked out of the game for asking an opponent who is complaining to the side judge after every play, "Does that whine go with cheese and a cracker?"
I honestly don't know how much of a problem this really is in the NFL right now anyway. I am not anywhere near the playing fields during the games, so I don't know what they really say. I know that bullying has become a visible issue as a result of Richie Incognito's bullying of Jonathan Martin, so the league probably feels some pressure to do something about the situation, but that was mostly in the locker room and the practice field and the game time rule would not have much effect on that. Having spent over twenty years in the military and knowing what we would kid each other about, and remembering how we would refer to the enemy, I can imagine that participants in a violent game might be prone to a few off color remarks occasionally, especially during tense situations.
Should players be more respectful of one another and just shut up and play the game? Of course they should. Efforts toward increasing sportsmanship during sports is a great idea, but to invoke such a severe penalty against a player and his team for something that does no real harm to other players and gives no undue advantage to his own team is taking it too far. This isn't Scrabble. Let the players' actions decide the outcome of the game, not their words.
2014-02-17
Have a Happy Birthday, George
You might call it President's Day, but the official designation of the holiday is George Washington's Birthday. Go see Frank Fleming at IMAO for the details.
And George Washington would kick Napoleon's ass in a fight any day.
And George Washington would kick Napoleon's ass in a fight any day.
2014-02-16
Oil Shocks
I would have been less surprised to learn that bigfoot is real than to read what I did in an op-ed by Yousuf Al-Khuwailit in yesterday's Saudi Gazette.
The article was titled An Impending Danger and was basic boilerplate that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia needs to take steps to become more responsible in its use of energy resources. This is a basic awareness-raising article that people in the US have been used to seeing forever, and was no real surprise to see here in Saudi Arabia. The surprising part was the third sentence of the article:
Saudi Arabia importing oil? The very thought is unfathomable. According to US Energy Information Administration figures and my calculator, Saudi Arabia's daily oil consumption is less than 1/4 of its daily oil production. Those figures are through 2012, but I think the ratio is has not changed much in the last 14 months. There are warnings from Saudi Aramco, the country's oil company, that energy needs in the Kingdom are about to dramatically increase, but to quadruple in two decades?
What does that mean for the United States? The U.S. is currently experiencing an oil boom, with improved methods of gathering (fracking and horizontal drilling) that allow for the exploitation of previously unreachable oil supplies. A country that as recently as 2012 imported over 7 million barrels of oil a day (US EIA figures again-those numbers are coming in handy) is now considering relaxing its ban on exporting oil that has been in place. This is all taking place while an administration that is, if not openly hostile to oil production increases, not going out of its way to be supportive of any fossil fuel industry.
This is a great time for the United States to exploit our resources, and to be ready to expand on our production. Yes, improved technology and alternative sources of energy are nice to have, but when the opportunity to increase jobs, and cut into our normal trade deficit comes along, we should do all we can to take advantage of it.
The article was titled An Impending Danger and was basic boilerplate that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia needs to take steps to become more responsible in its use of energy resources. This is a basic awareness-raising article that people in the US have been used to seeing forever, and was no real surprise to see here in Saudi Arabia. The surprising part was the third sentence of the article:
There are also dangerous indexes that indicate we might become importers of oil instead of exporters within the next two decades.
Saudi Arabia importing oil? The very thought is unfathomable. According to US Energy Information Administration figures and my calculator, Saudi Arabia's daily oil consumption is less than 1/4 of its daily oil production. Those figures are through 2012, but I think the ratio is has not changed much in the last 14 months. There are warnings from Saudi Aramco, the country's oil company, that energy needs in the Kingdom are about to dramatically increase, but to quadruple in two decades?
What does that mean for the United States? The U.S. is currently experiencing an oil boom, with improved methods of gathering (fracking and horizontal drilling) that allow for the exploitation of previously unreachable oil supplies. A country that as recently as 2012 imported over 7 million barrels of oil a day (US EIA figures again-those numbers are coming in handy) is now considering relaxing its ban on exporting oil that has been in place. This is all taking place while an administration that is, if not openly hostile to oil production increases, not going out of its way to be supportive of any fossil fuel industry.
This is a great time for the United States to exploit our resources, and to be ready to expand on our production. Yes, improved technology and alternative sources of energy are nice to have, but when the opportunity to increase jobs, and cut into our normal trade deficit comes along, we should do all we can to take advantage of it.
Ability Is Not Enough
Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.
- Calvin Coolidge
Todd Kincannon mentioned on Twitter that Mark Wohlers is the hardest throwing person on the planet. That and the opening of Spring Training put me in a mind to write about Steve Dalkowski, who most likely actually was the hardest throwing person on the planet.
How hard did he throw? Let me put it this way- the man is legendary in baseball circles for the speed of his fastball, despite the fact he never played in the majors. How many people become minor league legends? (I saw Minor League Legends open for Depeche Mode in '94.)
During the course of research to refresh my mind on the stories about Dalkowski, I decided against writing a full post about him, for the simple fact that the post I intended write was already done seven years ago by Steve Treder at The Hardball Times.
Looking again at the story of Steve Dalkowski does bring to mind a couple of questions though. Dalkowski had an amazing gift in his arm, but what came of it? Instead of the fortune and fame a gift like that could have garnered if properly focused, he has become a cautionary tale of what might have been. Perhaps some of his raw ability to throw a baseball was contravened with a possibly below average intellect, but even a desire to succeed resulted in working on his craft instead of relying solely on natural talent would have helped. Maybe if Dalkowski had been able to focus himself to the job of pitching not only when he was on the mound, but also when he was away from the field, we would be reading an entirely different baseball record book today.
Focus is one of the most difficult things to maintain, and there is really no Viagra type pill to keep up motivation. But successful people seem to have the common denominator of tenacious desire to succeed and the wherewithal to do whatever it takes to achieve it. This will to succeed can spill overshadow other aspects of life.
To stay with the sports theme, Michael Jordan is given remarkable natural ability to run, jump and shoot a basketball. So was Allen Iverson. Michael Jordan was known to be the first one at practice and the last to leave. Iverson is best known for whining that his coach expected him to work during practice. Which one do you think has 6 NBA Championships to his credit?
But it is not just on the playing field and practice court that success is created. You must actively avoid harming your chances at success. Treder's article shows how drinking ruined not just Dalkowski's career, but his entire life. Similarly, you see very few CEO's talking like Spicolli or Jay and Silent Bob (okay, just Jay. Silent Bob doesn't really talk much and doesn't sound like much of a stoner when he does.)
While this is a lesson best learned during the formative years of childhood, it is still better late than never. So, people, get it in gear, straighten up and fly right, and don't just dream, but set goals. Once goals are set, get to work. Achievement is a matter of sweat.
- Calvin Coolidge
Todd Kincannon mentioned on Twitter that Mark Wohlers is the hardest throwing person on the planet. That and the opening of Spring Training put me in a mind to write about Steve Dalkowski, who most likely actually was the hardest throwing person on the planet.
How hard did he throw? Let me put it this way- the man is legendary in baseball circles for the speed of his fastball, despite the fact he never played in the majors. How many people become minor league legends? (I saw Minor League Legends open for Depeche Mode in '94.)
During the course of research to refresh my mind on the stories about Dalkowski, I decided against writing a full post about him, for the simple fact that the post I intended write was already done seven years ago by Steve Treder at The Hardball Times.
Looking again at the story of Steve Dalkowski does bring to mind a couple of questions though. Dalkowski had an amazing gift in his arm, but what came of it? Instead of the fortune and fame a gift like that could have garnered if properly focused, he has become a cautionary tale of what might have been. Perhaps some of his raw ability to throw a baseball was contravened with a possibly below average intellect, but even a desire to succeed resulted in working on his craft instead of relying solely on natural talent would have helped. Maybe if Dalkowski had been able to focus himself to the job of pitching not only when he was on the mound, but also when he was away from the field, we would be reading an entirely different baseball record book today.
Focus is one of the most difficult things to maintain, and there is really no Viagra type pill to keep up motivation. But successful people seem to have the common denominator of tenacious desire to succeed and the wherewithal to do whatever it takes to achieve it. This will to succeed can spill overshadow other aspects of life.
To stay with the sports theme, Michael Jordan is given remarkable natural ability to run, jump and shoot a basketball. So was Allen Iverson. Michael Jordan was known to be the first one at practice and the last to leave. Iverson is best known for whining that his coach expected him to work during practice. Which one do you think has 6 NBA Championships to his credit?
But it is not just on the playing field and practice court that success is created. You must actively avoid harming your chances at success. Treder's article shows how drinking ruined not just Dalkowski's career, but his entire life. Similarly, you see very few CEO's talking like Spicolli or Jay and Silent Bob (okay, just Jay. Silent Bob doesn't really talk much and doesn't sound like much of a stoner when he does.)
While this is a lesson best learned during the formative years of childhood, it is still better late than never. So, people, get it in gear, straighten up and fly right, and don't just dream, but set goals. Once goals are set, get to work. Achievement is a matter of sweat.
2014-02-05
My Favorite Item from the Bill of Rights
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Constitution of the United States, Amendment III
I love the Third Amendment.
It is not at all controversial. Only once in the history of the United States has the Third Amendment been used to decide court case (Engbloom v. Carey, 2nd Circuit, 1982.) There have in reality been violations of the amendment, usually when lands and buildings are used without the requisite legislation during wartime, but the Third Amendment has generally been well respected by the government.
If restrictions on the quartering of troops are so uncontroversial and nobody ever thinks to put soldiers in private homes anyway, the strawman I am constructing just asked, then why even bother having an amendment to cover it?
Quartering of soldiers was a fact of life during the colonial times. Families had to give up living space, or space that could have been used to earn money renting to boarders, to make room for uninvited Redcoat guests. Let me assure you, despite the image created on screen of soldiers in highly maintained rooms who make their beds so coins can bounce off them and who are absolutely adamant about placing everything exactly where it belongs, soldiers in real life are not always the people you want as a roommate. Soldiers get to be loud and obnoxious. For them, drinking is a sport, and soldiers coming home late and none too quietly is not unheard of. Is this type of soldier typical? Honestly, no, most soldiers are great friends and companions, but there are enough of the sluggard type to say it is not really unusual.
It is not just the forced cohabitation with a low life that is the problem. The very fact that somebody has been placed in your house against your will is unsettling. Having a soldier in the house could seem like you are being monitored, like you are living under surveillance, as a tourist in communist country might have a handler while over there. If you had a Redcoat at your dining room table, do you really think you would be free criticize King George? If you had a soldier watching the evening news with you each night, would you be as quick to complain about President Obama?
Memories of this time before the Revolution lingered, so when it came time for the first Congress to get around to adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, quartering of troops was still a violation remembered by many in the young country, which explains its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. So, while there was a reluctance for that Congress to put soldiers into private homes anyway, they wanted to ensure that is would not happen to future generations. They also wanted to ensure the populace that the national government could be trusted to safeguard their rights.
I like that the Bill of Rights a covers items that we no longer even think of as targets for violation. I think that the country would be much better off if we had more of the amendments from the Bill of Rights that we viewed in the same way.
Constitution of the United States, Amendment III
I love the Third Amendment.
It is not at all controversial. Only once in the history of the United States has the Third Amendment been used to decide court case (Engbloom v. Carey, 2nd Circuit, 1982.) There have in reality been violations of the amendment, usually when lands and buildings are used without the requisite legislation during wartime, but the Third Amendment has generally been well respected by the government.
If restrictions on the quartering of troops are so uncontroversial and nobody ever thinks to put soldiers in private homes anyway, the strawman I am constructing just asked, then why even bother having an amendment to cover it?
Quartering of soldiers was a fact of life during the colonial times. Families had to give up living space, or space that could have been used to earn money renting to boarders, to make room for uninvited Redcoat guests. Let me assure you, despite the image created on screen of soldiers in highly maintained rooms who make their beds so coins can bounce off them and who are absolutely adamant about placing everything exactly where it belongs, soldiers in real life are not always the people you want as a roommate. Soldiers get to be loud and obnoxious. For them, drinking is a sport, and soldiers coming home late and none too quietly is not unheard of. Is this type of soldier typical? Honestly, no, most soldiers are great friends and companions, but there are enough of the sluggard type to say it is not really unusual.
It is not just the forced cohabitation with a low life that is the problem. The very fact that somebody has been placed in your house against your will is unsettling. Having a soldier in the house could seem like you are being monitored, like you are living under surveillance, as a tourist in communist country might have a handler while over there. If you had a Redcoat at your dining room table, do you really think you would be free criticize King George? If you had a soldier watching the evening news with you each night, would you be as quick to complain about President Obama?
Memories of this time before the Revolution lingered, so when it came time for the first Congress to get around to adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, quartering of troops was still a violation remembered by many in the young country, which explains its inclusion in the Bill of Rights. So, while there was a reluctance for that Congress to put soldiers into private homes anyway, they wanted to ensure that is would not happen to future generations. They also wanted to ensure the populace that the national government could be trusted to safeguard their rights.
I like that the Bill of Rights a covers items that we no longer even think of as targets for violation. I think that the country would be much better off if we had more of the amendments from the Bill of Rights that we viewed in the same way.
2014-02-04
Wi-Fi Sigh
"In a country where we demand free wi-fi with our coffee, we should certainly demand it in our schools."
-Barrack Obama
Does he realize that most students don't even drink coffee?
Not really funny, but when it comes to education reform, wi-fi in schools is hardly a priority, though the folks at OFA who run Obama's Twitter account seem to want #Connected to trend today, so they are touting some of the president's ideas. In addition to the wi-fi, they want paid more funding for expanded pre-K.
In a normal school though the high school level, I don't see what difference Wi-Fi would make to education. Most classes at those levels do not require a bunch of research, and the students should be learning how to conduct research using print media anyway. Teach them the basic research skills before expanding.
This is not to say that wi-fi and expanded internet access cannot be helpful to education, but to deem it a necessity, or even a priority, is a mistake. Yes Google and even Wikipedia can be great research tools, but honestly, the biggest use student would get out of wi-fi would be the ability to update their Facebook status without biting into the data allotment on their calling plan.
The expanded pre-K plan has its own problems. Any educational benefits from pre-K disappear after just a few years, meaning that, by the time they reach third or fourth grade, children who attend pre-K do not seem to perform better than students who did not attend pre-K. With this in mind, is it really a good use of public funds to expand a program with very little, if any real benefit?
There are reforms that can be encouraged that would help education, but for some reason the president does not seem to be as interested in them. I am not going to say definitively that the reason is the NEA, but I am not going to discourage anybody from inferring it. One basic reform is encouraging school choice through voucher or alternate funding programs. While Oliver Brown might have sued the Topeka Board of Education to allow his daughter to attend the nearest school, today many parents see better opportunities in schools that might not be right around the corner. They should be allowed to place their children in the schools that best suit their preferences.
Basically, I want to see whatever money we do spend on education to make a difference for out students. Wi-fi might be a nice for schools to have, but it is not necessary, and should not be a spending priority.
-Barrack Obama
Does he realize that most students don't even drink coffee?
Not really funny, but when it comes to education reform, wi-fi in schools is hardly a priority, though the folks at OFA who run Obama's Twitter account seem to want #Connected to trend today, so they are touting some of the president's ideas. In addition to the wi-fi, they want paid more funding for expanded pre-K.
In a normal school though the high school level, I don't see what difference Wi-Fi would make to education. Most classes at those levels do not require a bunch of research, and the students should be learning how to conduct research using print media anyway. Teach them the basic research skills before expanding.
This is not to say that wi-fi and expanded internet access cannot be helpful to education, but to deem it a necessity, or even a priority, is a mistake. Yes Google and even Wikipedia can be great research tools, but honestly, the biggest use student would get out of wi-fi would be the ability to update their Facebook status without biting into the data allotment on their calling plan.
The expanded pre-K plan has its own problems. Any educational benefits from pre-K disappear after just a few years, meaning that, by the time they reach third or fourth grade, children who attend pre-K do not seem to perform better than students who did not attend pre-K. With this in mind, is it really a good use of public funds to expand a program with very little, if any real benefit?
There are reforms that can be encouraged that would help education, but for some reason the president does not seem to be as interested in them. I am not going to say definitively that the reason is the NEA, but I am not going to discourage anybody from inferring it. One basic reform is encouraging school choice through voucher or alternate funding programs. While Oliver Brown might have sued the Topeka Board of Education to allow his daughter to attend the nearest school, today many parents see better opportunities in schools that might not be right around the corner. They should be allowed to place their children in the schools that best suit their preferences.
Basically, I want to see whatever money we do spend on education to make a difference for out students. Wi-fi might be a nice for schools to have, but it is not necessary, and should not be a spending priority.
2014-02-01
Feeling Far Away From Home
Some things that I thought I would miss about home while I am working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia turned out to be not all that significant. The lack of alcohol doesn't bother me as much as I thought it might. Yes, being able to come home from work and have a beer is always a wonderful, almost magical, thing, but it isn't as necessary as I once believed. Pork products (not only bacon, but also the schnitzel that I make at least once a month) are a little bit harder to do without. Other things that I did not even consider to be important when I hopped on that airplane to leave the States seem to make me yearn to be back in my homeland more than I imagined. Super Bowl Sunday is one of those times.
I was in the Army for over twenty years, so this is not my first time out of the country. I had a good idea what it was going to be like to be separated from family, but every time I leave the States, different things bring my longings for home. This time, it's the Super Bowl.
After retiring from the Army, I discovered that the skill set I had developed during my time of service translated pretty well to a job working in Saudi Arabia helping their National Guard develop training programs. In fact, my skill set seemed to match so well, I did not even go through an interview process. Upon seeing my resume and application, I was offered a position contingent on being able to pass a physical and acquire a visa.
I had seen a company representative at job fairs on two different military posts and had assumed that multiple positions at the company would actually be a pretty good fit for me, but I did have some concerns. There were the obvious family concerns about living in a foreign land while leaving behind my wife, plus our grandchildren. The youngest had her first birthday about a week after I left. I also was not exactly sure that I wanted to expose myself to the Saudi culture, with its very strict adherence to Sharia laws.
There was also the concern about whether I really wanted to take a job helping the Saudi military. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Usama bin Laden and was home of a majority of the 9-11 hijackers. Looking into it, the kingdom actually has been a pretty decent ally of the U.S. In fact, since being here, it has been Saudi Arabia getting disappointed with the actions of the U.S. in regards to Syria and Iran that have caused most of the diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
Obviously, I took the position, because I am here now. The company I work for has us all living on a single compound that is in many way similar to a military compound. We stay in a walled, limited access compound with our apartments and some recreational facilities inside. The compound is protected with company hired security and is watched by the Saudi Arabia National Guard. The company provides internet access, but limits daily data usage. Cable television is also available, though I have not brought a television. I get my entertainment through websites and movies from the DVD library. Also, thanks to Vonage, I can spend hours a day speaking with my wife back at home, thought the 8 hour time difference means our schedules don't mesh all that well.
Because I live on the compound, the culture shock aspect of the move has been greatly diminished. I have to commute every day through the world's worst traffic (the highway fatality numbers here are well over double, almost 21/2 times that of Texas, which has a similar population), but work with Americans at the office. Generally the only time I venture off the compound otherwise is to go grocery shopping two or three Saturdays a month.
The most frustrating thing about being over here has got to be the time zone difference. About thirty one hours from now, the Super Bowl will be kicking off. I will just be getting up and ready to go to work. Between the early hours we keep at work and the time zone difference, I will probably be on my morning commute for at least a quarter of the game. That's if I can find someplace to watch it online. I really don't care about who wins the game, though either way I want to see a Richard Sherman post game interview. But more than that, even if I were able to sit and watch the game, I would still be missing out on all the commercials.
I know, generally the commercials are a good time for a bathroom break, but this is the Super Bowl. The commercials have become a cultural phenomenon all their own now. Some of the most poignant and impressive uses of any visual medium will be on display for all to see. (You can agree that the Dodge commercial featuring the Paul Harvey "God created a farmer" voiceover and the Budweiser Clydesdale reunion commercial were both vastly more entertaining than Transformers 2 or any episode of Girls.) Except me, because whatever channel shows the Super Bowl over here will not be showing the American commercials.
And where am I supposed to catch the Puppy Bowl? Missing the Puppy Bowl is one of the true outrages of being overseas. Yes, most television events I can do without. The awards shows haven't interested me in twenty years, and I never much cared for basketball, so, for me, missing March Madness matters minimally. I seem to only take the World Series seriously when a Chicago team is playing (so, almost never.) I will be trying to follow the Olympics starting next week, and there are regular series that I can't keep up with now (when does The Walking Dead return?) But missing the Super Bowl and the Puppy Bowl is pretty bleak.
Other than Christmas and my and my wife's shared birthday, there is really no time of the year that I miss being in the States more than this weekend. Of course, I still have quite some time left over here. I know that St. Patrick's Day, my anniversary, and Independence Day are still on the horizon for me. I know that those days will make me long for the States again, but, like the Super Bowl, I wonder what other events will trigger my homesickness.
I was in the Army for over twenty years, so this is not my first time out of the country. I had a good idea what it was going to be like to be separated from family, but every time I leave the States, different things bring my longings for home. This time, it's the Super Bowl.
After retiring from the Army, I discovered that the skill set I had developed during my time of service translated pretty well to a job working in Saudi Arabia helping their National Guard develop training programs. In fact, my skill set seemed to match so well, I did not even go through an interview process. Upon seeing my resume and application, I was offered a position contingent on being able to pass a physical and acquire a visa.
I had seen a company representative at job fairs on two different military posts and had assumed that multiple positions at the company would actually be a pretty good fit for me, but I did have some concerns. There were the obvious family concerns about living in a foreign land while leaving behind my wife, plus our grandchildren. The youngest had her first birthday about a week after I left. I also was not exactly sure that I wanted to expose myself to the Saudi culture, with its very strict adherence to Sharia laws.
There was also the concern about whether I really wanted to take a job helping the Saudi military. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Usama bin Laden and was home of a majority of the 9-11 hijackers. Looking into it, the kingdom actually has been a pretty decent ally of the U.S. In fact, since being here, it has been Saudi Arabia getting disappointed with the actions of the U.S. in regards to Syria and Iran that have caused most of the diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
Obviously, I took the position, because I am here now. The company I work for has us all living on a single compound that is in many way similar to a military compound. We stay in a walled, limited access compound with our apartments and some recreational facilities inside. The compound is protected with company hired security and is watched by the Saudi Arabia National Guard. The company provides internet access, but limits daily data usage. Cable television is also available, though I have not brought a television. I get my entertainment through websites and movies from the DVD library. Also, thanks to Vonage, I can spend hours a day speaking with my wife back at home, thought the 8 hour time difference means our schedules don't mesh all that well.
Because I live on the compound, the culture shock aspect of the move has been greatly diminished. I have to commute every day through the world's worst traffic (the highway fatality numbers here are well over double, almost 21/2 times that of Texas, which has a similar population), but work with Americans at the office. Generally the only time I venture off the compound otherwise is to go grocery shopping two or three Saturdays a month.
The most frustrating thing about being over here has got to be the time zone difference. About thirty one hours from now, the Super Bowl will be kicking off. I will just be getting up and ready to go to work. Between the early hours we keep at work and the time zone difference, I will probably be on my morning commute for at least a quarter of the game. That's if I can find someplace to watch it online. I really don't care about who wins the game, though either way I want to see a Richard Sherman post game interview. But more than that, even if I were able to sit and watch the game, I would still be missing out on all the commercials.
I know, generally the commercials are a good time for a bathroom break, but this is the Super Bowl. The commercials have become a cultural phenomenon all their own now. Some of the most poignant and impressive uses of any visual medium will be on display for all to see. (You can agree that the Dodge commercial featuring the Paul Harvey "God created a farmer" voiceover and the Budweiser Clydesdale reunion commercial were both vastly more entertaining than Transformers 2 or any episode of Girls.) Except me, because whatever channel shows the Super Bowl over here will not be showing the American commercials.
And where am I supposed to catch the Puppy Bowl? Missing the Puppy Bowl is one of the true outrages of being overseas. Yes, most television events I can do without. The awards shows haven't interested me in twenty years, and I never much cared for basketball, so, for me, missing March Madness matters minimally. I seem to only take the World Series seriously when a Chicago team is playing (so, almost never.) I will be trying to follow the Olympics starting next week, and there are regular series that I can't keep up with now (when does The Walking Dead return?) But missing the Super Bowl and the Puppy Bowl is pretty bleak.
Other than Christmas and my and my wife's shared birthday, there is really no time of the year that I miss being in the States more than this weekend. Of course, I still have quite some time left over here. I know that St. Patrick's Day, my anniversary, and Independence Day are still on the horizon for me. I know that those days will make me long for the States again, but, like the Super Bowl, I wonder what other events will trigger my homesickness.
2014-01-29
Assorted Notes About State of the Union
"The question for everyone in this chamber, running through every decision we make this year, is whether we are going to help or hinder this progress."
Who else noticed that some of the progress that the president pointed out was not really all that impressive when you look at it closely. Yes, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 5 years, but the labor force percentage is the lowest it has been in over 35 years.
Then there is the oil boom of the last few years. This is not a result of administration policies, but in spite of them. New technologies have given us (well, not you and me "us," unless you happen to be a engineer for Exxon or BP, but "us" as in the country) the ability to drill oil from wells that were inaccessible just a few years ago.
Even the line about our deficits being cut by half is not really all that impressive when you look at it. First off, what year is he using as a baseline? Weren't 2008 and 2009 really incredibly bad years for deficits because of TARP and the stimulus (Didn't Tarp and the Stimulus open for Fall Out Boy at Ravinia in '03?) Cutting in half a redwood still leaves a lot of lumber to deal with.
"Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs here at home."
I agree that corporate tax rates do need to be cut. Ours are among the highest in the world right now and could easily be cut in half. In fact, I would even be happy to see a tax amnesty for companies bringing money that they have money earned overseas here to be invested in the U.S.
I must admit that I sense a bit of disingenuousness in the president on this one. I really don't think he is all that interested in cutting business taxes or making it easier for them to re-locate to the U.S. And when he says ending loopholes, what he really means is seeing companies pay more for their foreign investments. This tactic is much more stick than carrot. Besides, when you have a National Labor Relations Board that vetoes Boeing opening up a plant in North Carolina, you can hardly be said to have a real interest in attracting investors or creating jobs. If you are going to treat domestic businesses that shabbily, why would foreign investors want to come here?
"Moreover, we can take the money we save with this transition to tax reform to create jobs..."
Here President Obama is still speaking about the tax reform to close the loopholes that encourage companies to move operations overseas. He wants to use that money to help build better infrastructure. I just want to point out that tax reform does not save the government any money, and it is contemptible to even suggest so. There is only one way to save money, and that is to not spend it. Either you forgo certain goods or services so you can keep the money, or you find those goods and services for a cheaper price. What the president really means here is that we can use money from increased tax revenues for other purposes. Please note that this is the same paragraph that the president promises to cut back on bureaucracy to streamline projects getting approved. I honestly think that bureaucracy is on President Obama's list of "My Five Favorite Things in the World."
"Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do."
Once again the President is speaking like all money that you or a company does not pay in taxes is a gift from the government. If you think that oil, coal and natural gas companies aren't paying their fair share of taxes, say so, but don't say the tax code is giving them money. It is particularly galling in this instance, since more of the money you pay for a gallon of gas goes to the government than to oil company profits. Are there actual direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies? Yes, but they don't amount to $4 billion, and they would not be ended by "a smarter tax policy."
There is also the matter that subsidizing any industry has its problems. The price of corn is artificially high because of subsidies for ethanol, (companies developing ethanol pay more for the corn, meaning all corn prices go up.) even though, as energy sources go, ethanol is terrible. Not just bad, but terrible. I mean the type of terrible that needs to be said in Charles Barkley's voice. This actually effects the price of all food, as farmers see the profitability of corn and switch from other crops, like wheat, to grow corn. Now there is less wheat available so the cost goes up. Also, as far as subsidies go, wind and solar power get far more in subsidies per kilowatt hour produced than any fossil fuel.
"Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work."
First of all, female advisors in the White House earn less than the males. Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to get the speck out of your brother's eye. That 77% is a bit misleading. Outside of he White House, males and females with the same job experience and same degree of responsibility tend to get paid about even.
"In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty."
So he is going to sign an executive order that affects absolutely nobody. Government contractor jobs aren't generally the type that pay minimum wage, even to the people who wash dishes in military dining facilities. For the private sector, there is always the possibility that an increase in the minimum wage means fewer jobs. In a business that has ten minimum wage employees, the cost for the business in wages will be about $80.00 an hour. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will raise those costs to about $110.00 an hour. To keep costs about the same, the company would have to fire three employees, or they could raise prices to try to cover the difference, or a combination of the two.What happens if raising prices causes business to slack off? Would the loss of revenue result in even more lost jobs?
"Citizenship means standing up for everyone’s right to vote."
Then you should support Voter ID laws.
This is not because identification makes it more difficult to vote, but because it helps prevent fraud and gives people the assurance of a fairly run election.
Personally, I think we are trying to make it too easy to cast a ballot these days. While I can find a way to grudgingly tolerate "early voting," (even though it does put the local precincts in a jam to get volunteers, or even paid personnel, to man the polls,) I do not like the idea of computer voting. That is just a situation begging for fraud.
My ideal situation is for all states to periodically clear out the voting registration records and require everybody to register every few years. Citizens would be required to actually show up at the town hall or courthouse to register. No motor voter, no ACORN voter registration drives that are carnivals of fraud.
To go with this, I would like to see states waive fees for vital records. There is already a requirement for states to issue free identification cards if they require ID at the polls to vote, but they need to go further than that. Sometimes vital records are hard to acquire, so replacement birth certificates should also be free.
I support better methods for ensuring military members and people traveling away from home get the chance to vote by absentee ballot, but there needs to be safeguards to ensure that these ballots are not abused.
"When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq."
And now al Qaeda has control of Fallujah.
Besides Fallujah, the president also seemed to neglect the fact that there have been two separate accidents recently that involved trains carrying oil. It sure would be nice if that Keystone XL pipeline were build to avoid that type of thing. No mention of the numerous people who had health insurance a month ago who no longer do. Nothing about the NSA (yes, he gave a speech on the subject last week, but this is the SOTU, it deserved mention.) No mention of the IRS targeting conservative groups. Surprisingly, when he was speaking about his hopes to do an end around the 2nd Amendment, he didn't say anything about stand your ground laws, and he didn't try to twerk, so it could have been worse.
The only part of the speech that was really worth paying attention to was the end when he was speaking about SFC Cory Remsburg. Obama actually did a pretty good job at speaking out about SFC Remsburg, his service and his struggles and courage during recovery. It was a very nice tribute to a the man, and a wonderful way to end a long, droning, not overly well delivered speech.
Who else noticed that some of the progress that the president pointed out was not really all that impressive when you look at it closely. Yes, the unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in 5 years, but the labor force percentage is the lowest it has been in over 35 years.
Then there is the oil boom of the last few years. This is not a result of administration policies, but in spite of them. New technologies have given us (well, not you and me "us," unless you happen to be a engineer for Exxon or BP, but "us" as in the country) the ability to drill oil from wells that were inaccessible just a few years ago.
Even the line about our deficits being cut by half is not really all that impressive when you look at it. First off, what year is he using as a baseline? Weren't 2008 and 2009 really incredibly bad years for deficits because of TARP and the stimulus (Didn't Tarp and the Stimulus open for Fall Out Boy at Ravinia in '03?) Cutting in half a redwood still leaves a lot of lumber to deal with.
"Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs here at home."
I agree that corporate tax rates do need to be cut. Ours are among the highest in the world right now and could easily be cut in half. In fact, I would even be happy to see a tax amnesty for companies bringing money that they have money earned overseas here to be invested in the U.S.
I must admit that I sense a bit of disingenuousness in the president on this one. I really don't think he is all that interested in cutting business taxes or making it easier for them to re-locate to the U.S. And when he says ending loopholes, what he really means is seeing companies pay more for their foreign investments. This tactic is much more stick than carrot. Besides, when you have a National Labor Relations Board that vetoes Boeing opening up a plant in North Carolina, you can hardly be said to have a real interest in attracting investors or creating jobs. If you are going to treat domestic businesses that shabbily, why would foreign investors want to come here?
"Moreover, we can take the money we save with this transition to tax reform to create jobs..."
Here President Obama is still speaking about the tax reform to close the loopholes that encourage companies to move operations overseas. He wants to use that money to help build better infrastructure. I just want to point out that tax reform does not save the government any money, and it is contemptible to even suggest so. There is only one way to save money, and that is to not spend it. Either you forgo certain goods or services so you can keep the money, or you find those goods and services for a cheaper price. What the president really means here is that we can use money from increased tax revenues for other purposes. Please note that this is the same paragraph that the president promises to cut back on bureaucracy to streamline projects getting approved. I honestly think that bureaucracy is on President Obama's list of "My Five Favorite Things in the World."
"Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do."
Once again the President is speaking like all money that you or a company does not pay in taxes is a gift from the government. If you think that oil, coal and natural gas companies aren't paying their fair share of taxes, say so, but don't say the tax code is giving them money. It is particularly galling in this instance, since more of the money you pay for a gallon of gas goes to the government than to oil company profits. Are there actual direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies? Yes, but they don't amount to $4 billion, and they would not be ended by "a smarter tax policy."
There is also the matter that subsidizing any industry has its problems. The price of corn is artificially high because of subsidies for ethanol, (companies developing ethanol pay more for the corn, meaning all corn prices go up.) even though, as energy sources go, ethanol is terrible. Not just bad, but terrible. I mean the type of terrible that needs to be said in Charles Barkley's voice. This actually effects the price of all food, as farmers see the profitability of corn and switch from other crops, like wheat, to grow corn. Now there is less wheat available so the cost goes up. Also, as far as subsidies go, wind and solar power get far more in subsidies per kilowatt hour produced than any fossil fuel.
"Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work."
First of all, female advisors in the White House earn less than the males. Remove the beam from your own eye before trying to get the speck out of your brother's eye. That 77% is a bit misleading. Outside of he White House, males and females with the same job experience and same degree of responsibility tend to get paid about even.
"In the coming weeks, I will issue an Executive Order requiring federal contractors to pay their federally-funded employees a fair wage of at least $10.10 an hour – because if you cook our troops’ meals or wash their dishes, you shouldn’t have to live in poverty."
So he is going to sign an executive order that affects absolutely nobody. Government contractor jobs aren't generally the type that pay minimum wage, even to the people who wash dishes in military dining facilities. For the private sector, there is always the possibility that an increase in the minimum wage means fewer jobs. In a business that has ten minimum wage employees, the cost for the business in wages will be about $80.00 an hour. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will raise those costs to about $110.00 an hour. To keep costs about the same, the company would have to fire three employees, or they could raise prices to try to cover the difference, or a combination of the two.What happens if raising prices causes business to slack off? Would the loss of revenue result in even more lost jobs?
"Citizenship means standing up for everyone’s right to vote."
Then you should support Voter ID laws.
This is not because identification makes it more difficult to vote, but because it helps prevent fraud and gives people the assurance of a fairly run election.
Personally, I think we are trying to make it too easy to cast a ballot these days. While I can find a way to grudgingly tolerate "early voting," (even though it does put the local precincts in a jam to get volunteers, or even paid personnel, to man the polls,) I do not like the idea of computer voting. That is just a situation begging for fraud.
My ideal situation is for all states to periodically clear out the voting registration records and require everybody to register every few years. Citizens would be required to actually show up at the town hall or courthouse to register. No motor voter, no ACORN voter registration drives that are carnivals of fraud.
To go with this, I would like to see states waive fees for vital records. There is already a requirement for states to issue free identification cards if they require ID at the polls to vote, but they need to go further than that. Sometimes vital records are hard to acquire, so replacement birth certificates should also be free.
I support better methods for ensuring military members and people traveling away from home get the chance to vote by absentee ballot, but there needs to be safeguards to ensure that these ballots are not abused.
"When I took office, nearly 180,000 Americans were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, all our troops are out of Iraq."
And now al Qaeda has control of Fallujah.
Besides Fallujah, the president also seemed to neglect the fact that there have been two separate accidents recently that involved trains carrying oil. It sure would be nice if that Keystone XL pipeline were build to avoid that type of thing. No mention of the numerous people who had health insurance a month ago who no longer do. Nothing about the NSA (yes, he gave a speech on the subject last week, but this is the SOTU, it deserved mention.) No mention of the IRS targeting conservative groups. Surprisingly, when he was speaking about his hopes to do an end around the 2nd Amendment, he didn't say anything about stand your ground laws, and he didn't try to twerk, so it could have been worse.
The only part of the speech that was really worth paying attention to was the end when he was speaking about SFC Cory Remsburg. Obama actually did a pretty good job at speaking out about SFC Remsburg, his service and his struggles and courage during recovery. It was a very nice tribute to a the man, and a wonderful way to end a long, droning, not overly well delivered speech.
2014-01-27
Party Time-SOTU vs. Super Bowl
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this week we have two great party events, so make your preparations. Okay, technically the Super Bowl is next week, but party prep has to be done this week, so I am counting it. So, to be sure your party is a big success, you should probably consider which one of these events better matches the style of party you want to host. To help you out, let us look at some of the differences between a Super Bowl shindig and a State of the Union soiree.
First, have a look at attire. At a SOTU party, you get bonus points for a Windsor knot. At a Super Bowl party, the only thing that should be knotted are the pretzels.
To be well dressed at a SOTU party, look to what the audience at the event wears. Suits for most of the men and some of the women, conservative dresses for the rest of the women and a few of the men. Robes for the Supreme Court justices, but that does not mean to go looking through your closets for that Harry Potter costume from three Halloweens ago. For the party, follow tradition Suit and tie or conservative dress, no décolletage, please. You should also be able to pull off dress pants and a blazer. If you want to be really daring, see if you can get away with khakis and a sweater vest.
For the Super Bowl party, most of the crowd at the stadium will be looking like Eskimos. Since most parties will be taking place inside, this is probably not necessary. Wear a comfortable pair of jeans with a nice polo or t-shirt, even better if you can wear a football jersey over the polo. Do not go out and purchase any special attire to commemorate the event or of either of the participating teams. If you are a fan of either the Broncos or the Seahawks, of course dress in your team colors. If you support another franchise, too bad. Your team sucks and is not playing in the Super Bowl, so leave your Cleveland Browns shirt at home. If you want to be really daring, see if you can get away with khakis and a sweater vest.
Next, food choices. If you are at a SOTU party, expect to see some brie and water crackers. Yes, I realize that you are not a big fan of brie and water crackers. In reality, nobody is a fan of brie and water crackers, but we are trying to set a certain ambiance here, and that ambiance requires brie and water crackers. Also appropriate for this type of get together would be a vegetable tray, and maybe some shrimp cocktails. Remember, boring but serviceable. The food should be there for a quick nosh, but not tasty enough to distract you from the conversation. You are there for the speech, not the munchies, so eat before you arrive.
At a Super Bowl party, the food is a big part of the socializing. All manner of chips (potato, corn, tortilla) and dips (onion, queso, salsa) and similar items (pretzels, peanuts) should be available. There can be more substantial items too, such as sandwich platters and Buffalo wings. Pizzas are always nice. It is also possible to go a bit non-traditional, by providing quesadillas or egg rolls. The point is, you should be looking at having a lot of food with a large variety.
One final note on food- bacon is always appropriate no matter what the occasion (with the possible exception of a bar mitzvah or bris.)
Liquid refreshment- that would be the drinks. For the State of the Union, a nice red wine. I would suggest a good cabernet. You may serve a nice bourbon or other American whiskey, but please avoid the scotch- this is the POTUS talking to the United States Congress, so even if a good deal of the speech is spent discussing foreign policy and immigration, keep the booze domestic and protect our borders. (Of course, a martini is a timeless classic appropriate for any occasion.)
For the Super Bowl, lets have a beer. Let's have another one. Once again, celebrate your country by keeping it domestic. The big breweries will do a lot to entertain you during the commercial breaks, so don't feel ashamed to support them, but don't feel beholden. It is perfectly fine to purchase a local or regional brand. Please remember that your guests are there to enjoy the football game, so this might not be the time to introduce them to the craft rutabaga infused pale ale that you discovered while antiquing last June. Good old, regular lagers and pilsners, please. And nothing that says "Light" or "lite" or "ultra" or gives any other indication that caloric intake was in any way a consideration in the brewing. Those items are not really beer. Also, have soft drinks available for any designated drivers or youth in attendance, but not Gatorade. You aren't actually playing, Skippy, so your electrolyte levels are fine. You should try to avoid mixed drinks and hard liquor. Drinking should be part of the socializing aspect of gathering for the game, and you want to have something that you can swill if the occasion calls for it. (Of course, a martini is a timeless classic appropriate for any occasion.)
Activities. Yes, for a SOTU party you are there to watch an event, but speeches can get to be really boring. Try to liven things up. Here are some suggestions:
Teleprompter Pong- Every time the president turns to read from the left teleprompter, the guys in the room say "PING." When he turns his head to read from the right teleprompter, the gals say "PONG."
Have a pool to see who comes closest to guessing the number of times the president asks permission to "be perfectly clear." The Las Vegas books have been extremely derelict in their duties in setting the Over/Under for this phrase to pop up in the speech, so I am going to set it at 5.
When the president says, "Let me be perfectly clear," the whole room should call out "Permission granted," (or "permission denied" depending on the type of people your parties attract.)
When he says "Sebelius" respond "Sebelius? Damn near killed us!"
If he says the word "energy," everybody chug a Red Bull.
When you hear the word 'inequality," ask somebody that earns more than you to give you a dollar, then tell somebody who earns less than you to get lost.
At the words "climate change," take off your jacket. When he says "global warming," put your jacket back on.
Looking for additional activities to make the Super Bowl more fun? Las Vegas has you covered. Personally, I don't believe in gambling, but I bet most of you already have wagers on the game. But why stop there? That's right people, you can gamble on just about anything related to the Super Bowl. What team will win the coin toss? Over/Under of total points scored. Who will score first? Will the first score be a TD, field goal, safety or extra point. (Bit of free advice, don't take extra point in that one- it's burned me way too many times.) Who will get the first first down. Who will win the MVP. Will any of the players get treated for frostbite? Which coach will throw the challenge flag first. Will the Budweiser Clydesdale commercial feature a pony?
I hope that this article has been helpful in your decision on whether to host get together for the State of the Union or the Super Bowl. Feel free to expand on these ideas, and leave suggestions in the comments.
First, have a look at attire. At a SOTU party, you get bonus points for a Windsor knot. At a Super Bowl party, the only thing that should be knotted are the pretzels.
To be well dressed at a SOTU party, look to what the audience at the event wears. Suits for most of the men and some of the women, conservative dresses for the rest of the women and a few of the men. Robes for the Supreme Court justices, but that does not mean to go looking through your closets for that Harry Potter costume from three Halloweens ago. For the party, follow tradition Suit and tie or conservative dress, no décolletage, please. You should also be able to pull off dress pants and a blazer. If you want to be really daring, see if you can get away with khakis and a sweater vest.
For the Super Bowl party, most of the crowd at the stadium will be looking like Eskimos. Since most parties will be taking place inside, this is probably not necessary. Wear a comfortable pair of jeans with a nice polo or t-shirt, even better if you can wear a football jersey over the polo. Do not go out and purchase any special attire to commemorate the event or of either of the participating teams. If you are a fan of either the Broncos or the Seahawks, of course dress in your team colors. If you support another franchise, too bad. Your team sucks and is not playing in the Super Bowl, so leave your Cleveland Browns shirt at home. If you want to be really daring, see if you can get away with khakis and a sweater vest.
Next, food choices. If you are at a SOTU party, expect to see some brie and water crackers. Yes, I realize that you are not a big fan of brie and water crackers. In reality, nobody is a fan of brie and water crackers, but we are trying to set a certain ambiance here, and that ambiance requires brie and water crackers. Also appropriate for this type of get together would be a vegetable tray, and maybe some shrimp cocktails. Remember, boring but serviceable. The food should be there for a quick nosh, but not tasty enough to distract you from the conversation. You are there for the speech, not the munchies, so eat before you arrive.
At a Super Bowl party, the food is a big part of the socializing. All manner of chips (potato, corn, tortilla) and dips (onion, queso, salsa) and similar items (pretzels, peanuts) should be available. There can be more substantial items too, such as sandwich platters and Buffalo wings. Pizzas are always nice. It is also possible to go a bit non-traditional, by providing quesadillas or egg rolls. The point is, you should be looking at having a lot of food with a large variety.
One final note on food- bacon is always appropriate no matter what the occasion (with the possible exception of a bar mitzvah or bris.)
Liquid refreshment- that would be the drinks. For the State of the Union, a nice red wine. I would suggest a good cabernet. You may serve a nice bourbon or other American whiskey, but please avoid the scotch- this is the POTUS talking to the United States Congress, so even if a good deal of the speech is spent discussing foreign policy and immigration, keep the booze domestic and protect our borders. (Of course, a martini is a timeless classic appropriate for any occasion.)
For the Super Bowl, lets have a beer. Let's have another one. Once again, celebrate your country by keeping it domestic. The big breweries will do a lot to entertain you during the commercial breaks, so don't feel ashamed to support them, but don't feel beholden. It is perfectly fine to purchase a local or regional brand. Please remember that your guests are there to enjoy the football game, so this might not be the time to introduce them to the craft rutabaga infused pale ale that you discovered while antiquing last June. Good old, regular lagers and pilsners, please. And nothing that says "Light" or "lite" or "ultra" or gives any other indication that caloric intake was in any way a consideration in the brewing. Those items are not really beer. Also, have soft drinks available for any designated drivers or youth in attendance, but not Gatorade. You aren't actually playing, Skippy, so your electrolyte levels are fine. You should try to avoid mixed drinks and hard liquor. Drinking should be part of the socializing aspect of gathering for the game, and you want to have something that you can swill if the occasion calls for it. (Of course, a martini is a timeless classic appropriate for any occasion.)
Activities. Yes, for a SOTU party you are there to watch an event, but speeches can get to be really boring. Try to liven things up. Here are some suggestions:
Teleprompter Pong- Every time the president turns to read from the left teleprompter, the guys in the room say "PING." When he turns his head to read from the right teleprompter, the gals say "PONG."
Have a pool to see who comes closest to guessing the number of times the president asks permission to "be perfectly clear." The Las Vegas books have been extremely derelict in their duties in setting the Over/Under for this phrase to pop up in the speech, so I am going to set it at 5.
When the president says, "Let me be perfectly clear," the whole room should call out "Permission granted," (or "permission denied" depending on the type of people your parties attract.)
When he says "Sebelius" respond "Sebelius? Damn near killed us!"
If he says the word "energy," everybody chug a Red Bull.
When you hear the word 'inequality," ask somebody that earns more than you to give you a dollar, then tell somebody who earns less than you to get lost.
At the words "climate change," take off your jacket. When he says "global warming," put your jacket back on.
Looking for additional activities to make the Super Bowl more fun? Las Vegas has you covered. Personally, I don't believe in gambling, but I bet most of you already have wagers on the game. But why stop there? That's right people, you can gamble on just about anything related to the Super Bowl. What team will win the coin toss? Over/Under of total points scored. Who will score first? Will the first score be a TD, field goal, safety or extra point. (Bit of free advice, don't take extra point in that one- it's burned me way too many times.) Who will get the first first down. Who will win the MVP. Will any of the players get treated for frostbite? Which coach will throw the challenge flag first. Will the Budweiser Clydesdale commercial feature a pony?
I hope that this article has been helpful in your decision on whether to host get together for the State of the Union or the Super Bowl. Feel free to expand on these ideas, and leave suggestions in the comments.
2014-01-24
Play in the Polar Vortex? Are you High?
It looks like a there is a very good chance that the weather is going to be extremely bad in New Jersey for Super Bowl Sunday. Is there any chance of moving the game to Madison Square Garden? There is precedent.
At the end of the 1932 Season the Chicago Bears and the Portsmouth Spartans (now known as the Detroit Lions) ended the season tied. The Bears record was 6-1-6, and the Spartans were 6-1-4, both being counted as having .857 winning percentages. The normal tie-breaker rule for this situation at the time would be to give the title to the victor of any regular season match up between the teams. If the teams split a regular season series, the team to win the later game would get the championship. During the 1932 season the Bears and the Spartans played each other twice, but both games ended in ties, so the league decided to have a first ever play-off game to determine who would be awarded the championship. (Quick note- at the time, ties were not counted toward a teams win/loss percentage. If ties were counted as they are today, as half a win and half a loss, Green Bay with a 10-3 record and .769 winning percentage would have beaten out the Spartan's .727 and Bears .692 percentages and would have been considered the champion.)
The game was scheduled to be played at the Bears home, Wrigley Field, for Dec. 8, 1932, but because of blizzard conditions all that week and weather forecasts for the day of the game predicting temperatures of around 0 degrees and wind chills well below that, George Halas was able to convince NFL officials to move the game indoors, to be played at the Chicago Stadium.
Because of the venue, the game was played on a field 60 yards long by 40 yards wide instead of the 100 x 53 1/3 regulation field. This lead to a few particular ground rules for the game. Kickoffs would be from the 10 yard line, there would be no field goals allowed, and the hash marks would be moved ten yards from the sidelines, with the ball placed on or inside the hash marks on all plays. The goalposts were moved from the end line to the goal line, where they would stay until 1974.
The stadium had a good deal of dirt already in place, because the circus had been in town the week prior. Of course, the circus included horses and elephants, so there were definitely parts of the field you did not want to get tackled on.
The Bears ended up beating Portsmouth by a final score of 9-0. The Bears scored a touchdown on a controversial pass from Bronco Nagurski to Red Grange in the 4th quarter. The Spartans claimed that after receiving the hand-off from the quarterback, Grange did not drop back to 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage before throwing the ball, as was required by the rules at the time. The Bears added a safety later in the fourth quarter to ice the victory. Since the game counted in the official regular season standings, the loss actually dropped the Spartans to third place.
Besides placing the ball at or inside the hashmarks for each play and the changed location for the goalposts, the NFL also changed the rule about the forward pass, making them acceptable from anywhere behind the line of scrimmage. The biggest change, however, was that the league really liked the idea of a playoff to determine a champion. In the February league meetings, they split the league into Eastern and Western divisions, with the winner of each to play in a Championship game each year.
2014-01-22
Another Sad Anniversary
Adolf Hitler was convinced that all his actions were morally justified.
A large minority of his countrymen agreed. Hitler's belief in the superiority of the Aryan Race and the attempted genocide of Jews, Romany and other ethnic groups he felt were inferior is almost universally found to be revolting today, but at the time the terrible treatment of these groups was, if not actively pursued, at least passively accepted by the society.
Trying to convince people that actions they take or beliefs that they espouse are immoral is a very difficult undertaking. Unfortunately, it seems that convincing people that evil is actually moral seems a lot easier to do than to convince them that the evil they are doing is wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it seems evil is always the easier route to travel. To correct Martin Niemöller, the reason he did not speak out when they came for his neighbors was not just because he was not a member of their group, but because there was no stigma attached to keeping silent, while voicing support could be very uncomfortable.
What brings to mind the fact that morality can be so skewed is that it was 41 years ago that the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision. Since that time, an estimated 55 million human beings have been legally killed as a result. Not since the 13th Amendment was passed have a class of people in the United States been denied their rights in such a stark and brutal way.
It still saddens me that not only have we not been able to overturn this horror show of a decision, but also that the decision still seems so popular. Usually the population seems to be about evenly split between the pro-life and pro-abortion supporters. This afternoon I saw results from a CNN/ORC poll from May of 2013 that showed 25% believed in abortion in all cases, 11% for "most" cases, 42% for "some" cases and 20% believe it should never be permitted. These numbers seem to contradict a Quinnipiac University poll from July, 2013 that shows 20% favor abortion in all cases, 38% think it should be legal in most cases, 25% think is should be legal in some cases and 12% think it should be illegal, but do they really? Neither poll gives a definition of what they mean by "most" or "some" so there is wide berth for interpretation.
The issue of abortion is a very emotional one. It is very difficult to convince anybody to change their opinions on the issue when emotions are the basis of argument. Personal moral beliefs are very difficult to change by arguing facts, especially when the opposing sides in the argument don't eve agree to a common language. The pro-life advocates use the word "baby" while pro-abortion groups say "fetus." The pro-abortion groups speak about a woman's right to choose, while their opponents speak of a child's right to life.
The mass market media seems to have taken the pro-abortion position, evidenced by their seeming attempt to bury the ghoulish refusal that Barack Obama gave to changing the law in Illinois that would force doctors to give care to babies that lived through attempted abortions, (off on a tangent here, but when you find out that there are abortion procedures that can result in live births, and you do not re-think at least some of your abortion advocacy, there has to be something wrong with you.) The media did its best to ignore the trial of Kermit Gosnell last year, so that a month later when they held out Wendy Davis of Texas to be a hero for trying to block a bill that would prevent the types of abuse that Gosnell committed, she was able to claim that she had never heard of the man. (If I may indulge you on another tangential journey, does anybody else get sickened by the opposition to laws imposing actual medical standards on abortion mills. Pro-abortion advocates used to argue that we needed to make/keep abortion legal to move it out of the back alleys, but when we try to pass laws to ensure that there are no abortions performed in back-alley conditions, they scream like howler monkeys in opposition.) Wendy Davis is now all but a shoe-in to become the Democrat nominee for governor based on nothing but the media attention garnered by her publicity stunt.
Still, we must learn the lesson from Martin Niemöller, and speak up now. Yes, it could get uncomfortable. We might be told by some governors that we are not welcome in their state. We might feel we are fighting a losing battle when places like California are considering allowing people without licenses to practice medicine to perform abortions. It might seem pointless when a group that has no other purpose than to help women avoid and survive breast cancer is told that they have no regard for women's health because they want to stop supporting a group that does not provide breast exams simply because that group is the largest abortion provider in the country. But we need to show that we still support the rights of the unborn.
In just a few moments on the National Mall in Washington, DC, thousands of people will be braving Algore conditions to march in a show of support for defenseless human beings who were created at conception to enjoy their rights that the Creator endowed them, among these being the right to life. I am not able to join them physically today, but I am sending my prayers. So far there have been 55 million human lives snuffed out before they could so much as draw a breath. How many more will there be before we end the slaughter?
A large minority of his countrymen agreed. Hitler's belief in the superiority of the Aryan Race and the attempted genocide of Jews, Romany and other ethnic groups he felt were inferior is almost universally found to be revolting today, but at the time the terrible treatment of these groups was, if not actively pursued, at least passively accepted by the society.
Trying to convince people that actions they take or beliefs that they espouse are immoral is a very difficult undertaking. Unfortunately, it seems that convincing people that evil is actually moral seems a lot easier to do than to convince them that the evil they are doing is wrong. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that it seems evil is always the easier route to travel. To correct Martin Niemöller, the reason he did not speak out when they came for his neighbors was not just because he was not a member of their group, but because there was no stigma attached to keeping silent, while voicing support could be very uncomfortable.
What brings to mind the fact that morality can be so skewed is that it was 41 years ago that the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision. Since that time, an estimated 55 million human beings have been legally killed as a result. Not since the 13th Amendment was passed have a class of people in the United States been denied their rights in such a stark and brutal way.
It still saddens me that not only have we not been able to overturn this horror show of a decision, but also that the decision still seems so popular. Usually the population seems to be about evenly split between the pro-life and pro-abortion supporters. This afternoon I saw results from a CNN/ORC poll from May of 2013 that showed 25% believed in abortion in all cases, 11% for "most" cases, 42% for "some" cases and 20% believe it should never be permitted. These numbers seem to contradict a Quinnipiac University poll from July, 2013 that shows 20% favor abortion in all cases, 38% think it should be legal in most cases, 25% think is should be legal in some cases and 12% think it should be illegal, but do they really? Neither poll gives a definition of what they mean by "most" or "some" so there is wide berth for interpretation.
The issue of abortion is a very emotional one. It is very difficult to convince anybody to change their opinions on the issue when emotions are the basis of argument. Personal moral beliefs are very difficult to change by arguing facts, especially when the opposing sides in the argument don't eve agree to a common language. The pro-life advocates use the word "baby" while pro-abortion groups say "fetus." The pro-abortion groups speak about a woman's right to choose, while their opponents speak of a child's right to life.
The mass market media seems to have taken the pro-abortion position, evidenced by their seeming attempt to bury the ghoulish refusal that Barack Obama gave to changing the law in Illinois that would force doctors to give care to babies that lived through attempted abortions, (off on a tangent here, but when you find out that there are abortion procedures that can result in live births, and you do not re-think at least some of your abortion advocacy, there has to be something wrong with you.) The media did its best to ignore the trial of Kermit Gosnell last year, so that a month later when they held out Wendy Davis of Texas to be a hero for trying to block a bill that would prevent the types of abuse that Gosnell committed, she was able to claim that she had never heard of the man. (If I may indulge you on another tangential journey, does anybody else get sickened by the opposition to laws imposing actual medical standards on abortion mills. Pro-abortion advocates used to argue that we needed to make/keep abortion legal to move it out of the back alleys, but when we try to pass laws to ensure that there are no abortions performed in back-alley conditions, they scream like howler monkeys in opposition.) Wendy Davis is now all but a shoe-in to become the Democrat nominee for governor based on nothing but the media attention garnered by her publicity stunt.
Still, we must learn the lesson from Martin Niemöller, and speak up now. Yes, it could get uncomfortable. We might be told by some governors that we are not welcome in their state. We might feel we are fighting a losing battle when places like California are considering allowing people without licenses to practice medicine to perform abortions. It might seem pointless when a group that has no other purpose than to help women avoid and survive breast cancer is told that they have no regard for women's health because they want to stop supporting a group that does not provide breast exams simply because that group is the largest abortion provider in the country. But we need to show that we still support the rights of the unborn.
In just a few moments on the National Mall in Washington, DC, thousands of people will be braving Algore conditions to march in a show of support for defenseless human beings who were created at conception to enjoy their rights that the Creator endowed them, among these being the right to life. I am not able to join them physically today, but I am sending my prayers. So far there have been 55 million human lives snuffed out before they could so much as draw a breath. How many more will there be before we end the slaughter?
2014-01-20
Open Thread!
I think that I have discovered the key to a successful blog.
The Open Thread.
Yes, in today's cutthroat and competitive world of blogging, (yes, cutthroat and competitive, things get really nasty in the blogosphere) today's blog readers are looking for more than just insightful commentary, humorous anecdotes, pictures of scantily clad babes, lolcats, and people who will mercilessly rend the philosophy of their political enemies limb from limb like a pack of hyenas on a baby impala. The want an opportunity to display their own insight, their cunning wit, and their own derision of the dimwits who don't vote like they do.
So, here it is, as a public service to the loyal readers of Sulphur and Cordite, an open thread. Do with it what you will. We have minor imps to clean up any blood and viscera that is left behind.
(Yes, I realize Sulphur and Cordite creating an open thread makes about as much sense as Robert Neville planning a holiday party, but I'm doing it anyway. Have fun with it.)
The Open Thread.
Yes, in today's cutthroat and competitive world of blogging, (yes, cutthroat and competitive, things get really nasty in the blogosphere) today's blog readers are looking for more than just insightful commentary, humorous anecdotes, pictures of scantily clad babes, lolcats, and people who will mercilessly rend the philosophy of their political enemies limb from limb like a pack of hyenas on a baby impala. The want an opportunity to display their own insight, their cunning wit, and their own derision of the dimwits who don't vote like they do.
So, here it is, as a public service to the loyal readers of Sulphur and Cordite, an open thread. Do with it what you will. We have minor imps to clean up any blood and viscera that is left behind.
(Yes, I realize Sulphur and Cordite creating an open thread makes about as much sense as Robert Neville planning a holiday party, but I'm doing it anyway. Have fun with it.)
2014-01-19
A Story About a Putter?
People generally think a journalist's job is to report information. The word reporter is often used to describe journalist, but in many cases, journalists are obliged to keep secrets. Usually they trade this secrecy for more important information, protecting sources of information from retaliation by people who do not want the information to get out. The classic case being Woodward and Bernstein protecting the identity of FBI Associate Director Mark Felt by referring to him in their Watergate reporting as Deep Throat. It is not unusual for journalists to go to jail rather than reveal sources for their stories.
But what happens when your source is not being honest with you? All journalists must deal with the fact that confidential informants are not always coming forward for purely altruistic reasons. How much can you rely on information coming from a disgruntled former employee about what is going on inside a company?
Then there is the quandary about what to do when you find out that your source is lying to you. Obviously if you catch somebody in one lie, it puts in question all the information you have gotten from them. Do you reveal all the lies of your source, or do you only report the deceptions that are relevant to the subject at hand? What is your responsibility to your readers, and how much of a responsibility do you still have to your source?
All of these questions were brought to the fore Friday when Grantland published an article by Caleb Hannan entitled Dr.V's Magical Putter, which is a tragic story that starts as an enthusiastic product review of the latest revolutionary new product designed to take a few strokes off your golf game, but ends up an article delving into the complicated life of the product's inventor. The article is very controversial right now, especially among those in the business of writing. What ethical principles apply to a writer who is asked to make the story "about the science, not the scientist," when every step of the way, the scientist has been lying to the writer?
While gathering information about the putter, Hannan discovered that the Dr. V's stated credentials might not be legitimate, which led him to other discoveries about Dr. V. Most of it was pertinent to the story, some not so much, except to show a pattern of deception throughout Dr. V's life. So, what information did Hannan owe his readers, and how much privacy did he owe Dr V? I think that it was possible to have run the story pointing out the credibility problems in regards to Dr. V's claimed background as a scientist without exposing some of the facts of his personal life, though I can understand the argument that the lies about his personal life were important, because the lies about his professional bona fides were merely a few tiles in the mosaic of deception that his entire life had become.
There was also the point that, despite the fact Dr. V's credibility was questionable, it appeared that the product itself was sound, garnering praise from several golf professionals. On this point, it might have been helpful if Hannan had actually discussed the issue with another engineer to see if the science behind the product truly was sound, or if it was just a matter that, when it comes right down to it, no matter the design of the putter, once you are on the green it is almost as much a matter of psychology as physics. Hannan does mention this in the article, telling a story of a science experiment at the University of Virginia that demonstrates the principle of positive contagion. Loosely stated, the idea is that if you believe your equipment is superior, you will perform better, whether the equipment truly is better or not.
It seemed that Hannan wanted to write what was for all intents and purposes, an advertisement for Dr. Vs Oracle GX1 putter, but to tie the whole story together, needed only to show due diligence and verify Dr. V's credentials. This is where the problems started. It appeared that there was a problem with Dr. V's stated educational background. Initially assuming that there could be an innocent explanation for that, Hannan tried to get Dr. V to give more information. That, according to Hannan, is when Dr. V's went from a business executive trying to promote a product while keeping himself in the background to a an uncooperative subject hostile to the entire project. Hannan continued dig for information, still wanting to write a story about a golf outsider who creates a product that revolutionizes the game, but Hannan's research turned up more than he expected.
It would have been impossible to make the entire story about the science and not the scientist after finding out some of what Hannnan did during his research for the article, because the science is only as good as the scientist. There were no peer reviewed papers to support Dr. V's claim of the Oracle GX1's superiority on the greens, and Hannan himself was not able to fully comprehend the technical background information that Dr. V. had provided, so only the doctor's own credibility in making those claims supported them. Yes, there were the endorsements of some professionals who used the product, but the reason the product was supposedly revolutionary was the science that went into its design. If Dr. V. was found to have no credibility as a trained scientist, it would really cast doubt upon his claims. The article could have stopped at the point of debunking Dr. V's credentials, but it is understandable that demonstrating deceitfulness about his personal life added to the overall narrative and enhanced the reader's understanding of the situation.
From my reading of the story, I think a lot of Hannan's problem is not that he got too curious as he got further along into the research, but that he was so enamored of the product and its inventor that he was not skeptical enough in his initial contacts. He missed some indications that things might not be as they were presented. When it was pointed out that the putter, which was supposedly scientifically designed to give you the best performance on the green, was made to retrieve a player's ball out of the cup without him bending down to reach for it, Hannan (who at that time in the process of researching his article was still enamored of the shiny new toy he was playing with) did not even think to ask how much putting performance was sacrificed for that little bit of multi-functionality. As pointed out above, it does not seem like Hannan spoke with any engineers or other golf club designers to see if Dr. V's claims were scientifically sound.
There was also Dr. V's immediate determination to protect his identity, from the first phone call warning that he had the same freedom of information act exemptions as a federal judge, and later claiming her work with the government was so secret that there weren't any records of it. That would have been a red flag for me. As I pointed out in the comments of Rod Dreher's article on the subject at American Conservative, we know Oppenheimer was working with the government, and there was nothing more secret than the Manhattan Project. I am not saying it is totally impossible, but hearing that would have gotten me to raise my antenna.
My biggest questions, however, are about another person in the story. Hannan first found out about the new putter from seeing an infomercial about it featuring Gary McCord, a former PGA Pro who still plays tournaments on the Senior Tour and is well known for announcing golf tournaments on television. McCord loved the putter and even arranged a meeting between Dr. V. and the Taylor Made company to showcase the club and perhaps interest Taylor Made in purchasing Yar, Dr V's company. What makes me wonder about McCord is that he claimed to have known a few generals in the U. S. military, and asked them to verify her claims of working on the Stealth fighter. He claims that one general states that Dr. V. was "with us." McCord also stated that he facilitated a call between Dr. V and former Vice President Quayle, and he claimed that they talked about some of the projects she worked on.
The super hush-hush so secret she can't even be named as a participant projects. All while one of them was standing within earshot of a man without any type of security clearance. This really does not give me any great confidence McCord's credibility, but I will say that even the most highly guarded government projects would have aspects abut them that are not classified, so maybe it is possible that the McCord facilitated discussion happened.
In the end, the entire story is tragic. In the end, despite all the deceptions and lies, Dr. V. created a product that he believed in, even if he misrepresented it. The product itself was, if not as revolutionary as claimed, at least a solid performer that won the approval of professionals in the field. The story Hannan ended up telling was not the one he expected to tell. The consequences for some involved were far higher than anyone could have foreseen when the story started. If you have not yet read Hannan's article on Grantland, you need to go over and get the full story.
But what happens when your source is not being honest with you? All journalists must deal with the fact that confidential informants are not always coming forward for purely altruistic reasons. How much can you rely on information coming from a disgruntled former employee about what is going on inside a company?
Then there is the quandary about what to do when you find out that your source is lying to you. Obviously if you catch somebody in one lie, it puts in question all the information you have gotten from them. Do you reveal all the lies of your source, or do you only report the deceptions that are relevant to the subject at hand? What is your responsibility to your readers, and how much of a responsibility do you still have to your source?
All of these questions were brought to the fore Friday when Grantland published an article by Caleb Hannan entitled Dr.V's Magical Putter, which is a tragic story that starts as an enthusiastic product review of the latest revolutionary new product designed to take a few strokes off your golf game, but ends up an article delving into the complicated life of the product's inventor. The article is very controversial right now, especially among those in the business of writing. What ethical principles apply to a writer who is asked to make the story "about the science, not the scientist," when every step of the way, the scientist has been lying to the writer?
While gathering information about the putter, Hannan discovered that the Dr. V's stated credentials might not be legitimate, which led him to other discoveries about Dr. V. Most of it was pertinent to the story, some not so much, except to show a pattern of deception throughout Dr. V's life. So, what information did Hannan owe his readers, and how much privacy did he owe Dr V? I think that it was possible to have run the story pointing out the credibility problems in regards to Dr. V's claimed background as a scientist without exposing some of the facts of his personal life, though I can understand the argument that the lies about his personal life were important, because the lies about his professional bona fides were merely a few tiles in the mosaic of deception that his entire life had become.
There was also the point that, despite the fact Dr. V's credibility was questionable, it appeared that the product itself was sound, garnering praise from several golf professionals. On this point, it might have been helpful if Hannan had actually discussed the issue with another engineer to see if the science behind the product truly was sound, or if it was just a matter that, when it comes right down to it, no matter the design of the putter, once you are on the green it is almost as much a matter of psychology as physics. Hannan does mention this in the article, telling a story of a science experiment at the University of Virginia that demonstrates the principle of positive contagion. Loosely stated, the idea is that if you believe your equipment is superior, you will perform better, whether the equipment truly is better or not.
It seemed that Hannan wanted to write what was for all intents and purposes, an advertisement for Dr. Vs Oracle GX1 putter, but to tie the whole story together, needed only to show due diligence and verify Dr. V's credentials. This is where the problems started. It appeared that there was a problem with Dr. V's stated educational background. Initially assuming that there could be an innocent explanation for that, Hannan tried to get Dr. V to give more information. That, according to Hannan, is when Dr. V's went from a business executive trying to promote a product while keeping himself in the background to a an uncooperative subject hostile to the entire project. Hannan continued dig for information, still wanting to write a story about a golf outsider who creates a product that revolutionizes the game, but Hannan's research turned up more than he expected.
It would have been impossible to make the entire story about the science and not the scientist after finding out some of what Hannnan did during his research for the article, because the science is only as good as the scientist. There were no peer reviewed papers to support Dr. V's claim of the Oracle GX1's superiority on the greens, and Hannan himself was not able to fully comprehend the technical background information that Dr. V. had provided, so only the doctor's own credibility in making those claims supported them. Yes, there were the endorsements of some professionals who used the product, but the reason the product was supposedly revolutionary was the science that went into its design. If Dr. V. was found to have no credibility as a trained scientist, it would really cast doubt upon his claims. The article could have stopped at the point of debunking Dr. V's credentials, but it is understandable that demonstrating deceitfulness about his personal life added to the overall narrative and enhanced the reader's understanding of the situation.
From my reading of the story, I think a lot of Hannan's problem is not that he got too curious as he got further along into the research, but that he was so enamored of the product and its inventor that he was not skeptical enough in his initial contacts. He missed some indications that things might not be as they were presented. When it was pointed out that the putter, which was supposedly scientifically designed to give you the best performance on the green, was made to retrieve a player's ball out of the cup without him bending down to reach for it, Hannan (who at that time in the process of researching his article was still enamored of the shiny new toy he was playing with) did not even think to ask how much putting performance was sacrificed for that little bit of multi-functionality. As pointed out above, it does not seem like Hannan spoke with any engineers or other golf club designers to see if Dr. V's claims were scientifically sound.
There was also Dr. V's immediate determination to protect his identity, from the first phone call warning that he had the same freedom of information act exemptions as a federal judge, and later claiming her work with the government was so secret that there weren't any records of it. That would have been a red flag for me. As I pointed out in the comments of Rod Dreher's article on the subject at American Conservative, we know Oppenheimer was working with the government, and there was nothing more secret than the Manhattan Project. I am not saying it is totally impossible, but hearing that would have gotten me to raise my antenna.
My biggest questions, however, are about another person in the story. Hannan first found out about the new putter from seeing an infomercial about it featuring Gary McCord, a former PGA Pro who still plays tournaments on the Senior Tour and is well known for announcing golf tournaments on television. McCord loved the putter and even arranged a meeting between Dr. V. and the Taylor Made company to showcase the club and perhaps interest Taylor Made in purchasing Yar, Dr V's company. What makes me wonder about McCord is that he claimed to have known a few generals in the U. S. military, and asked them to verify her claims of working on the Stealth fighter. He claims that one general states that Dr. V. was "with us." McCord also stated that he facilitated a call between Dr. V and former Vice President Quayle, and he claimed that they talked about some of the projects she worked on.
The super hush-hush so secret she can't even be named as a participant projects. All while one of them was standing within earshot of a man without any type of security clearance. This really does not give me any great confidence McCord's credibility, but I will say that even the most highly guarded government projects would have aspects abut them that are not classified, so maybe it is possible that the McCord facilitated discussion happened.
In the end, the entire story is tragic. In the end, despite all the deceptions and lies, Dr. V. created a product that he believed in, even if he misrepresented it. The product itself was, if not as revolutionary as claimed, at least a solid performer that won the approval of professionals in the field. The story Hannan ended up telling was not the one he expected to tell. The consequences for some involved were far higher than anyone could have foreseen when the story started. If you have not yet read Hannan's article on Grantland, you need to go over and get the full story.
2014-01-17
Should Facebook Pay You for Content?
No.
Question answered.
Why would anybody think that Facebook should pay us? Because of its business model. Facebook gets money from advertisements- all those little pictures along the side of your timeline bring in money to Mr. Zuckerberg and the stockholders of the company. How much money they get for the ads is dependent upon how many sets of eyes that the company can get to see the ads. The reason so many sets of eyes see the ads is because of its status updates, pictures and links, known collectively as content.
Who provides the content that is attracting 1.3 billion people to use Facebook? We do. Which is why there is even a question about Facebook wages.
Last year, Laurel Ptak, a teacher at the New School in New York City, published Wages for Facebook online, a manifesto, and launched a series of lectures, claiming that Facebook use is labor, especially since it provides profits for Facebook, and as labor needed to be recognized with financial remuneration. Ptak draws her inspiration from a movement on the late '60s and early '70s demanding payment for housework. In fact, her published manifesto is a condensation of Silvia Federici's pamphlet "Wages Against Housework" published in 1975, replacing the word "housework" throughout the essay with the work "Facebook." In fact, the way Ptak's work so closely follows Federici's could give the impression that it is a parody, but, she seems serious about the issue.
The wages for housework movement ultimately failed. The thought that the government should pay people for taking care of themselves and their family didn't catch on. In that sense, the wages for Facebook supporters do have an advantage, in that at least they are seeking payment from somebody who actually benefits from their activity.
They have one great disadvantage, however. The wages for housework advocates actually wanted payment for something that was really labor. Sure, they stretched credibility when they fit everything that woman did under the definition of "housework," but it is hard to deny that ironing and cleaning are work.
Facebook is play. We already log on voluntarily, because Facebook is providing us with a reward in entertainment value. I am, as I am so often, reminded of a joke I heard.
The goal of the essay seems to be to diminish Facebook's role in modern society. She figures that payment for content rendered will mean we will see it as labor, and will thus be less likely to want to participate:
Then there is the most salient point in the discussion. We may provide some content when we log onto Facebook, but as a general rule, we are content consumers. Most Facebook users get much more information from their friends than they provide. If we expect to get paid for the content that we provide, should we expect to pay for the content we consume? If Facebook really thinks that the pictures of your schnauzer wearing a tuxedo are worth paying you for, then it must follow that Facebook believes showing that picture to your friends and acquaintances is worth charging admission for.
You might think that the Facebook business model is unfair to the users who share their lives online only to see their work turned into profit for a giant corporation, but it is really a playground that they have provided for you to share experiences with others. That they are able to make money while providing you with this opportunity should not make you upset that they do not offer you money for showing up.
Question answered.
Why would anybody think that Facebook should pay us? Because of its business model. Facebook gets money from advertisements- all those little pictures along the side of your timeline bring in money to Mr. Zuckerberg and the stockholders of the company. How much money they get for the ads is dependent upon how many sets of eyes that the company can get to see the ads. The reason so many sets of eyes see the ads is because of its status updates, pictures and links, known collectively as content.
Who provides the content that is attracting 1.3 billion people to use Facebook? We do. Which is why there is even a question about Facebook wages.
Last year, Laurel Ptak, a teacher at the New School in New York City, published Wages for Facebook online, a manifesto, and launched a series of lectures, claiming that Facebook use is labor, especially since it provides profits for Facebook, and as labor needed to be recognized with financial remuneration. Ptak draws her inspiration from a movement on the late '60s and early '70s demanding payment for housework. In fact, her published manifesto is a condensation of Silvia Federici's pamphlet "Wages Against Housework" published in 1975, replacing the word "housework" throughout the essay with the work "Facebook." In fact, the way Ptak's work so closely follows Federici's could give the impression that it is a parody, but, she seems serious about the issue.
The wages for housework movement ultimately failed. The thought that the government should pay people for taking care of themselves and their family didn't catch on. In that sense, the wages for Facebook supporters do have an advantage, in that at least they are seeking payment from somebody who actually benefits from their activity.
They have one great disadvantage, however. The wages for housework advocates actually wanted payment for something that was really labor. Sure, they stretched credibility when they fit everything that woman did under the definition of "housework," but it is hard to deny that ironing and cleaning are work.
Facebook is play. We already log on voluntarily, because Facebook is providing us with a reward in entertainment value. I am, as I am so often, reminded of a joke I heard.
Two generals were on their way to the airport from the Pentagon after receiving a briefing. They were seated in the back of an SUV, with an NCO up front driving for them. The generals passed the time in conversation, and the topic eventually worked its way to sex.
"By this time in my life," one of the generals told the other, "it seems to me that sex has gotten to be 50% pleasure and 50% work."
"I kind of agree with you there," said the other general, "but I think it is still 75% pleasure and 25% work."
The first general saw that the NCO driving them had started snickering at their conversation. "What's the matter, sergeant?" He asked. "Is the thought of a couple of old timers having sex with their wives funny to you?"
"Not at all, sir," the NCO replied. "It's just the way you two say that you think that sex is work. You both know that if there was really any work involved, you would get an enlisted man to do it for you."Facebook is not some dreary activity that we feel obliged to out of some sense of duty. We get a chance to catch up with acquaintances we do not get to see often. We get to brag about our accomplishments and find solace in our miseries. We already feel that being provided a venue to share is payment enough for our online activity.
The goal of the essay seems to be to diminish Facebook's role in modern society. She figures that payment for content rendered will mean we will see it as labor, and will thus be less likely to want to participate:
In fact, to demand wages for facebook does not mean to say that if we are paid we will continue to do it. It means precisely the opposite. To say that we want money for facebook is the first step towards refusing to do it, because the demand for a wage makes our work visible, which is the most indispensable condition to begin to struggle against it.She is trapped in this language by her strict adherence to Federici's original work, but she does seem to believe this, against the example of the entire human history. Who could even imagine that rewarding any type of behavior would result in that activity becoming less popular? While the thought that we should get off-line and start face to face contact might be a noble goal, payment for services rendered is going to make that happen. Her suggestion is akin to trying to get people to quit smoking by lowering the taxes on cigarettes.
Then there is the most salient point in the discussion. We may provide some content when we log onto Facebook, but as a general rule, we are content consumers. Most Facebook users get much more information from their friends than they provide. If we expect to get paid for the content that we provide, should we expect to pay for the content we consume? If Facebook really thinks that the pictures of your schnauzer wearing a tuxedo are worth paying you for, then it must follow that Facebook believes showing that picture to your friends and acquaintances is worth charging admission for.
You might think that the Facebook business model is unfair to the users who share their lives online only to see their work turned into profit for a giant corporation, but it is really a playground that they have provided for you to share experiences with others. That they are able to make money while providing you with this opportunity should not make you upset that they do not offer you money for showing up.
2014-01-14
A Question About the Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To avoid confusion, in large font and italicized,so you realize that the words are really important, I have quoted the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is one of the more controversial and oft debated clauses in the document.
The sub-issue of the arguments that I would like to address seems to result from the sentence structure of the amendment. The sentence leads with a subordinate clause which seems to state a purpose for the amendment before the operative clause which actually gives instruction to the Congress and courts. I have read arguments that, because of the reference to a militia in the subordinate clause, claim that the right to keep and bear arms mandated by the operative clause must only apply for purposes of serving in the militia. To anybody who holds this belief I have one question.
If militia service is really so integral in the right to bear arms, then why is the operative clause of the amendment written in the manner that it is?
The wording of the subordinate clause does not inevitably lead to the operative clause. Instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which pretty clearly spells out that people can have guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, and tomahawks, could have been expressed in numerous different ways to ensure limitation of the possession of weapons to those actively participating in militia drill or emergency response. While the archaic language used in the Constitution might seem confusing for the modern reader, it is generally straight forward, with the exception of literary creativity employed to avoid using the words "slavery" and "slave."
So, if clause in the Constitution states that the people have a right to something, then it means that the individual people have a right to that thing. If they intended that there would be exceptions to a right, they would have articulated them, as exemplified by the Third Amendment, which prohibits quartering of soldiers in times of peace, "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Limitations on the right of the homeowner are included in the amendment itself.
The conclusion I draw from this is that the authors of the Second Amendment intended the right to bear arms as an individual right, otherwise it would not be written to express it as an individual right.
To avoid confusion, in large font and italicized,so you realize that the words are really important, I have quoted the Second Amendment to the Constitution. This is one of the more controversial and oft debated clauses in the document.
The sub-issue of the arguments that I would like to address seems to result from the sentence structure of the amendment. The sentence leads with a subordinate clause which seems to state a purpose for the amendment before the operative clause which actually gives instruction to the Congress and courts. I have read arguments that, because of the reference to a militia in the subordinate clause, claim that the right to keep and bear arms mandated by the operative clause must only apply for purposes of serving in the militia. To anybody who holds this belief I have one question.
If militia service is really so integral in the right to bear arms, then why is the operative clause of the amendment written in the manner that it is?
The wording of the subordinate clause does not inevitably lead to the operative clause. Instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which pretty clearly spells out that people can have guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows, and tomahawks, could have been expressed in numerous different ways to ensure limitation of the possession of weapons to those actively participating in militia drill or emergency response. While the archaic language used in the Constitution might seem confusing for the modern reader, it is generally straight forward, with the exception of literary creativity employed to avoid using the words "slavery" and "slave."
So, if clause in the Constitution states that the people have a right to something, then it means that the individual people have a right to that thing. If they intended that there would be exceptions to a right, they would have articulated them, as exemplified by the Third Amendment, which prohibits quartering of soldiers in times of peace, "nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." Limitations on the right of the homeowner are included in the amendment itself.
The conclusion I draw from this is that the authors of the Second Amendment intended the right to bear arms as an individual right, otherwise it would not be written to express it as an individual right.
2014-01-09
Impressions of the Week
It's the last day of the work week for me, and I haven't posted anything new. Time to gut it out and get to working on this blog. A quick round up of what has caught my attention in the past week.
Starting with what is most important, the rosters of the hockey teams for the Olympics to be played in Sochi have been announced, and the Chicago Blackhawks will have ten players traveling to Russia. Patrick Kane will be playing for the Gold Medal Winning Team USA, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp and Duncan Keith will bring home the Silver Medal with Team Canada, Marcus Kruger and Johnny Oduya will play for Sweden, Marian Hossa and Michal Handzus will play for Slovakia, and Michal Rozsival will be playing for the Czech Republic.
In other sports news, congratulations to Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox, who has been selected for the Baseball Hall of Fame, along with sometime Chicago Cub Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine.
Robert Gates memoir of his time as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush and Barrack Obama was released. There is a lot of talk about his impressions of President Obama and, to a lessor extent, Hillary Clinton, but I really don't think any of that is surprising. Nothing President Obama has said or done since being in office has left me with the impression he had any regard for our military efforts. I will point out that, even though the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was quick to take credit for getting our troops out of Iraq, and does deserve a lot of the scorn and derision directed at him for what is now happening, like the loss of Fallujah to al Qaeda forces, I always had the impression that all the agreements and timelines for withdrawal were already in place when he took office, and that he did not do anything substantial to alter them. So, remember, this time at least, George Bush really does share some of the blame.
Not getting as much attention from the press or blogosphere is what Gates wrote about when he first took over as Secretary of Defense. His predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, left after a contentious term of service. What was the culture and moral in the Pentagon like when Gates arrived? Was there relief that there was a changing of the guard? Were the uniformed leaders open and honest about the situation on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the modernization efforts, or were they guarded and careful about what information they shared and with whom?
Also getting the blogosphere and twitterverse into a frenzy this week was the revelation that aides to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey used their authority to screw with traffic crossing the George Washington Bridge into the city you don't want your salsa to come from. The reason for this was to mess with the commuters of Ft. Lee, N.J. to get a sort of childish revenge on that city's mayor for not endorsing Christie for Governor. Of course, the internet is exploding as a result of this news. The analysis seems to be that this pretty much ends any chance that Christie might have had to become President, and some even calling for his resignation. Others are wondering what the fuss is really all about because it isn't like we had an ambassador killed as a result.
As you can imagine, a lot of the hubbub is a result of partisan politics, though Christie does get flak from both sides because of his hostility toward conservative Republicans. So, while many Democratic Party hacks are calling for Christie's head, most Republicans are calling the liberals saying such things hypocrites because they don't have a problem with corrupt partisanship when it is practiced by President Obama. Generally these Republicans go about listing many examples of that corrupt partisanship just to refresh the liberal memory.
For my money, I do think this is the end of Christie as a national candidate. While a Democrat governor could brush this off in the long run, Republican voters, especially in the mid-West and South, are not going vote for somebody with that baggage, especially when there are other (and in my opinion much better) choices. I can see a few aides being fired for the imbroglio, but I don't see any immediate repercussions for Christie, except maybe in his ability to get Democrats to work with him. In the long term, it will have a much greater affect on his political career.
Starting with what is most important, the rosters of the hockey teams for the Olympics to be played in Sochi have been announced, and the Chicago Blackhawks will have ten players traveling to Russia. Patrick Kane will be playing for the Gold Medal Winning Team USA, Jonathan Toews, Patrick Sharp and Duncan Keith will bring home the Silver Medal with Team Canada, Marcus Kruger and Johnny Oduya will play for Sweden, Marian Hossa and Michal Handzus will play for Slovakia, and Michal Rozsival will be playing for the Czech Republic.
In other sports news, congratulations to Frank Thomas of the Chicago White Sox, who has been selected for the Baseball Hall of Fame, along with sometime Chicago Cub Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine.
Robert Gates memoir of his time as Secretary of Defense under George W. Bush and Barrack Obama was released. There is a lot of talk about his impressions of President Obama and, to a lessor extent, Hillary Clinton, but I really don't think any of that is surprising. Nothing President Obama has said or done since being in office has left me with the impression he had any regard for our military efforts. I will point out that, even though the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was quick to take credit for getting our troops out of Iraq, and does deserve a lot of the scorn and derision directed at him for what is now happening, like the loss of Fallujah to al Qaeda forces, I always had the impression that all the agreements and timelines for withdrawal were already in place when he took office, and that he did not do anything substantial to alter them. So, remember, this time at least, George Bush really does share some of the blame.
Not getting as much attention from the press or blogosphere is what Gates wrote about when he first took over as Secretary of Defense. His predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, left after a contentious term of service. What was the culture and moral in the Pentagon like when Gates arrived? Was there relief that there was a changing of the guard? Were the uniformed leaders open and honest about the situation on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan and in the modernization efforts, or were they guarded and careful about what information they shared and with whom?
Also getting the blogosphere and twitterverse into a frenzy this week was the revelation that aides to Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey used their authority to screw with traffic crossing the George Washington Bridge into the city you don't want your salsa to come from. The reason for this was to mess with the commuters of Ft. Lee, N.J. to get a sort of childish revenge on that city's mayor for not endorsing Christie for Governor. Of course, the internet is exploding as a result of this news. The analysis seems to be that this pretty much ends any chance that Christie might have had to become President, and some even calling for his resignation. Others are wondering what the fuss is really all about because it isn't like we had an ambassador killed as a result.
As you can imagine, a lot of the hubbub is a result of partisan politics, though Christie does get flak from both sides because of his hostility toward conservative Republicans. So, while many Democratic Party hacks are calling for Christie's head, most Republicans are calling the liberals saying such things hypocrites because they don't have a problem with corrupt partisanship when it is practiced by President Obama. Generally these Republicans go about listing many examples of that corrupt partisanship just to refresh the liberal memory.
For my money, I do think this is the end of Christie as a national candidate. While a Democrat governor could brush this off in the long run, Republican voters, especially in the mid-West and South, are not going vote for somebody with that baggage, especially when there are other (and in my opinion much better) choices. I can see a few aides being fired for the imbroglio, but I don't see any immediate repercussions for Christie, except maybe in his ability to get Democrats to work with him. In the long term, it will have a much greater affect on his political career.
2014-01-02
In the Good Old Summertime
Summer is in full swing now in the southern hemisphere, which includes Antarctica. You have penguins on the beaches trying to catch some rays, and sea lions just off shore trying to catch some penguins.
Have you heard about the Australian research group aboard the Russian ship MK Akademik Shokalskiy? These are the people who went off to Antarctica trying to demonstrate the effects of global warming by replicating an exploration that was undertaken a century ago. The idea was to assess ice, ocean and ecological conditions at the same locations as the previous party. The expectation was that current ice measurements would be much lower than those taken by Australian Douglas Mawson on his expedition from 1911-1913.
So, did they get the results that they were expecting?
Not quite. They actually were not able to get any readings. You see, as they were in route to Antarctica, they ran into problems. There was a blizzard on Christmas Eve that caused their boat to be iced in. Where they were expecting to go floating merrily along, they were now set firmly in the middle of a skating rink. So, since Christmas Eve, there have been several attempts to rescue the scientists, crew, and tourists that had been trapped.
Wait...what? Did you read that right?
Tourists? On a scientific expedition? Really?
Of course. Don't all scientific expeditions bring tourists along to ensure adequate funding for the project?
In case you didn't notice, that last little bit was in courier font, which is henceforth to be known as the official Sulphur and Cordite sarcasm font.
Does that not tell you pretty much everything you need to know about this expedition? The scientists who dreamed up the excursion could not get adequate funding for it, probably because the legitimacy of the project was questionable, so instead of dropping the idea and looking for other projects, they thought, hey, let's see if we can find a bunch of gullible hippies with too much cash and overcharge them for the trip. Evidently, they found some.
So now, they have enough funding for their expedition, but they also have tourists in tow, and tourists, even gullible hippy tourists, expect at least a modicum of comfort when they shell out big bucks for travel. That meant that, instead of finding an ice breaker, which is the preferred mode of transport for most Antarctic expeditions, they got a cruise ship.
On Christmas eve, three days into summer in the Antarctic, is when they got hit by a blizzard, and they got trapped in the ice. At this point, I honestly don't know whether having an ice breaker would have really been helpful, since it seems the ice they were trapped on was pretty extensive. Ice breakers from three other (and better prepared) expeditions were sent in attempts to break their way to the Akademik Shokalskiy, but the closest any of them were able to get was still 12 miles, (19km) away. Still, they would have been much better off if they had brought the proper equipment in the first place.
Bear in mind the ice breakers that were sent on the rescue efforts were not just standing at the ready to respond in this type of situation like the Coast Guard. These were boats that were on resupply missions to other Antarctic expeditions. Now these other expeditions are being put behind schedule, and some members of those expeditions are being prevented from returning home, as a result of an ill-prepared group that set off on an ill-advised project.
Finally today, January 2, all the passengers on board the vessel were retrieved by helicopter. They are on an Australian ice-breaker that will return the to Tasmania, while the crew members will be staying with the ship.
I am a extremely skeptical about global warming being anthropogenic, and I do not really believe it is a concern in the future, near term or long term. I find it hilarious that a an expedition that sets off to gather evidence of global warming gets literally frozen out of its intended purpose.
The members of this expedition have not only become laughingstocks for those who have a reasonable skepticism about the whole anthropogenic climate change theory (justice cannot get any more poetic than a bunch of people trying to prove a warmer climate getting stuck in ice,) but also have raised the ire of other members of the global warming cult, just because they are a shining example that things are not quite as warm as they are trying to convince everybody they are.
Just remember, the only thing settled about science is that we do not know as much as we pretend to, and we only truly understand a fraction of what we know.
Have you heard about the Australian research group aboard the Russian ship MK Akademik Shokalskiy? These are the people who went off to Antarctica trying to demonstrate the effects of global warming by replicating an exploration that was undertaken a century ago. The idea was to assess ice, ocean and ecological conditions at the same locations as the previous party. The expectation was that current ice measurements would be much lower than those taken by Australian Douglas Mawson on his expedition from 1911-1913.
So, did they get the results that they were expecting?
Not quite. They actually were not able to get any readings. You see, as they were in route to Antarctica, they ran into problems. There was a blizzard on Christmas Eve that caused their boat to be iced in. Where they were expecting to go floating merrily along, they were now set firmly in the middle of a skating rink. So, since Christmas Eve, there have been several attempts to rescue the scientists, crew, and tourists that had been trapped.
Wait...what? Did you read that right?
Tourists? On a scientific expedition? Really?
Of course. Don't all scientific expeditions bring tourists along to ensure adequate funding for the project?
In case you didn't notice, that last little bit was in courier font, which is henceforth to be known as the official Sulphur and Cordite sarcasm font.
Does that not tell you pretty much everything you need to know about this expedition? The scientists who dreamed up the excursion could not get adequate funding for it, probably because the legitimacy of the project was questionable, so instead of dropping the idea and looking for other projects, they thought, hey, let's see if we can find a bunch of gullible hippies with too much cash and overcharge them for the trip. Evidently, they found some.
So now, they have enough funding for their expedition, but they also have tourists in tow, and tourists, even gullible hippy tourists, expect at least a modicum of comfort when they shell out big bucks for travel. That meant that, instead of finding an ice breaker, which is the preferred mode of transport for most Antarctic expeditions, they got a cruise ship.
On Christmas eve, three days into summer in the Antarctic, is when they got hit by a blizzard, and they got trapped in the ice. At this point, I honestly don't know whether having an ice breaker would have really been helpful, since it seems the ice they were trapped on was pretty extensive. Ice breakers from three other (and better prepared) expeditions were sent in attempts to break their way to the Akademik Shokalskiy, but the closest any of them were able to get was still 12 miles, (19km) away. Still, they would have been much better off if they had brought the proper equipment in the first place.
Bear in mind the ice breakers that were sent on the rescue efforts were not just standing at the ready to respond in this type of situation like the Coast Guard. These were boats that were on resupply missions to other Antarctic expeditions. Now these other expeditions are being put behind schedule, and some members of those expeditions are being prevented from returning home, as a result of an ill-prepared group that set off on an ill-advised project.
 |
| Not disclosed if R. J. Macready was among the rescue mission helicopter pilots. |
I am a extremely skeptical about global warming being anthropogenic, and I do not really believe it is a concern in the future, near term or long term. I find it hilarious that a an expedition that sets off to gather evidence of global warming gets literally frozen out of its intended purpose.
The members of this expedition have not only become laughingstocks for those who have a reasonable skepticism about the whole anthropogenic climate change theory (justice cannot get any more poetic than a bunch of people trying to prove a warmer climate getting stuck in ice,) but also have raised the ire of other members of the global warming cult, just because they are a shining example that things are not quite as warm as they are trying to convince everybody they are.
Just remember, the only thing settled about science is that we do not know as much as we pretend to, and we only truly understand a fraction of what we know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)