Over on Polipundit, we've been discussing the Presidents of the United States for the last few days, and it occurs to me that any comparison between Presidents must include the relevant dates the Presidents had to operate, including the make-up of the Congress and Supreme Court that President had to deal with. That is, a fair evaluation of all the Presidents could best be done, by a series of one-to-one comparisons, in each term timeline. With 42 men having served so far, that works out to 82 contests for each President (41 comparisons in his own time, 41 in the other President's times), or 1,722 contests. To make that more fun and less droll, I am matching up the Presidents in a sports-style format, and calling the American Presidents League, or APL.
For each President, I am drawing up characteristic values and noting the party intensity for each Congress, and noting the Supreme Court's attitude by the major cases they handled at a time. For now, here are the six divisions (7 Presidents each):
CONTINENTAL CONFERENCE
Revolution Division
G Washington
T Jefferson
A Jackson
J Monroe
J Adams
J Madison
JQ Adams
Constitution Division
J Polk
M Van Buren
J Tyler
Z Taylor
M Fillmore
F Pierce
W Harrison
Reconstruction Division
A Lincoln
U Grant
R Hayes
C Arthurs
J Buchanan
A Johnson
J Garfield
FEDERAL CONFERENCE
Manifest Division
T Roosevelt
G Cleveland
W McKinley
W Wilson
B Harrison
W Taft
W Harding
Domination Division
F Roosevelt
C Coolidge
D Eisenhower
H Truman
J Kennedy
H Hoover
L Johnson
Leadership Division
R Reagan
GW Bush
G Ford
GHW Bush
W Clinton
J Carter
R Nixon
Based on the preferences expressed by Polipundit readers, here are the Pre-Season Top 12:
1. G Washington
2. A Lincoln
3. R Reagan
4. T Jefferson
5. A Jackson
6. GW Bush
7. T Roosevelt
8. F Roosevelt
9. J Polk
10. J Monroe
11. C Coolidge
12. J Adams
If the APL is a waste of time for you, just ignore those posts which reference the season's progress. But if you like to compare Presidents, this might be fun.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
Torture
.
The mindless jackals of the Democratic Party* continued their assault on the United States of America yesterday, by attempting to discredit the distinctive qualifications of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General. This is not surprising, given the absolute slander delivered against John Ashcroft over the past four years, but it speaks to the peculiar and destructive belief that a political victory is more vital than the nation or honorable men in its service.
(I stop here to address the '*' I noted above. The Republican Party has its own jackals, politics being the sort of soul-killing machine it is, and I want to make clear that there remain honest and honorable public servants in Congress on both sides of the aisle. This article addresses the seditious words and actions of America's enemies, who think nothing of betraying the nation and her citizens for a chance to score demguagic points.)
The present canard was the cheap and false attempt to link Gonzales to support for torture as an interrogation tactic. As Gonzales made clear in his statements yesterday to the Senate, he has a clear demand for the conduct of U.S. forces who hold people, whether in prisons, detention, camps, or some other situation. The claims made against him come from a deliberate misrepresentation of both his opinions and of the men who have been claimed as victims of torture.
Perhaps the clearest method by which the distinction may be made, is to examine what happened at Abu Ghraib. Eight U.S. soldiers were arrested and charged under the UCMJ for their actions, which were described in their courts-martial as four basic types of offenses:
Conspiracy - to maltreat detainees, and to deceive investigators, and to coerce witnesses to conceal knowledge and evidence of a crime
Sexual Misconduct - by having sex with other guards in direct violation of orders, by stripping detainees and posing them nude, and by mocking detainees with graphic acts (such as photographing a nude detainee while hooded and with wires simulating electronic torture
Omission - Ignoring their duty to protect detainees from abuse and cruelty
Physical Assault - Striking and kicking detainees with hands and feet, and using dogs to threaten attack
In comparison, here are actions known to have been taken by the Baath regime at the Abu Ghraib prison (additional sources here and here):
* Regular beatings in order to break resistance
* Random executions to create and maintain terror
* Limbs amputated, beginning with fingers and continuing to arms and legs
* Tongues cut out, ears cut off
* Family members raped in front of prisoners
* Murder of children in front of prisoners
* Murder of fetus by cutting the mother's womb open, again in front of prisoners
* Prisoners' legs and ribs broken through prolonged whipping
* Prisoners thrown from roofs
* Beheadings
There is no comparison. None whatsoever.
This is not to say that the actions taken by this few U.S. soldiers represents acceptable behavior. Bear in mind, not only that these soldiers were arrested and tried for their actions, but also that their attempts to conceal and deny thei actions shows that they knew their actions were opposed to the training and expectations of the U.S. military. Any claim to compare U.S. policy to support for Torture is therefore either ignorance, or a deliberate lie.
With that said, however, the question comes up, when is physical violence or threats against detainees acceptable, and how far is too far?
It has been said, with validity, that armies will always have a few who go too far, and wherever the line is drawn, there will be some who exceed it. But the U.S. Military actually has a pretty good humanitarian record for the past century; the horrible crimes of My Lai and the like turn out to be remote exceptions when the evidence is considered. But at the same time, the question demands to be answered; how far can we go, without becoming what we fight?
In World War 2, the United States was unquestionably fighting against some of the worst evils of that century, personified by Tojo and Hitler. But the controversy remains today, about the use of atomic bombs on Japan, or of fire-bombing cities in Germany. Those, of course, were acts of war, and to some degree may be excused by the information available. Yet, that's the same issue facing Lt. Colonel Allen West, who faced court-martial for firing his pistol near the head of an Iraqi prisoner, in order to get information which saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers. Was the threat of death appropriate in order to save American lives? In the case of Col. West, he decided it was. What's more, the fact that Al Qaeda trains their recruits to believe that Americans are soft and squeamish (no doubt because of speeches by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pulosi), would enhance the effect of discovering the U.S. was quite willing to play rough. In practical terms, a certain relaxing of rules against physical force would unquestionably improve our interrogation results.
The next question is the legal one. Americans often forget that the world is not the United States. That is, the law is different in different places, and so are rights. There are, to be specific, different rights for different people.
Why? It comes down to Sovereignty. An American tourist in Jordan or Singapore may enjoy the exotic cultures and cuisines, but he must also understand the laws of each country and their enforcement. Larry Flynt would not do well in Singapore, nor would Keith Richards enjoy Jordan's conduct expectations. And citizenship is far more than a formality in the eyes of the law. To a U.S. soldier, an American citizen owns specific and undeniable rights, which cannot be abridged by a military force. A resident within the territory of the United States would have a lower level of rights, but would still enjoy the standard practices of U.S. domestic law enforcement. A captured soldier in unifiorm of a known country and formal government would still enjoy some protection as a Prisoner of War, per the Geneva accords. But an armed foreign insurgent who attacks civilians has no rights, of any kind. The decision which allows the insurgent to hide his identity and deny connection to a sponsor state, also strips away any pretense of legal defense when he is caught. This is not say 'anything goes'; all military units are compelled to operate under the Rules of Engagement set ahead of time for them, and there are clear Military Justice ordinances regarding the treatment of any captured person. But in legal terms, the eight soldiers tried for the Abu Ghraib offenses were arrested and tried for offenses against the U.S. Government, not for violating any prisoner's rights.
Up to here, the matter must seem very cold-blooded, as if I were saying 'Ha! You are my prisoner, and I may do as I like'. This is absolutely not the case. But it was necessary to establish first the clear distinction between torture as it is acted out, and the nature of the actual offenses. It was then necessary to draw clear understanding of the fact that war is not courteous or kind, and such tactics must be set aside to accomplish necessary, even vital, goals. And it was also appropriate to remind the reader, that the terrorists' decision to act apart from a government, and to attack civilians, not to mention the brutality of terrorist actions taken against their victims, removed any pretense to a claim of civil rights for the men so captured. The matter becomes exclusively a question of the U.S. accepted level of responsibility.
Going back to the practical matter, it works to the advantage of the United States to maintain a balance between strength and mercy. Rebuilding roads and cities, protecting children with medicine and police, and showing a sincere desire for Iraqi self-rule through their own elections, all work to the good. It also helps, however, to make clear that the United States will crush any terrorist found, that insurgents will not find a timid defender. But for the sake of our soldiers' morality and confidence, it is also absolutely necessary that standards of conduct be clear and consistent. As I noted earlier, the My Lai massacre was a remote exception to U.S. conduct, and the overwhelming majority of Vietnam Veterans have every right to be proud of their service and conduct. John Kerry was simply lying when he claimed to see widespread atrocities in 1971, and the vets know this. The same condition exists in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo, where the U.S. is careful not to mistreat detainees, but has no intention of forgetting who they are, and what they have done. What is necessary in this matter, is to review the policies and actions of the United States, to set a clear line between what is right and acceptable for U.S. military, and what is unacceptable. And that brings us back to that Jan 25, 2002 memo prepared by Alberto Gonzales. When he prepared that memo, what he was doing was looking at that line, in moral and legal terms, and explaining where the boundaries are. That is exactly what we need in an Attorney General, especially right now.
The mindless jackals of the Democratic Party* continued their assault on the United States of America yesterday, by attempting to discredit the distinctive qualifications of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General. This is not surprising, given the absolute slander delivered against John Ashcroft over the past four years, but it speaks to the peculiar and destructive belief that a political victory is more vital than the nation or honorable men in its service.
(I stop here to address the '*' I noted above. The Republican Party has its own jackals, politics being the sort of soul-killing machine it is, and I want to make clear that there remain honest and honorable public servants in Congress on both sides of the aisle. This article addresses the seditious words and actions of America's enemies, who think nothing of betraying the nation and her citizens for a chance to score demguagic points.)
The present canard was the cheap and false attempt to link Gonzales to support for torture as an interrogation tactic. As Gonzales made clear in his statements yesterday to the Senate, he has a clear demand for the conduct of U.S. forces who hold people, whether in prisons, detention, camps, or some other situation. The claims made against him come from a deliberate misrepresentation of both his opinions and of the men who have been claimed as victims of torture.
Perhaps the clearest method by which the distinction may be made, is to examine what happened at Abu Ghraib. Eight U.S. soldiers were arrested and charged under the UCMJ for their actions, which were described in their courts-martial as four basic types of offenses:
Conspiracy - to maltreat detainees, and to deceive investigators, and to coerce witnesses to conceal knowledge and evidence of a crime
Sexual Misconduct - by having sex with other guards in direct violation of orders, by stripping detainees and posing them nude, and by mocking detainees with graphic acts (such as photographing a nude detainee while hooded and with wires simulating electronic torture
Omission - Ignoring their duty to protect detainees from abuse and cruelty
Physical Assault - Striking and kicking detainees with hands and feet, and using dogs to threaten attack
In comparison, here are actions known to have been taken by the Baath regime at the Abu Ghraib prison (additional sources here and here):
* Regular beatings in order to break resistance
* Random executions to create and maintain terror
* Limbs amputated, beginning with fingers and continuing to arms and legs
* Tongues cut out, ears cut off
* Family members raped in front of prisoners
* Murder of children in front of prisoners
* Murder of fetus by cutting the mother's womb open, again in front of prisoners
* Prisoners' legs and ribs broken through prolonged whipping
* Prisoners thrown from roofs
* Beheadings
There is no comparison. None whatsoever.
This is not to say that the actions taken by this few U.S. soldiers represents acceptable behavior. Bear in mind, not only that these soldiers were arrested and tried for their actions, but also that their attempts to conceal and deny thei actions shows that they knew their actions were opposed to the training and expectations of the U.S. military. Any claim to compare U.S. policy to support for Torture is therefore either ignorance, or a deliberate lie.
With that said, however, the question comes up, when is physical violence or threats against detainees acceptable, and how far is too far?
It has been said, with validity, that armies will always have a few who go too far, and wherever the line is drawn, there will be some who exceed it. But the U.S. Military actually has a pretty good humanitarian record for the past century; the horrible crimes of My Lai and the like turn out to be remote exceptions when the evidence is considered. But at the same time, the question demands to be answered; how far can we go, without becoming what we fight?
In World War 2, the United States was unquestionably fighting against some of the worst evils of that century, personified by Tojo and Hitler. But the controversy remains today, about the use of atomic bombs on Japan, or of fire-bombing cities in Germany. Those, of course, were acts of war, and to some degree may be excused by the information available. Yet, that's the same issue facing Lt. Colonel Allen West, who faced court-martial for firing his pistol near the head of an Iraqi prisoner, in order to get information which saved the lives of many U.S. soldiers. Was the threat of death appropriate in order to save American lives? In the case of Col. West, he decided it was. What's more, the fact that Al Qaeda trains their recruits to believe that Americans are soft and squeamish (no doubt because of speeches by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pulosi), would enhance the effect of discovering the U.S. was quite willing to play rough. In practical terms, a certain relaxing of rules against physical force would unquestionably improve our interrogation results.
The next question is the legal one. Americans often forget that the world is not the United States. That is, the law is different in different places, and so are rights. There are, to be specific, different rights for different people.
Why? It comes down to Sovereignty. An American tourist in Jordan or Singapore may enjoy the exotic cultures and cuisines, but he must also understand the laws of each country and their enforcement. Larry Flynt would not do well in Singapore, nor would Keith Richards enjoy Jordan's conduct expectations. And citizenship is far more than a formality in the eyes of the law. To a U.S. soldier, an American citizen owns specific and undeniable rights, which cannot be abridged by a military force. A resident within the territory of the United States would have a lower level of rights, but would still enjoy the standard practices of U.S. domestic law enforcement. A captured soldier in unifiorm of a known country and formal government would still enjoy some protection as a Prisoner of War, per the Geneva accords. But an armed foreign insurgent who attacks civilians has no rights, of any kind. The decision which allows the insurgent to hide his identity and deny connection to a sponsor state, also strips away any pretense of legal defense when he is caught. This is not say 'anything goes'; all military units are compelled to operate under the Rules of Engagement set ahead of time for them, and there are clear Military Justice ordinances regarding the treatment of any captured person. But in legal terms, the eight soldiers tried for the Abu Ghraib offenses were arrested and tried for offenses against the U.S. Government, not for violating any prisoner's rights.
Up to here, the matter must seem very cold-blooded, as if I were saying 'Ha! You are my prisoner, and I may do as I like'. This is absolutely not the case. But it was necessary to establish first the clear distinction between torture as it is acted out, and the nature of the actual offenses. It was then necessary to draw clear understanding of the fact that war is not courteous or kind, and such tactics must be set aside to accomplish necessary, even vital, goals. And it was also appropriate to remind the reader, that the terrorists' decision to act apart from a government, and to attack civilians, not to mention the brutality of terrorist actions taken against their victims, removed any pretense to a claim of civil rights for the men so captured. The matter becomes exclusively a question of the U.S. accepted level of responsibility.
Going back to the practical matter, it works to the advantage of the United States to maintain a balance between strength and mercy. Rebuilding roads and cities, protecting children with medicine and police, and showing a sincere desire for Iraqi self-rule through their own elections, all work to the good. It also helps, however, to make clear that the United States will crush any terrorist found, that insurgents will not find a timid defender. But for the sake of our soldiers' morality and confidence, it is also absolutely necessary that standards of conduct be clear and consistent. As I noted earlier, the My Lai massacre was a remote exception to U.S. conduct, and the overwhelming majority of Vietnam Veterans have every right to be proud of their service and conduct. John Kerry was simply lying when he claimed to see widespread atrocities in 1971, and the vets know this. The same condition exists in Iraq and Afghanistan and Guantanamo, where the U.S. is careful not to mistreat detainees, but has no intention of forgetting who they are, and what they have done. What is necessary in this matter, is to review the policies and actions of the United States, to set a clear line between what is right and acceptable for U.S. military, and what is unacceptable. And that brings us back to that Jan 25, 2002 memo prepared by Alberto Gonzales. When he prepared that memo, what he was doing was looking at that line, in moral and legal terms, and explaining where the boundaries are. That is exactly what we need in an Attorney General, especially right now.
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Why 'Help' Sometimes Is Not Help
Last week, the City Council of Houston passed a new law, which requires the immediate towing of any disabled vehicle on the highways and freeways in Houston. The law has not been well-received. The Mayor, to his credit, has stepped up in person to face the criticism and displeasure of the citizens, but he has unfortunately confirmed that the only voice that matters is his own. He is, however, surprised by the unhappiness, explaining that he's doing this for our safety. The man is pathetically unaware that this very attitude is part of the problem.
Mayor Bill White considers himself to be a businessman, and so he approaches city matters as a business matter. The problem is, while a man may own a business and have the sole right to decide what is reasonable, the mayor is not the owner of the city, but only a servant of the people. In this case, the City should have set up a referendum, and asked for legal advice on the advisability of this action (the rights of the city to designate only certain tow trucks, to be used on state roads, to remove vehicles not hindering traffic from designated emergency lanes against the owner's will, especially where the matter is as simple as changing a tire or restarting the vehicle, is already in question). And no matter what, the Council should have known better than to deliver the decision as if it wer ean imperial edict. When a mayor arbitrarily decides not to listen to the people about the way the city should be run, he is ignoring his duties and subverting the rights of the citizens. And that's why people outside the city of Houston should consider this issue.
I have been exchanging e-mails with a couple readers, about the emerging realignment of American voters. A recent Gallup poll confirmed what the last three Federal Elections indicated; more Americans consider themselves Republicans than Democrats, and many more consider themselves Conservatives than Liberals. Some on the Right believe this means that the Democratic Party is in crisis, and may even cease as a political force within a generation. It occurs to me, however, that there are cracks in the foundation of the Republican Party as well, and there is major work for both parties to tend to, if they want to remain as relevant in 2024, as they were this year. And part of that crisis of confidence is a simple matter of job performance. Far too many politicians do what they like, and impose unreasonable burdens on the people, often in the name of "helping".
Here in Houston, it is now illegal to drive without a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt is a good idea, and people should be encouraged to wear one whenever they are in a car or truck. But it is not the state or city's place to declare it illegal to not wear one; they do not hold the moral authority to pass such a law. After all, if I am foolish enough to drive w/o wearing a seat belt, I am not driving recklessly as a result of that omission, nor am I endangering any other driver or passenger. Ethically, not wearing a seat belt is the same as driving while smoking - a bad idea, but not one which needs to be outlawed. Further, the state does not take away your license or restrict when you can drive, if you are caught not wearing a belt; you are simply fined, proving it's really nothing more than a revenue grab. That takes the action from stupid across the line to immoral. No authority has the right to penalize a person for doing something which is not directly harmful to anyone, and which is not a violation of anyone else's rights. Laws passed simply to generate revenue are not simply unreasonable, they create a sense of promoted injustice, using the law for immoral purposes.
Another law recently passed, sets up cameras at streetlights to catch red-light runners and speeders. The problem is, it violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the part about the accused having the right to face his accuser. The submission of the citation is presumption of guilt, which directly runs against the rights of Americans. Now, I'm not opposed to catching red-light runners and speeders and reckless drivers, but this law is bad in every way. That's because the city has tried to evade the 5th-Amendment concerns by treating the tickets as civil actions rather than criminal actions. There are many problems created by that stunt. First, the insurance companies point out that doing this will allow violators to pay a fine and not have it show up on their driving record, which prevents insurers from discovering who is reckless. The industry has already said this will force them to raise rates on everyone, which means that the city's actions will result in punishing good drivers. Further, if you receive one of these tickets, you will be expected to pay the fine, so the effect remains the same; if you are not guilty, you will be denied the right to challenge the charge in court. That is, you can plead 'not guilty', but the chances you will win are remote, given the starting presumption of guilt.
It goes further than driving infractions, of course. The trend over the past couple decades to protect non-Christian freedom of religion, while punishing public displays of Christian faith, is reaching a boiling point. A key example this year, was the banning of any Christian symbol or music at a New Jersey School District, while Hannukah and Ramadam celebrations were encouraged and supported with city funds and specifically noted at official celebrations. Schools have granted exceptions to their dress codes for Muslim students, while punishing Christians for Christian symbols and dress. The hypocrisy of such actions is clear, and the increasing publicity of such anti-Christian oppression by city and state authorities will sooner or later generate consequences.
But the heart of the crisis could reasonably be said to rest in Washington, D.C. In the generation following the Revolution, the Congress of the United States would meet for a limited amount of time, after which the Congressmen and Senators would return to their home states for their regular work, and to be accessible to their constituents. Those days have long been supplanted, by the permanent D.C. residences of Congressmen and Senators, who only see their home state on campaign tours, and who are no more accessible to the people who are supposed to be their bosses, than the Politburo of the old Soviet Union was. More and more laws are passed which do little more than bring in money, and window-dress the ambitions of the Congressmen and Senators. Issues vital to Americans are ignored, while billions are spent to create friends for the politicians when they leave office and want to become high-paid lobbyists. Republicans and Democrats both tend to see themselves as elite, and answerable only to each other. That attitude, while pervasive on Capitol Hill, is near Treason in its contempt for the duties and responsibilities these men and women pretend to accept, and at some point will reap a bitter harvest from the nation.
From time to time, this elected official or that wil lopine on the meaning and significance of the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, or the Fourteenth. I think we all ought to remind our city and county officials that we will vote according to their actions, responsible and irresponsible, our state officials that Gray Davis was not that isolated an option, and our federal officials that the Tenth Amendment is very valid, and we will demand it's application.
Mayor Bill White considers himself to be a businessman, and so he approaches city matters as a business matter. The problem is, while a man may own a business and have the sole right to decide what is reasonable, the mayor is not the owner of the city, but only a servant of the people. In this case, the City should have set up a referendum, and asked for legal advice on the advisability of this action (the rights of the city to designate only certain tow trucks, to be used on state roads, to remove vehicles not hindering traffic from designated emergency lanes against the owner's will, especially where the matter is as simple as changing a tire or restarting the vehicle, is already in question). And no matter what, the Council should have known better than to deliver the decision as if it wer ean imperial edict. When a mayor arbitrarily decides not to listen to the people about the way the city should be run, he is ignoring his duties and subverting the rights of the citizens. And that's why people outside the city of Houston should consider this issue.
I have been exchanging e-mails with a couple readers, about the emerging realignment of American voters. A recent Gallup poll confirmed what the last three Federal Elections indicated; more Americans consider themselves Republicans than Democrats, and many more consider themselves Conservatives than Liberals. Some on the Right believe this means that the Democratic Party is in crisis, and may even cease as a political force within a generation. It occurs to me, however, that there are cracks in the foundation of the Republican Party as well, and there is major work for both parties to tend to, if they want to remain as relevant in 2024, as they were this year. And part of that crisis of confidence is a simple matter of job performance. Far too many politicians do what they like, and impose unreasonable burdens on the people, often in the name of "helping".
Here in Houston, it is now illegal to drive without a seat belt. Wearing a seat belt is a good idea, and people should be encouraged to wear one whenever they are in a car or truck. But it is not the state or city's place to declare it illegal to not wear one; they do not hold the moral authority to pass such a law. After all, if I am foolish enough to drive w/o wearing a seat belt, I am not driving recklessly as a result of that omission, nor am I endangering any other driver or passenger. Ethically, not wearing a seat belt is the same as driving while smoking - a bad idea, but not one which needs to be outlawed. Further, the state does not take away your license or restrict when you can drive, if you are caught not wearing a belt; you are simply fined, proving it's really nothing more than a revenue grab. That takes the action from stupid across the line to immoral. No authority has the right to penalize a person for doing something which is not directly harmful to anyone, and which is not a violation of anyone else's rights. Laws passed simply to generate revenue are not simply unreasonable, they create a sense of promoted injustice, using the law for immoral purposes.
Another law recently passed, sets up cameras at streetlights to catch red-light runners and speeders. The problem is, it violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, specifically the part about the accused having the right to face his accuser. The submission of the citation is presumption of guilt, which directly runs against the rights of Americans. Now, I'm not opposed to catching red-light runners and speeders and reckless drivers, but this law is bad in every way. That's because the city has tried to evade the 5th-Amendment concerns by treating the tickets as civil actions rather than criminal actions. There are many problems created by that stunt. First, the insurance companies point out that doing this will allow violators to pay a fine and not have it show up on their driving record, which prevents insurers from discovering who is reckless. The industry has already said this will force them to raise rates on everyone, which means that the city's actions will result in punishing good drivers. Further, if you receive one of these tickets, you will be expected to pay the fine, so the effect remains the same; if you are not guilty, you will be denied the right to challenge the charge in court. That is, you can plead 'not guilty', but the chances you will win are remote, given the starting presumption of guilt.
It goes further than driving infractions, of course. The trend over the past couple decades to protect non-Christian freedom of religion, while punishing public displays of Christian faith, is reaching a boiling point. A key example this year, was the banning of any Christian symbol or music at a New Jersey School District, while Hannukah and Ramadam celebrations were encouraged and supported with city funds and specifically noted at official celebrations. Schools have granted exceptions to their dress codes for Muslim students, while punishing Christians for Christian symbols and dress. The hypocrisy of such actions is clear, and the increasing publicity of such anti-Christian oppression by city and state authorities will sooner or later generate consequences.
But the heart of the crisis could reasonably be said to rest in Washington, D.C. In the generation following the Revolution, the Congress of the United States would meet for a limited amount of time, after which the Congressmen and Senators would return to their home states for their regular work, and to be accessible to their constituents. Those days have long been supplanted, by the permanent D.C. residences of Congressmen and Senators, who only see their home state on campaign tours, and who are no more accessible to the people who are supposed to be their bosses, than the Politburo of the old Soviet Union was. More and more laws are passed which do little more than bring in money, and window-dress the ambitions of the Congressmen and Senators. Issues vital to Americans are ignored, while billions are spent to create friends for the politicians when they leave office and want to become high-paid lobbyists. Republicans and Democrats both tend to see themselves as elite, and answerable only to each other. That attitude, while pervasive on Capitol Hill, is near Treason in its contempt for the duties and responsibilities these men and women pretend to accept, and at some point will reap a bitter harvest from the nation.
From time to time, this elected official or that wil lopine on the meaning and significance of the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, or the Fourteenth. I think we all ought to remind our city and county officials that we will vote according to their actions, responsible and irresponsible, our state officials that Gray Davis was not that isolated an option, and our federal officials that the Tenth Amendment is very valid, and we will demand it's application.
Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Why George W. Bush Matters in Intelligence Reform
.
One of my readers, Mugwump, asked about my sources and information on President Bush, and on another issue. I want to be clear, that Stolen Thunder is not an encyclopedic site. That is, I don't have the time or inclination in this blog to have to defend every claim. That means that I will present what I consider reasonable truths, from which I will make observations and state opinions. Sometimes, you may agree with me, at other times you may not. When I make a statement which is integral to the claim I am pursuing, then it is reasonable to challenge that claim if you find it flawed or invalid. However, if the statement to which you disagree is only incidental to the premise I am building, then I may or may not pursue that discussion. You will have to decide for yourself whether I make my case or not. I won't convince everyone, even if I had perfect knowledge, and I won't have perfect information, although I will try to make sure I don't waste your time, either.
On the first issue, Mugwump brought up a point I found incidental and a matter of personal opinion. I addressed it on the thread it concerned. But as for President Bush, I do think a deeper answer at length is appropriate.
George W. Bush is weird. That’s either a really bad thing, or a really good thing, depending on your perspective. The strong emotions surrounding this President are unique; while every President has his supporters and critics, no one in memory has suffered the absolute hate that has been spewed at Dubya, nor has a President often enjoyed the sort of loyalty that GW Bush has created. I believe this comes, in large part, from the clear and decisive policies and plans of this Bush Administration. Most Presidents try to set their policies in such a manner as to minimize conflict, which reduces outright anger but also dilutes their effectiveness. Dubya puts 100% into accomplishing his goals, but 0% into sugar-coating them. The fact that he really believes what he’s doing, accentuates the emotions as people react to the programs. This behavior continues with the restructuring of the Intelligence Community.
Some fifteen major groups are tasked with handling intelligence gathering and analysis, and another fifteen deal with intelligence data as part of their operational responsibility. That fact alone illustrates the need for a comprehensive central control for intelligence; the 9/11 attacks happened, in part, because information which could have been combined with related data from other groups to provide a clear picture of the threat, was hindered by bureaucratic procedures and useless turf fights. The long feuds between the FBI, CIA, and NSA are common knowledge, and shameful to these organizations. Also, the very controls created by the Church Committee in 1977-78 to prevent recurrence of the abuses they discovered, instead serve to hide agencies from proper review and oversight. The world changed on September 11, 2001, for no group more than the Intelligence Community.
President George W. Bush was uniquely qualified for the reformation of U.S. Intelligence. In the first place, where most Presidents have been lawyers, Bush is a businessman by experience and education; a Harvard MBA means Bush looks for real-world solutions, not theoretical explanations, and establishes pragmatic expectations, with subsequent consequences for evasion or equivocation. Next, Bush has been on very good terms with his father since at least 1985, and part of that relationship is the education of his father’s experience. As a World War 2 vet and long-time CIA official, to say nothing of his Presidential experience, George H.W. Bush had critically valuable influence in shaping George W. Bush’s understanding of the military and intelligence agencies. It’s no shock to me that Dubya has made respect and appreciation for our men in uniform a top priority, and I have no doubt that his intentions for the Intelligence Community are sure and uncompromising. I also believe that, as he is familiar with the arrogance of the East Coast academics, President Bush has little patience for ivory towers in Langley. Porter Goss is right in line with the President’s thinking. Another example is the immediate arming of Predator UAVs with Hellfire missiles; unlike previous Presidents, who were content to observe terrorists in transit, President Bush immediately issued orders to make it feasible to kill terrorists on sight. In this regard, Bush is even more decisive than Reagan; Dubya does not believe in warning shots where terrorists are concerned, although he has made certain that all the nations likely to be involved are aware of his intentions and determination.
That is why I identified the new post of National Director of Intelligence as the real deal; Bush wouldn’t waste his time on window-dressing. The changes already in progress show that Bush intends to get work done straightaway in his second term, and since there have been two key intelligence failures that Bush has had to deal with, there will be real and effective changes in the way things get done. The first intelligence failure, of course, was the 9/11 attacks. The PATRIOT Act did several things to correct the flaws and holes found in the National Security wall, in fact it began as a reformation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many PATRIOT features accomplished two main missions; removing restrictions to inter-agency cooperation, such as prohibiting the FBI from seeing CIA information, or the National Security Council from being made aware of threats to National Security, if that information was revealed in Grand Jury testimony. The other mission was to grant intelligence agencies access to the same tools as law enforcement already used. For instance, the use of warrants which notice would not be announced prior to the execution of that warrant were already in common use in kidnapping cases and Organized Crime, but prior to PATRIOT, Federal agents on Intelligence cases had to provide advance notice of warrants, permitting enemies to destroy critical information in advance of its discovery. The complaints against PATRIOT essentially showed the ignorance of extant law. PATRIOT allowed Federal agents critical tools in their ability to protect lives by preventing terrorist attacks.
The second intelligence failure, came when the State Department failed to cooperate with the Bush Administration in the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion. The CIA was aware of Iraqi WMD storage and experimentation, but was unable to prove the existence of WMD after the invasion, in part because much of the material was destroyed, hidden, or smuggled across the border. The failure was unavoidable, given the absence of HUMINT, or human agents in Iraq. This failure was no agency’s fault, but came as the direct result of Church Committee restrictions on agency actions in the field, and the Clinton Administration’s fascination with a technical-only surveillance. Clinton didn’t want any human agents killed in the region, or dealing with unsavory types (which invariably are necessary to substantive agent networking – three of the four classic motives for a person to become a spy are unsavory in their nature). This amounted to prohibiting the detectives from ever leaving the police station. This had to change, and it is changing. Bush is the first President in a couple decades willing to meet that challenge.
Also, the creation of the NDI post allows another gap to be filled. Traditionally, Intelligence has been split into three parts; Intelligence, Technical Support, and Operations. The three have differed on how to interact, for as long as each agency has existed. The DNI will have enough information to direct Technical development, to coordinate Analysis, and to provide effective courses of action to the President or whomever he designates, for implementation. It also provides sufficient control, coordinating the data in a controlled-access process, that leaks and theft may be traced quickly to the source; this is important to Internal Security, and helps the agency protect itself by providing proof of guilt when a crime is committed.
Finally, President Bush has shown great foresight, by recognizing the flexibility of agency resources for a variety of tasks. Where in the past, government agencies could only influence other governments through direct actions, the US now possesses the means to use the Internet to release information directly to the people who can use it, simply by clarifying the classification of restricted data, freeing up information that cannot be used to hurt the United States, but can and will disrupt the plans and claims of totalitarian and oppressive regimes. The best recent example, was the surprise access in China’s restricted Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication (MPT) to uncensored versions of SkyNews and CNN during the fall of Baghdad in April 2003; while the PRC moved quickly to close down the news sites, the sudden appearance of these sites allowed tens of millions of Chinese to discover and verify the truth, and the inability of the PRC to prevent their appearance was significant on several levels. The ability to influence nations through simple release of verifiable facts, is a traditional yet powerful tactic, and the use of Internet access to poke open windows to the world, is the most significant tool in that area since Voice of America first powered up.
All in all, while there will doubtless prove to be unexpected challenges and crises, the reform of the Intelligence Community under President Bush is vital to the War on Terror, on National Security, and for the future of America’s influence in future world events. By the next generation, this accomplishment will be understood more clearly, but it is a signal achievement, for the man and for the country.
One of my readers, Mugwump, asked about my sources and information on President Bush, and on another issue. I want to be clear, that Stolen Thunder is not an encyclopedic site. That is, I don't have the time or inclination in this blog to have to defend every claim. That means that I will present what I consider reasonable truths, from which I will make observations and state opinions. Sometimes, you may agree with me, at other times you may not. When I make a statement which is integral to the claim I am pursuing, then it is reasonable to challenge that claim if you find it flawed or invalid. However, if the statement to which you disagree is only incidental to the premise I am building, then I may or may not pursue that discussion. You will have to decide for yourself whether I make my case or not. I won't convince everyone, even if I had perfect knowledge, and I won't have perfect information, although I will try to make sure I don't waste your time, either.
On the first issue, Mugwump brought up a point I found incidental and a matter of personal opinion. I addressed it on the thread it concerned. But as for President Bush, I do think a deeper answer at length is appropriate.
George W. Bush is weird. That’s either a really bad thing, or a really good thing, depending on your perspective. The strong emotions surrounding this President are unique; while every President has his supporters and critics, no one in memory has suffered the absolute hate that has been spewed at Dubya, nor has a President often enjoyed the sort of loyalty that GW Bush has created. I believe this comes, in large part, from the clear and decisive policies and plans of this Bush Administration. Most Presidents try to set their policies in such a manner as to minimize conflict, which reduces outright anger but also dilutes their effectiveness. Dubya puts 100% into accomplishing his goals, but 0% into sugar-coating them. The fact that he really believes what he’s doing, accentuates the emotions as people react to the programs. This behavior continues with the restructuring of the Intelligence Community.
Some fifteen major groups are tasked with handling intelligence gathering and analysis, and another fifteen deal with intelligence data as part of their operational responsibility. That fact alone illustrates the need for a comprehensive central control for intelligence; the 9/11 attacks happened, in part, because information which could have been combined with related data from other groups to provide a clear picture of the threat, was hindered by bureaucratic procedures and useless turf fights. The long feuds between the FBI, CIA, and NSA are common knowledge, and shameful to these organizations. Also, the very controls created by the Church Committee in 1977-78 to prevent recurrence of the abuses they discovered, instead serve to hide agencies from proper review and oversight. The world changed on September 11, 2001, for no group more than the Intelligence Community.
President George W. Bush was uniquely qualified for the reformation of U.S. Intelligence. In the first place, where most Presidents have been lawyers, Bush is a businessman by experience and education; a Harvard MBA means Bush looks for real-world solutions, not theoretical explanations, and establishes pragmatic expectations, with subsequent consequences for evasion or equivocation. Next, Bush has been on very good terms with his father since at least 1985, and part of that relationship is the education of his father’s experience. As a World War 2 vet and long-time CIA official, to say nothing of his Presidential experience, George H.W. Bush had critically valuable influence in shaping George W. Bush’s understanding of the military and intelligence agencies. It’s no shock to me that Dubya has made respect and appreciation for our men in uniform a top priority, and I have no doubt that his intentions for the Intelligence Community are sure and uncompromising. I also believe that, as he is familiar with the arrogance of the East Coast academics, President Bush has little patience for ivory towers in Langley. Porter Goss is right in line with the President’s thinking. Another example is the immediate arming of Predator UAVs with Hellfire missiles; unlike previous Presidents, who were content to observe terrorists in transit, President Bush immediately issued orders to make it feasible to kill terrorists on sight. In this regard, Bush is even more decisive than Reagan; Dubya does not believe in warning shots where terrorists are concerned, although he has made certain that all the nations likely to be involved are aware of his intentions and determination.
That is why I identified the new post of National Director of Intelligence as the real deal; Bush wouldn’t waste his time on window-dressing. The changes already in progress show that Bush intends to get work done straightaway in his second term, and since there have been two key intelligence failures that Bush has had to deal with, there will be real and effective changes in the way things get done. The first intelligence failure, of course, was the 9/11 attacks. The PATRIOT Act did several things to correct the flaws and holes found in the National Security wall, in fact it began as a reformation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Many PATRIOT features accomplished two main missions; removing restrictions to inter-agency cooperation, such as prohibiting the FBI from seeing CIA information, or the National Security Council from being made aware of threats to National Security, if that information was revealed in Grand Jury testimony. The other mission was to grant intelligence agencies access to the same tools as law enforcement already used. For instance, the use of warrants which notice would not be announced prior to the execution of that warrant were already in common use in kidnapping cases and Organized Crime, but prior to PATRIOT, Federal agents on Intelligence cases had to provide advance notice of warrants, permitting enemies to destroy critical information in advance of its discovery. The complaints against PATRIOT essentially showed the ignorance of extant law. PATRIOT allowed Federal agents critical tools in their ability to protect lives by preventing terrorist attacks.
The second intelligence failure, came when the State Department failed to cooperate with the Bush Administration in the ramp-up to the Iraq invasion. The CIA was aware of Iraqi WMD storage and experimentation, but was unable to prove the existence of WMD after the invasion, in part because much of the material was destroyed, hidden, or smuggled across the border. The failure was unavoidable, given the absence of HUMINT, or human agents in Iraq. This failure was no agency’s fault, but came as the direct result of Church Committee restrictions on agency actions in the field, and the Clinton Administration’s fascination with a technical-only surveillance. Clinton didn’t want any human agents killed in the region, or dealing with unsavory types (which invariably are necessary to substantive agent networking – three of the four classic motives for a person to become a spy are unsavory in their nature). This amounted to prohibiting the detectives from ever leaving the police station. This had to change, and it is changing. Bush is the first President in a couple decades willing to meet that challenge.
Also, the creation of the NDI post allows another gap to be filled. Traditionally, Intelligence has been split into three parts; Intelligence, Technical Support, and Operations. The three have differed on how to interact, for as long as each agency has existed. The DNI will have enough information to direct Technical development, to coordinate Analysis, and to provide effective courses of action to the President or whomever he designates, for implementation. It also provides sufficient control, coordinating the data in a controlled-access process, that leaks and theft may be traced quickly to the source; this is important to Internal Security, and helps the agency protect itself by providing proof of guilt when a crime is committed.
Finally, President Bush has shown great foresight, by recognizing the flexibility of agency resources for a variety of tasks. Where in the past, government agencies could only influence other governments through direct actions, the US now possesses the means to use the Internet to release information directly to the people who can use it, simply by clarifying the classification of restricted data, freeing up information that cannot be used to hurt the United States, but can and will disrupt the plans and claims of totalitarian and oppressive regimes. The best recent example, was the surprise access in China’s restricted Ministry of Posts and Telecommunication (MPT) to uncensored versions of SkyNews and CNN during the fall of Baghdad in April 2003; while the PRC moved quickly to close down the news sites, the sudden appearance of these sites allowed tens of millions of Chinese to discover and verify the truth, and the inability of the PRC to prevent their appearance was significant on several levels. The ability to influence nations through simple release of verifiable facts, is a traditional yet powerful tactic, and the use of Internet access to poke open windows to the world, is the most significant tool in that area since Voice of America first powered up.
All in all, while there will doubtless prove to be unexpected challenges and crises, the reform of the Intelligence Community under President Bush is vital to the War on Terror, on National Security, and for the future of America’s influence in future world events. By the next generation, this accomplishment will be understood more clearly, but it is a signal achievement, for the man and for the country.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Some Old Notions
.
I was cleaning out some papers, and came across a page I wrote back when I was just fourteen years old. I found it interesting, in that the statements I wrote pretty much still apply for me as valid today. I thought I'd copy them down here, and you can decide for yourself if they are valid:
1. A man will oppose cheating and wrong whenever he finds it in another, since it will cost him.
2. Power and Honor come mostly through Peace and Justice.
3. Every successful group or government has a fair 'people policy'.
4. Every successful group or government has a sub-group to protect rights.
5. There is no Honor without Peace.
6. There is no Honor or Peace, without Freedom.
7. There is no Honor, Peace, or Freedom, without Justice.
8. Justice only comes through individuals.
I was cleaning out some papers, and came across a page I wrote back when I was just fourteen years old. I found it interesting, in that the statements I wrote pretty much still apply for me as valid today. I thought I'd copy them down here, and you can decide for yourself if they are valid:
1. A man will oppose cheating and wrong whenever he finds it in another, since it will cost him.
2. Power and Honor come mostly through Peace and Justice.
3. Every successful group or government has a fair 'people policy'.
4. Every successful group or government has a sub-group to protect rights.
5. There is no Honor without Peace.
6. There is no Honor or Peace, without Freedom.
7. There is no Honor, Peace, or Freedom, without Justice.
8. Justice only comes through individuals.
Sunday, January 02, 2005
Spook King
Later this year, Congress will appove a budget for a new office. I'm not talking furniture, here, but the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI), also referred to as the National Director of Intelligence. Whatever you want to call him, and whomever it is that ends up with the post, we are looking at a new world in Intelligence.
Condi Rice and Porter Goss have already given signs that they're loading up their guns for hunting weasels, and the improvements to PATRIOT approved in '04 by Congress are going to start having effects this next year. It's going to be a good year if you’re on the side of the angels, a bad one if you're a mole in the CIA, FBI, or State.
The DNI is the wild card, and a powerful one. His job description, if one were to write it up, is going to look like J. Edgar Hoover's in-house control, mixed with William Donovan's to-do list, topped off with a health dose of Rumsfeld's pragmatism. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a hoot, if Dubya answered the calls for Rummy to leave DoD, by making Rumsfeld the DNI?
Condi Rice and Porter Goss have already given signs that they're loading up their guns for hunting weasels, and the improvements to PATRIOT approved in '04 by Congress are going to start having effects this next year. It's going to be a good year if you’re on the side of the angels, a bad one if you're a mole in the CIA, FBI, or State.
The DNI is the wild card, and a powerful one. His job description, if one were to write it up, is going to look like J. Edgar Hoover's in-house control, mixed with William Donovan's to-do list, topped off with a health dose of Rumsfeld's pragmatism. Come to think of it, wouldn't it be a hoot, if Dubya answered the calls for Rummy to leave DoD, by making Rumsfeld the DNI?
Saturday, January 01, 2005
Myths Bounce
A new year has begun, but for most people things will keep going on as they have. Call it habit, momentum, impetus, but things tend to follow established patterns, whether you are talking about people, businesses - or even nations.
Earlier this week, I wrote posts on Employment and Self-Employment. This was partly simple soliloquoy on the basics every high-school graduate should know, yet most people learn the hard way much later, but it was also laying out some facts unique to the United States. Simply put, the United States is more business-friendly than any other nation on the planet, and this is why the USA will remain not only the most influential and potent country in existence for the next generation. Yes, there are nations which cozy up more to corporations, and yes, there are nations which sponsor massive industries in order to gain control, and yes, there are nations which have selected companies which lead the world in their field, but taken as a whole in the facets most critical to GDP growth and stability of currency, the USA has no rivals. Forget Superpower; the United States is effectively the Ultra-Power.
Take China for example. Over the past year, I have heard and read how China is a rising economic power, a revolution waiting to dominate the Asian continent, then the Pacific, and will match the US in economic power within twenty years. I heard an echo then, and I bet you did, too. Because the same things that are being said now about Jiang, were said in the early sixties about Khruschev and the Soviet Union. As we all know, the USSR's boasts proved hollow, and the Empire simply rotted from within, until Reagan forced Gorbachev to spare his people a bloody revolution of starving malcontents. Many of the PRC's fans today, make a point of saying how different things are now, but if you look at the signals, the truth shows up readily and without mercy for the Communist regime.
Look at their oil industry, for instance. China boasted about revamping their oil drilling and refining capacity way back in 1991; they made a big case about not caring anymore about OPEC, because the oil discovery in the South China Sea was going to change everything. Only, they couldn't get the oil the way they planned, the countries of Vietnam and the Phillipines fought and won in court for the best oil fields, and three major refinery acidents in as many years crippled the promised development of China's delivery system. Basically, China wanted it to work, but simply did not have either the technical level nor the business savvy to set up the requisite agreements to get their partners to do what they needed. That's one reason why China set up weapons deals with Saddam between 1997 and 2003; Iraq had lots of oil it wanted to sell under the table, and China wanted a lot of high-grade petroleum. Short term win, long term bust.
Then, consider automobiles. China sent students to Business Schools to learn how to modernize and market succesful consumer products, and one of the winners that always showed up in rising countries, was automobile exports. Japan of course, with Honda and Toyota led the way, but the relative success of Daiwoo and Hyundai showed the market was still hungry for cheap cars. China figured it couldn't miss. It guessed wrong. No fewer than twenty plants were built in China between 1994 and 2002 to make autos for export; the sales have been dismal by any standard, even inviting comparisons to the wretched Yugos from a generation ago. China has tried to claim that over 50,000 cars have been sold each year, but cannot name who is supposed to be buying them.
It's true that China has done well with cheap clothing and some simple electronics, but that is where the SOEs, or State-Owned-Enterprises, come in. Basically, China is trying a tactic that Japan used in the 1960s and 1970s; flooding a market with very-inexpensive products to drive out competitors, hoping to make up the losses later when the market was cornered. The problem is that Japan understood the balance of capital and investment, while China has simply flooded every market it could find, with no organization or follow-up. And China is already losing out to new rivals, from India, Thailand, and Brazil, who are targeting the markets with the best potential for growth. In short, China is losing money for no effective purpose than because they don't know what else to do.
What's worse, China has managed to make the worst of innovation. Mass production machinery has improved, but instead of training employees at SOEs for other skills they could use to help the country move forward, China simply lays them off. And in a Communist country, being "laid-off" means a constant 16%-25% Unemployment Rate. In a country of over a billion workers, that has led to whole towns of families with no work for years on end, and this has caused revolts and uprisings dozens of times. If these virtual armies of unemployed and starving people ever get organized, that's an instant army of 250 to 300 million angry, hungry people.
The same thing happens in many other nations. India, Brazil, and China represent the nations which are winning in the short-term, but cannot gain strategic gains because their tactics do not result in long-term stability or open expanded markets. Other nations with state-controlled economies, like Japan, France, or Russia, are more stable but unable to bring about the flexibility to evolve from the past to take full advantage of the new technology. Consider Japan, for example, and the legendary case of the VCRs. When Japan succeeded in driving out US makers of VCRs, many people believed that Japan had permanently dominated the market. Instead, American companies let go of the lost battle for the video players, and locked in control of the video cassettes. In any given year, the US makes more than ten times the revenue of videotape and DVD sales, that Japan does from player sales. Adaptability.
The US continues to lead the world in patents for business-applicable machines, for new medical procedures and new developed pharmaceuticals, for new alloys and composite materials, and for new businesses opened. That's not just last year, that's every year since 1945.
As long as America smiles on business, the world will see America out front. Way out front.
Earlier this week, I wrote posts on Employment and Self-Employment. This was partly simple soliloquoy on the basics every high-school graduate should know, yet most people learn the hard way much later, but it was also laying out some facts unique to the United States. Simply put, the United States is more business-friendly than any other nation on the planet, and this is why the USA will remain not only the most influential and potent country in existence for the next generation. Yes, there are nations which cozy up more to corporations, and yes, there are nations which sponsor massive industries in order to gain control, and yes, there are nations which have selected companies which lead the world in their field, but taken as a whole in the facets most critical to GDP growth and stability of currency, the USA has no rivals. Forget Superpower; the United States is effectively the Ultra-Power.
Take China for example. Over the past year, I have heard and read how China is a rising economic power, a revolution waiting to dominate the Asian continent, then the Pacific, and will match the US in economic power within twenty years. I heard an echo then, and I bet you did, too. Because the same things that are being said now about Jiang, were said in the early sixties about Khruschev and the Soviet Union. As we all know, the USSR's boasts proved hollow, and the Empire simply rotted from within, until Reagan forced Gorbachev to spare his people a bloody revolution of starving malcontents. Many of the PRC's fans today, make a point of saying how different things are now, but if you look at the signals, the truth shows up readily and without mercy for the Communist regime.
Look at their oil industry, for instance. China boasted about revamping their oil drilling and refining capacity way back in 1991; they made a big case about not caring anymore about OPEC, because the oil discovery in the South China Sea was going to change everything. Only, they couldn't get the oil the way they planned, the countries of Vietnam and the Phillipines fought and won in court for the best oil fields, and three major refinery acidents in as many years crippled the promised development of China's delivery system. Basically, China wanted it to work, but simply did not have either the technical level nor the business savvy to set up the requisite agreements to get their partners to do what they needed. That's one reason why China set up weapons deals with Saddam between 1997 and 2003; Iraq had lots of oil it wanted to sell under the table, and China wanted a lot of high-grade petroleum. Short term win, long term bust.
Then, consider automobiles. China sent students to Business Schools to learn how to modernize and market succesful consumer products, and one of the winners that always showed up in rising countries, was automobile exports. Japan of course, with Honda and Toyota led the way, but the relative success of Daiwoo and Hyundai showed the market was still hungry for cheap cars. China figured it couldn't miss. It guessed wrong. No fewer than twenty plants were built in China between 1994 and 2002 to make autos for export; the sales have been dismal by any standard, even inviting comparisons to the wretched Yugos from a generation ago. China has tried to claim that over 50,000 cars have been sold each year, but cannot name who is supposed to be buying them.
It's true that China has done well with cheap clothing and some simple electronics, but that is where the SOEs, or State-Owned-Enterprises, come in. Basically, China is trying a tactic that Japan used in the 1960s and 1970s; flooding a market with very-inexpensive products to drive out competitors, hoping to make up the losses later when the market was cornered. The problem is that Japan understood the balance of capital and investment, while China has simply flooded every market it could find, with no organization or follow-up. And China is already losing out to new rivals, from India, Thailand, and Brazil, who are targeting the markets with the best potential for growth. In short, China is losing money for no effective purpose than because they don't know what else to do.
What's worse, China has managed to make the worst of innovation. Mass production machinery has improved, but instead of training employees at SOEs for other skills they could use to help the country move forward, China simply lays them off. And in a Communist country, being "laid-off" means a constant 16%-25% Unemployment Rate. In a country of over a billion workers, that has led to whole towns of families with no work for years on end, and this has caused revolts and uprisings dozens of times. If these virtual armies of unemployed and starving people ever get organized, that's an instant army of 250 to 300 million angry, hungry people.
The same thing happens in many other nations. India, Brazil, and China represent the nations which are winning in the short-term, but cannot gain strategic gains because their tactics do not result in long-term stability or open expanded markets. Other nations with state-controlled economies, like Japan, France, or Russia, are more stable but unable to bring about the flexibility to evolve from the past to take full advantage of the new technology. Consider Japan, for example, and the legendary case of the VCRs. When Japan succeeded in driving out US makers of VCRs, many people believed that Japan had permanently dominated the market. Instead, American companies let go of the lost battle for the video players, and locked in control of the video cassettes. In any given year, the US makes more than ten times the revenue of videotape and DVD sales, that Japan does from player sales. Adaptability.
The US continues to lead the world in patents for business-applicable machines, for new medical procedures and new developed pharmaceuticals, for new alloys and composite materials, and for new businesses opened. That's not just last year, that's every year since 1945.
As long as America smiles on business, the world will see America out front. Way out front.
Friday, December 31, 2004
Sexual Civics
One of the more contentious issues in 2004, was the question of Gay Marriage, and in reviewing the year, I found myself wrestling, once again, with the moral issues surrounding the debate.
I'm pretty set in my ways, personally, but I try not to be an hypocrite. Since I am male, heterosexual, white, American, a Christian and consider the Bible to be correct and true, I start from a pretty defined perspective, and in the course of my life I have always tried to balance my own experience with valid alternatives, emphasis on both 'valid' and 'alternatives'.
On the one hand, Homosexuality is conduct, and so cannot really be considered in the same light as race, gender, or ethnicity. Also, the Bible is pretty clearly set againt the Homosexuals portrayed in its pages. On the other hand, I am struck by the consistency of Homosexual representation, demographically, throughout the world. Even where the culture considers Homosexuality to be a crime deserving death, still there are those who practice it, compelling evidence that it is more than a casual decision. Also, when I read through the Bible more closely, I am struck by two very important facts. First, Jesus Christ had nothing to say about Homosexuals, strange behavior if they were all that repulsive to God. Also, in the various verses where Homosexuals are mentioned in the Bible, what I see are connections to idolatry or lust, so that the condemnation refers mostly to the spirit; when Paul refers to "unnatural" desires, he can just as easily be addressing heterosexual lust as homosexual lust. And the Ten Commandmants are pretty interesting on that point. If I drift off into the Scriptural connotations, I will not finish the though today, so for here I want to consider the matter from a point of logic. It seems to me that there are three levels on which I may consider the morality of what I call Sexual Civics.
First, the easy part. The United States of America is essentially a nation founded on freedom, and for most of us, it's not a hard definition - you can do whatever you want, right up to the point where you affect someone else's freedom. So, you can't choose violence or theft or defamation, but the 4th Amendment gives a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one can come into your home without your consent, unless you have violated the law, and by the law, I mean that line between your rights and someone else's. If you are beating your wife, you have no right to privacy, but if two people want to have and neither is married to someone else, that's their business and no one else's. Like it or not, it's not my right to compel my neighbor to follow my idea of morality.
The second level comes down to your faith. Yep, here comes God. Now, like the first part, it's just common sense that even if I believe someone else's faith is sheer lunacy, I have no right to step in and tell him what he must believe in. Further, I happen to believe that even if you can compel someone to go to your church and pray as you do, all that will do is drive some further away in their hearts. Love and adoration for the holy cannot be forced. But, if you choose to join a church or congregation, whatever the faith is, you cannot be part of their group and demand they agree to your terms. You're either in or out, and if you're in, you have to agree that you will believe as the group does, or else you cannot be part of that group. There is usually room in faith groups for some differences, but on the vital and basic issues, you can't split hairs.
Now, the tricky part. I don't happen to like anything about Homosexuality, from what I know about it. The practice seems unnatural biologically, and there is a strong risk of disease in some of the practices, but then, I didn't much hold with the guys I knew in school who thought sleeping around with a dozen women was cool, either. The thing is, though, I also know enough to know that people are built differently, and just as one person really craves sex while another has no real appetite, there are wide variances in what attracts people, biologically as well as physiologically or psychologically. I still know a couple people who think sex with someone not your own skin color is somehow wrong. So, the issue comes down to a basic morality, after which a working system may be developed.
Sex is not evil. It's pretty obvious that it can be a very good thing. The restrictions to it, I think, come from the fact that Adultery and Divorce and STD's are horribly destructive, and should be avoided like the plagues they are. Also, I rather like the section of Proverbs, where Solomon warns his son to stay away from prostitutes, because that cheapens people, making a person no more than a loaf of bread, something to be used. Lust is wrong, because it calls attention down to the lowest level, and avoids any of the commitments and responsibilities that come with many sexual relationships. Therefore, marriage is much, much better than sex alone can ever be, because it comes with a clear price, but also later shows the rewards amd maturity that can only be had with commitment and a disciplined heart.
It follows then, that if a person is Homosexual, they should be allowed, even encouraged, to marry (or at least commit to civil unions). That is, provided that marriage or civil union would carry the same weight and responsibility as a heterosexual marriage does, and that society might return to the day when cheating on your spouse was shameful and rare, not the sidelight of a network sit-com.
I am a little tired, so doubtless I am missing something along the way in this road of reason, but that's what the 'Comments' section is for.
Happy New Year.
I'm pretty set in my ways, personally, but I try not to be an hypocrite. Since I am male, heterosexual, white, American, a Christian and consider the Bible to be correct and true, I start from a pretty defined perspective, and in the course of my life I have always tried to balance my own experience with valid alternatives, emphasis on both 'valid' and 'alternatives'.
On the one hand, Homosexuality is conduct, and so cannot really be considered in the same light as race, gender, or ethnicity. Also, the Bible is pretty clearly set againt the Homosexuals portrayed in its pages. On the other hand, I am struck by the consistency of Homosexual representation, demographically, throughout the world. Even where the culture considers Homosexuality to be a crime deserving death, still there are those who practice it, compelling evidence that it is more than a casual decision. Also, when I read through the Bible more closely, I am struck by two very important facts. First, Jesus Christ had nothing to say about Homosexuals, strange behavior if they were all that repulsive to God. Also, in the various verses where Homosexuals are mentioned in the Bible, what I see are connections to idolatry or lust, so that the condemnation refers mostly to the spirit; when Paul refers to "unnatural" desires, he can just as easily be addressing heterosexual lust as homosexual lust. And the Ten Commandmants are pretty interesting on that point. If I drift off into the Scriptural connotations, I will not finish the though today, so for here I want to consider the matter from a point of logic. It seems to me that there are three levels on which I may consider the morality of what I call Sexual Civics.
First, the easy part. The United States of America is essentially a nation founded on freedom, and for most of us, it's not a hard definition - you can do whatever you want, right up to the point where you affect someone else's freedom. So, you can't choose violence or theft or defamation, but the 4th Amendment gives a reasonable expectation of privacy. No one can come into your home without your consent, unless you have violated the law, and by the law, I mean that line between your rights and someone else's. If you are beating your wife, you have no right to privacy, but if two people want to have and neither is married to someone else, that's their business and no one else's. Like it or not, it's not my right to compel my neighbor to follow my idea of morality.
The second level comes down to your faith. Yep, here comes God. Now, like the first part, it's just common sense that even if I believe someone else's faith is sheer lunacy, I have no right to step in and tell him what he must believe in. Further, I happen to believe that even if you can compel someone to go to your church and pray as you do, all that will do is drive some further away in their hearts. Love and adoration for the holy cannot be forced. But, if you choose to join a church or congregation, whatever the faith is, you cannot be part of their group and demand they agree to your terms. You're either in or out, and if you're in, you have to agree that you will believe as the group does, or else you cannot be part of that group. There is usually room in faith groups for some differences, but on the vital and basic issues, you can't split hairs.
Now, the tricky part. I don't happen to like anything about Homosexuality, from what I know about it. The practice seems unnatural biologically, and there is a strong risk of disease in some of the practices, but then, I didn't much hold with the guys I knew in school who thought sleeping around with a dozen women was cool, either. The thing is, though, I also know enough to know that people are built differently, and just as one person really craves sex while another has no real appetite, there are wide variances in what attracts people, biologically as well as physiologically or psychologically. I still know a couple people who think sex with someone not your own skin color is somehow wrong. So, the issue comes down to a basic morality, after which a working system may be developed.
Sex is not evil. It's pretty obvious that it can be a very good thing. The restrictions to it, I think, come from the fact that Adultery and Divorce and STD's are horribly destructive, and should be avoided like the plagues they are. Also, I rather like the section of Proverbs, where Solomon warns his son to stay away from prostitutes, because that cheapens people, making a person no more than a loaf of bread, something to be used. Lust is wrong, because it calls attention down to the lowest level, and avoids any of the commitments and responsibilities that come with many sexual relationships. Therefore, marriage is much, much better than sex alone can ever be, because it comes with a clear price, but also later shows the rewards amd maturity that can only be had with commitment and a disciplined heart.
It follows then, that if a person is Homosexual, they should be allowed, even encouraged, to marry (or at least commit to civil unions). That is, provided that marriage or civil union would carry the same weight and responsibility as a heterosexual marriage does, and that society might return to the day when cheating on your spouse was shameful and rare, not the sidelight of a network sit-com.
I am a little tired, so doubtless I am missing something along the way in this road of reason, but that's what the 'Comments' section is for.
Happy New Year.
Thursday, December 30, 2004
Self-Employment
In my last post, I discussed the issue of Employment, which in the common parlance means accepting hire to a company for set responsibilities and wages. This provides the security of knowing where your next meal will come from, but it limits the opportunity for someone to advance their economic independence. Fortunately, that window may be opening up again.
Now, to anyone under the age of 30 reading this post, be very, very careful about anyone promising you that you can get wealthy fast. Wealth has always been difficult to build, and for valid reasons. First off, it's a basic rule of Life, that it's much easier to spend money than to make money. Next, money always attracts attention, from the Tax man to friends you never knew you had; holding wealth is just as hard as making it. Third, if you do not know how you make your money, even a hot streak will end meaning nothing, because you have to know how to get hot again. Fortunately, there is a pretty good way to become financially successful, and it comes down to four rules:
1. Do your homework. Plan, review, analyze, repeat.
2. NEVER lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
3. Never forget your people, or take them for granted.
4. Stay humble.
I. First off, when you decide to get serious about making money, you're going to have to decide what you want to do, what you're willing to commit to make it happen, and where your heart is. Every financially succesful person who has made their fortune, has done it through a lot of hard work and persistence. You don't do that unless you are committed to what you're doing, and you can't make that commitment unless your heart is in what you do. You also have to be serious enough to realize, no one gets paid to play around; even professional atheletes and musicians and artists put a lot of work into their effort. So, you need to think about who you are, what you're about, because that's your foundation. You follow it up with putting together a Business Plan. Why? First off, unless you're already wealthy, you need a bank loan or something like it to make the business start, and for that you need a Business Plan. But also, you want a chance, and while some people may realize that 80% of all new businesses fail within a year, over 95% of businesses which survive that first year had a Business Plan, and over 98% which last more than three years had a Business Plan. No Business Plan, no chance.
A Business Plan is pretty simple in concept, but you really need to sweat the details. You need to come up with a realistic idea of how many customers you'll have, how much you'll make from those customers, how much you'll need to spend to run that business, and so on. And you need to be able to defend those numbers, with evidence. It's kind of like a really tough Term Paper, but an intensely personal one, too.
One benefit to drawing up the BP, is that once you start to get into it, you'll already be moving ahead. Getting that first loan is like passing a gallstone, but banks like loans and sooner or later, a serious BP will get a loan, at which time you will discover two feelings: the sheer panic of owing a huge debt, and the realization that you are going to do it. Because of the BP, you will already know where you will put the business, what it will cost and how long to get the supplies and equipment and hire/train your own employees. You will need to be inspected by various city and county departments, which has the additional effect of driving many new business owners to the conservative side of politics. But eventually, you'll be on your way.
II. Sooner or later, you will wonder if you might pull a trick or two to get ahead. DON'T! There are only a few reasons why customers will give a new business a chance; convenience (which will only be true for a few people), lower prices (which your competition will match, or quality. For some reason, businesses sooner or later often fall into lowering the quality, cheating a little on their promises, or some other little bit of shadiness. That makes the honest ones stand out. If you want to be around ten years later with a good reputation, NEVER let your standards or ethics slip.
III. No matter what you will be doing for your business, you'll depend on people, especially three groups: Your customers, your employees, and your suppliers. Always be courteous, always reward extra effort, and always treat them the way you'd want to be treated, if you were in their place. Because you either were once, or you will be, and in any case, networking includes making sure everyone who knows you, knows you at your best.
IV. Nobody like arrogance, but it's more than that. When everyone knows you don't have a big head, your success makes your business like a family, and your network of contacts like a community. You'll sleep better, and you'll never have second thoughts about your decisions.
OK, simple rules, but awfully hard to put into practice. What was that window, though, that I was talking about? INFORMATION. Once upon a time, if you had a job, you were pretty much stuck in your routine, no time or chance to find out what else you could do. Now, part-time work is a real possibility, and more than a few people have been able to start their own business by researching the web and building their Business Plan in their spare time. Right up to the point of commitment, you can recon your options and decide your course.
It's worth thinking about.
Now, to anyone under the age of 30 reading this post, be very, very careful about anyone promising you that you can get wealthy fast. Wealth has always been difficult to build, and for valid reasons. First off, it's a basic rule of Life, that it's much easier to spend money than to make money. Next, money always attracts attention, from the Tax man to friends you never knew you had; holding wealth is just as hard as making it. Third, if you do not know how you make your money, even a hot streak will end meaning nothing, because you have to know how to get hot again. Fortunately, there is a pretty good way to become financially successful, and it comes down to four rules:
1. Do your homework. Plan, review, analyze, repeat.
2. NEVER lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.
3. Never forget your people, or take them for granted.
4. Stay humble.
I. First off, when you decide to get serious about making money, you're going to have to decide what you want to do, what you're willing to commit to make it happen, and where your heart is. Every financially succesful person who has made their fortune, has done it through a lot of hard work and persistence. You don't do that unless you are committed to what you're doing, and you can't make that commitment unless your heart is in what you do. You also have to be serious enough to realize, no one gets paid to play around; even professional atheletes and musicians and artists put a lot of work into their effort. So, you need to think about who you are, what you're about, because that's your foundation. You follow it up with putting together a Business Plan. Why? First off, unless you're already wealthy, you need a bank loan or something like it to make the business start, and for that you need a Business Plan. But also, you want a chance, and while some people may realize that 80% of all new businesses fail within a year, over 95% of businesses which survive that first year had a Business Plan, and over 98% which last more than three years had a Business Plan. No Business Plan, no chance.
A Business Plan is pretty simple in concept, but you really need to sweat the details. You need to come up with a realistic idea of how many customers you'll have, how much you'll make from those customers, how much you'll need to spend to run that business, and so on. And you need to be able to defend those numbers, with evidence. It's kind of like a really tough Term Paper, but an intensely personal one, too.
One benefit to drawing up the BP, is that once you start to get into it, you'll already be moving ahead. Getting that first loan is like passing a gallstone, but banks like loans and sooner or later, a serious BP will get a loan, at which time you will discover two feelings: the sheer panic of owing a huge debt, and the realization that you are going to do it. Because of the BP, you will already know where you will put the business, what it will cost and how long to get the supplies and equipment and hire/train your own employees. You will need to be inspected by various city and county departments, which has the additional effect of driving many new business owners to the conservative side of politics. But eventually, you'll be on your way.
II. Sooner or later, you will wonder if you might pull a trick or two to get ahead. DON'T! There are only a few reasons why customers will give a new business a chance; convenience (which will only be true for a few people), lower prices (which your competition will match, or quality. For some reason, businesses sooner or later often fall into lowering the quality, cheating a little on their promises, or some other little bit of shadiness. That makes the honest ones stand out. If you want to be around ten years later with a good reputation, NEVER let your standards or ethics slip.
III. No matter what you will be doing for your business, you'll depend on people, especially three groups: Your customers, your employees, and your suppliers. Always be courteous, always reward extra effort, and always treat them the way you'd want to be treated, if you were in their place. Because you either were once, or you will be, and in any case, networking includes making sure everyone who knows you, knows you at your best.
IV. Nobody like arrogance, but it's more than that. When everyone knows you don't have a big head, your success makes your business like a family, and your network of contacts like a community. You'll sleep better, and you'll never have second thoughts about your decisions.
OK, simple rules, but awfully hard to put into practice. What was that window, though, that I was talking about? INFORMATION. Once upon a time, if you had a job, you were pretty much stuck in your routine, no time or chance to find out what else you could do. Now, part-time work is a real possibility, and more than a few people have been able to start their own business by researching the web and building their Business Plan in their spare time. Right up to the point of commitment, you can recon your options and decide your course.
It's worth thinking about.
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Money Matters
I find myself rather unhappy with Donald Trump today.
Not personally. I don't know him personally, and as a person, he seems to have enough decent qualities, that I might like him. But he's pushing a lot of people further down the road of class warfare and financial ignorance. He's doing that by filing Bankruptcy - again.
I actually have no idea how many times 'The Donald' has filed for the big eggshell. I could find out if I wanted, but it really doesn't matter. The problem is, even though Trump is filing for Bankruptcy, he still owns - shoot, he's cultivating it - an air of solvency and financial power. That's a trick, but a dirty one. It's mixing the idea that Trump is a business leader we should emulate, with the fact that he has no intention of paying legitimate debts he's incurred. He is basically telling America that cheating is not only acceptable, it's the smart thing to do. He's the star of "The Apprentice", a show about business acumen and ethics and metods, and he's living a life of a well-heeled scam artist. It says something, something rather offensive, about NBC, that Trump is still connected to the show in any, except as an object lesson on Fraud.
But Trump's little courtroom tactics are part of the fabric of American Business, wheer people are sold the illusion in place of the real virtues, where the quick trick is prized above earning and keeping trust. It's why Dan Rather believed he could slip forged documents past the nation on prime-time Television, it's why John Kerry thought he could get elected without a single serious explanation of his Senate record, it's why Americans could be told that freeing millions of people was evil, and why Americans are told that our very economic success is wrong and must stop. Many Americans, believe it or not, do not understand Money or any of the basic forces of Economics. And that lesson comes hard.
First, Employment. Thousands of Bush haters took to protests in 2004, blaming President Bush for the "poor" job market. Leave aside for a moment the limitations on what, precisely, any President can do to create jobs, and also leave aside the fact that Unemployment numbers in 2004 were almost exactly the same numbers that the press praised Bill Clinto for in 1996, and leave aside the fact that average wages continued to rise all year long; the sheer notion that anyone "owed" someone a job, illustrates an appalling lack of common sense and work ethic. Demographics show that prior to 1850, most Americans owned their own businesses, farms for the most part. The good news to owning your own business, is that you take your own profits - a hired man was considered to be on the low end of things, because he could only earn what his boss agreed to pay him. The bad news to owning your own business, was that you took on all the risks of having your own business. If you hit a really bad stretch, you could lose everything ("Lose the Farm" was well-understood when folks had real family farms on the line).
After 1850, and especially after the Civil War, things changed, with many Americans working in factories and for employers. Once the paycheck became the normal way of things, people started planning by that regular pay, relatively small but relatively steady. But even back in the "good old days", people understood that a job might not last forever. College was important, because it allowed a person to take a job with better pay, better security (less "projects" and more likely to be hired as part of a permanent team), and better chances for advancement. Unfortunately, there came a flood of college degrees, some quite accomplished, others frankly useless, and in any case the work environment has shifted again, to the point that people are finally coming back around to the basic question they should have addressed at the start; what is a good employer-employee match?
I have seen a great many job-search sites spring up, and precious few people get anything they would call a "good" job from them. Employers are even less enthused, since these sites flood them with applications from unqualified people, and even with sorting software, it remains just as hard to find that one truly-qualified employee, as it ever was. The problem, to be blunt, is the nature of jobs and workers. People want great positions, but if a job pays well, is fulfilling, and has a great future, the people in those positions are not going to want to elave those jobs. As a result, most jobs available pay less, are less secure, less rewarding, and/or are more difficult and demanding. Not that employers have a great time. These days, even after you screen for drugs and criminal histories, you could easily get someone who looks good on paper and interviews well, but who is lazy, or rude, or uncooperative, or any other combination of production-killing attributes. Most managers have antacids close at hand for very good reasons.
For some reason, people have forgotten to remind kids of one very important reason to do their homework: They'll need to use those homework study and research skills all the rest of their life, from finding the right job, to how they invest, to how they plan their major life events. Living your lifeunplanned can be exciting, true - but so can driving your car with your eyes closed, but the end results are likely to be messy in either case.
The simple fact is, people should be careful to think ahead, about what skills their "dream job" will need, and what they will need to do, to get that chance. And if they plan to work for someone else, they will have to decide when and if they want to set out on their own, or else accept the trade-off of a comfort zone for the chance to excel.
Next: Self-Employment?
Not personally. I don't know him personally, and as a person, he seems to have enough decent qualities, that I might like him. But he's pushing a lot of people further down the road of class warfare and financial ignorance. He's doing that by filing Bankruptcy - again.
I actually have no idea how many times 'The Donald' has filed for the big eggshell. I could find out if I wanted, but it really doesn't matter. The problem is, even though Trump is filing for Bankruptcy, he still owns - shoot, he's cultivating it - an air of solvency and financial power. That's a trick, but a dirty one. It's mixing the idea that Trump is a business leader we should emulate, with the fact that he has no intention of paying legitimate debts he's incurred. He is basically telling America that cheating is not only acceptable, it's the smart thing to do. He's the star of "The Apprentice", a show about business acumen and ethics and metods, and he's living a life of a well-heeled scam artist. It says something, something rather offensive, about NBC, that Trump is still connected to the show in any, except as an object lesson on Fraud.
But Trump's little courtroom tactics are part of the fabric of American Business, wheer people are sold the illusion in place of the real virtues, where the quick trick is prized above earning and keeping trust. It's why Dan Rather believed he could slip forged documents past the nation on prime-time Television, it's why John Kerry thought he could get elected without a single serious explanation of his Senate record, it's why Americans could be told that freeing millions of people was evil, and why Americans are told that our very economic success is wrong and must stop. Many Americans, believe it or not, do not understand Money or any of the basic forces of Economics. And that lesson comes hard.
First, Employment. Thousands of Bush haters took to protests in 2004, blaming President Bush for the "poor" job market. Leave aside for a moment the limitations on what, precisely, any President can do to create jobs, and also leave aside the fact that Unemployment numbers in 2004 were almost exactly the same numbers that the press praised Bill Clinto for in 1996, and leave aside the fact that average wages continued to rise all year long; the sheer notion that anyone "owed" someone a job, illustrates an appalling lack of common sense and work ethic. Demographics show that prior to 1850, most Americans owned their own businesses, farms for the most part. The good news to owning your own business, is that you take your own profits - a hired man was considered to be on the low end of things, because he could only earn what his boss agreed to pay him. The bad news to owning your own business, was that you took on all the risks of having your own business. If you hit a really bad stretch, you could lose everything ("Lose the Farm" was well-understood when folks had real family farms on the line).
After 1850, and especially after the Civil War, things changed, with many Americans working in factories and for employers. Once the paycheck became the normal way of things, people started planning by that regular pay, relatively small but relatively steady. But even back in the "good old days", people understood that a job might not last forever. College was important, because it allowed a person to take a job with better pay, better security (less "projects" and more likely to be hired as part of a permanent team), and better chances for advancement. Unfortunately, there came a flood of college degrees, some quite accomplished, others frankly useless, and in any case the work environment has shifted again, to the point that people are finally coming back around to the basic question they should have addressed at the start; what is a good employer-employee match?
I have seen a great many job-search sites spring up, and precious few people get anything they would call a "good" job from them. Employers are even less enthused, since these sites flood them with applications from unqualified people, and even with sorting software, it remains just as hard to find that one truly-qualified employee, as it ever was. The problem, to be blunt, is the nature of jobs and workers. People want great positions, but if a job pays well, is fulfilling, and has a great future, the people in those positions are not going to want to elave those jobs. As a result, most jobs available pay less, are less secure, less rewarding, and/or are more difficult and demanding. Not that employers have a great time. These days, even after you screen for drugs and criminal histories, you could easily get someone who looks good on paper and interviews well, but who is lazy, or rude, or uncooperative, or any other combination of production-killing attributes. Most managers have antacids close at hand for very good reasons.
For some reason, people have forgotten to remind kids of one very important reason to do their homework: They'll need to use those homework study and research skills all the rest of their life, from finding the right job, to how they invest, to how they plan their major life events. Living your lifeunplanned can be exciting, true - but so can driving your car with your eyes closed, but the end results are likely to be messy in either case.
The simple fact is, people should be careful to think ahead, about what skills their "dream job" will need, and what they will need to do, to get that chance. And if they plan to work for someone else, they will have to decide when and if they want to set out on their own, or else accept the trade-off of a comfort zone for the chance to excel.
Next: Self-Employment?
Monday, December 27, 2004
Hugh Hewitt's "Blog" - A Review
.
I read too fast. This was an immediate problem from the start; the children’s library told me I was a troublemaker, because I was the only kid who wasn’t happy with only 5 books a week. By the time I hit Junior High, I had read every book my parents owned, more than a thousand books. And, being gabby, I had opinions to share on everything I read. So, by definition I was a blogger 30 years before I owned my first computer. And I learned to appreciate a book good enough that I could go back and read it again, and pick up new stuff. Milton is that good, so is Zelazny, and so is Hewitt. As in Hugh Hewitt, whose new book “Blog” may be fairly described as a must-have.
OK, so it’s no shock that bloggers will like “Blog”. But this book not only reads well, it’s a primer on planning your future online. Hewitt covers a brief history of blogging, noting that in five years, blogs have grown from the first few to over four million now. Along the way, we’ve seen the development of blogs which read like diaries or magazines, to blogs about specifics in the latest news, technical details, and insightful commentary to rival (or simply thump) anything the networks can offer.
When you get your copy of “Blog” (you will be very happy, I promise), among the things you’ll find is a list of some of the best blogs currently out there. Basically, if you come across a site you haven’t checked out, give it a few minutes. There are lists all through the book, from the Preface through the appendices. And Hewitt puts the whole thing in perspective right from the start. In the Introduction for example, Hewitt notes “The blogosphere is about trust ... None of us have time to understand everything, so we have to trust surrogates.” This is important, because that used to be the case with the TV networks and newspaper syndicates; when they betrayed that trust, the blogs were able to fill the void, because there is immediate feedback and consequence. If a blog tries to snow you, you will figure it out and move on to one of the many others. You’ll only stay with a blog when it eans your respect. Informational Darwinism at work.
Hewitt is very good at maintaining balance, noting accomplishments by Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan on one hand, but also Little Green Footballs and Captain’s Quarters on the other. The interplay between the Old Media and the New, often turning into an effective rout by the blogs, is covered, from the Jason Blair scandal, through the Swift Boat Vets, and of course Rathergate. The history Hewitt is writing will be taught at colleges by next year. Hewitt writes about the Information Reformation, comparing it to Luther’s Reformation of the Church, and provides some key insights in the historical trends present, in the 16th Century and now.
Of course, Hewitt made mistakes, calling the TV networks and newspapers by the already passe’ “MainStream Media (MSM)”, while many blogs are already taking up the clearer Old Media/New Media delineation. And when he covered Rathergate, Hewitt failed to give proper credit to Lorie from Texas for the name. Hewitt also leans just a bit too much in favor of the blogs already out there, forgetting the lightning-strike rise that so many blogs make in their creation. But overall, “Blog” is a first-class work, especially where Hewitt identifies key opportunities and trends for industries and entrepreneurs to grab, before someone else does. It’s more than a little like someone telling you in 1975 to keep an eye on that Gates kid.
Maybe the best Chapter in the book is Chapter 13, which gives pointers on how to start your own blog, with vital do’s and don’t’s for the just-starting blogger.
Buy the book.
Read it.
Read it again, with paper and pen for notes.
Pay special attention to the Appendices.
And if you’re like me, you’ll be glad to find out it’s just as good the third time through.
I read too fast. This was an immediate problem from the start; the children’s library told me I was a troublemaker, because I was the only kid who wasn’t happy with only 5 books a week. By the time I hit Junior High, I had read every book my parents owned, more than a thousand books. And, being gabby, I had opinions to share on everything I read. So, by definition I was a blogger 30 years before I owned my first computer. And I learned to appreciate a book good enough that I could go back and read it again, and pick up new stuff. Milton is that good, so is Zelazny, and so is Hewitt. As in Hugh Hewitt, whose new book “Blog” may be fairly described as a must-have.
OK, so it’s no shock that bloggers will like “Blog”. But this book not only reads well, it’s a primer on planning your future online. Hewitt covers a brief history of blogging, noting that in five years, blogs have grown from the first few to over four million now. Along the way, we’ve seen the development of blogs which read like diaries or magazines, to blogs about specifics in the latest news, technical details, and insightful commentary to rival (or simply thump) anything the networks can offer.
When you get your copy of “Blog” (you will be very happy, I promise), among the things you’ll find is a list of some of the best blogs currently out there. Basically, if you come across a site you haven’t checked out, give it a few minutes. There are lists all through the book, from the Preface through the appendices. And Hewitt puts the whole thing in perspective right from the start. In the Introduction for example, Hewitt notes “The blogosphere is about trust ... None of us have time to understand everything, so we have to trust surrogates.” This is important, because that used to be the case with the TV networks and newspaper syndicates; when they betrayed that trust, the blogs were able to fill the void, because there is immediate feedback and consequence. If a blog tries to snow you, you will figure it out and move on to one of the many others. You’ll only stay with a blog when it eans your respect. Informational Darwinism at work.
Hewitt is very good at maintaining balance, noting accomplishments by Wonkette and Andrew Sullivan on one hand, but also Little Green Footballs and Captain’s Quarters on the other. The interplay between the Old Media and the New, often turning into an effective rout by the blogs, is covered, from the Jason Blair scandal, through the Swift Boat Vets, and of course Rathergate. The history Hewitt is writing will be taught at colleges by next year. Hewitt writes about the Information Reformation, comparing it to Luther’s Reformation of the Church, and provides some key insights in the historical trends present, in the 16th Century and now.
Of course, Hewitt made mistakes, calling the TV networks and newspapers by the already passe’ “MainStream Media (MSM)”, while many blogs are already taking up the clearer Old Media/New Media delineation. And when he covered Rathergate, Hewitt failed to give proper credit to Lorie from Texas for the name. Hewitt also leans just a bit too much in favor of the blogs already out there, forgetting the lightning-strike rise that so many blogs make in their creation. But overall, “Blog” is a first-class work, especially where Hewitt identifies key opportunities and trends for industries and entrepreneurs to grab, before someone else does. It’s more than a little like someone telling you in 1975 to keep an eye on that Gates kid.
Maybe the best Chapter in the book is Chapter 13, which gives pointers on how to start your own blog, with vital do’s and don’t’s for the just-starting blogger.
Buy the book.
Read it.
Read it again, with paper and pen for notes.
Pay special attention to the Appendices.
And if you’re like me, you’ll be glad to find out it’s just as good the third time through.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Earthquake in Sumatra
It's the kind of thing you just don't believe the first time you hear it. It has to be an exaggeration, a mistake, someone over-reacting.
But it's true.
An earthquake, 8.9 on the Richter scale (literally one-hundred-thirty times the force of the last "big" San Francisco quake
Over seven thousand dead.
Over a million people homeless.
Tsunamis in Indonesia, Maylasia, Thailand.
Please pray for the victims and the survivors, and do what you are willing to do.
What really is scary, are two additional factors:
First, that part of the world is ready and perpared for rain and floods. They have no reason to expect earthquakes or twelve-foot walls of water.
Second, an earthquake this big is going to be followed by killer aftershocks. The rescue teams are mostly going to be held back until the aftershocks, likely to be in the 6.5 range, are done. In other words, that means hundreds more dead, maybe thousands.
May God have mercy.
UPDATE, December 27:
The death toll is up past 22,000 now. Please contact the Indonesian Consulate inyour town to help.
UPDATE, December 29:
The death toll is projected at anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 fatalities, with at least twice that number injured, and millions homeless. Vital and immediate needs include drinkable water, medicine, emergency shelters, clothing, and evacuation. If you have not already done so, please contact any of the following organizations about helping:
The International Red Cross
Rescue Task Force
Indonesia Disaster Fund
Thank you.
But it's true.
An earthquake, 8.9 on the Richter scale (literally one-hundred-thirty times the force of the last "big" San Francisco quake
Over seven thousand dead.
Over a million people homeless.
Tsunamis in Indonesia, Maylasia, Thailand.
Please pray for the victims and the survivors, and do what you are willing to do.
What really is scary, are two additional factors:
First, that part of the world is ready and perpared for rain and floods. They have no reason to expect earthquakes or twelve-foot walls of water.
Second, an earthquake this big is going to be followed by killer aftershocks. The rescue teams are mostly going to be held back until the aftershocks, likely to be in the 6.5 range, are done. In other words, that means hundreds more dead, maybe thousands.
May God have mercy.
UPDATE, December 27:
The death toll is up past 22,000 now. Please contact the Indonesian Consulate inyour town to help.
UPDATE, December 29:
The death toll is projected at anywhere between 50,000 and 100,000 fatalities, with at least twice that number injured, and millions homeless. Vital and immediate needs include drinkable water, medicine, emergency shelters, clothing, and evacuation. If you have not already done so, please contact any of the following organizations about helping:
The International Red Cross
Rescue Task Force
Indonesia Disaster Fund
Thank you.
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Christmas 2004
Low-Lights:
* I forgot to buy "C" size batteries for the Lite Brite;
* Gregoire has apparently stolen the Governor's election in the State of Washington;
* Two parents here in Houston died yesterday, because their gas heater leaked Carbon Monoxide;
* Baytown Firefighter Nito Guajardo was laid to rest on Christmas Eve, having died fighting a fire on Monday;
* Sheila Jackson Lee still has a job in Congress.
High-Lights:
* Jagan was a perfect little lady today, including when she visited her grandparents;
* George W. Bush continues to lead our nation, and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the troops in Iraq, receiving well-deserved support;
* Jagan surprised her grandparents by showing she knows the whole alphabet, can count up to 100, and she knows the names of the 7 continents, as well as all the words to seven Christmas carols;
* 2500 people showed up for Firefighter Guajardo's funeral, including fellow firefighters from dozens of surrounding cities;
* Jagan told my parents that today is Jesus' birthday;
* It SNOWED in Houston, for the first time on Christmas Eve in my memory;
* I have the love and attention of my wife and daughter.
Hope your Christmas was merry and bright!
* I forgot to buy "C" size batteries for the Lite Brite;
* Gregoire has apparently stolen the Governor's election in the State of Washington;
* Two parents here in Houston died yesterday, because their gas heater leaked Carbon Monoxide;
* Baytown Firefighter Nito Guajardo was laid to rest on Christmas Eve, having died fighting a fire on Monday;
* Sheila Jackson Lee still has a job in Congress.
High-Lights:
* Jagan was a perfect little lady today, including when she visited her grandparents;
* George W. Bush continues to lead our nation, and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the troops in Iraq, receiving well-deserved support;
* Jagan surprised her grandparents by showing she knows the whole alphabet, can count up to 100, and she knows the names of the 7 continents, as well as all the words to seven Christmas carols;
* 2500 people showed up for Firefighter Guajardo's funeral, including fellow firefighters from dozens of surrounding cities;
* Jagan told my parents that today is Jesus' birthday;
* It SNOWED in Houston, for the first time on Christmas Eve in my memory;
* I have the love and attention of my wife and daughter.
Hope your Christmas was merry and bright!
Thursday, December 23, 2004
Why The Left Is Afraid of Santa Claus
OK, parental advisory: You may want to keep your kids from reading this article (in the peculiar possibility that children would read my stuff), since SC is referred to as a myth.
That out of the way, I have noticed the annual siege by the Left and Secularists against Christmas and all things religious. Now, I certainly understand the fear they have of Christianity; once upon a time, the Church was very, very powerful in the world, so the Church's enemies have a reasonable concern that they must prevent the restoration of that influence and power. Then again, it seems a mite peculiar to work so hard to prevent the celebration of the birth of a poor baby, whose work when he grew up was focused on the need for each of us to love each other.
It's been a number of years since Secularists enjoyed the abolition of Nativity scenes from public places, very often even on private land. The ACLU takes cases to protect the right to have porn at your desk, but not a cross. But the battle has moved into the surreal world of hysteria on the Left. A New Jersey School District bans Christmas Carols, even instrumental versions. Bach is made outlaw. Other School Districts ban any Christmas references in plays and pageants, on the claim that they must repel religious references, even as they allow, even praise, Hannukah and Ramadan observances. That baby, it seems, represents a grave threat, at least to the worldview of the no-God-here crowd.
But the move has gone further. Christmas trees are banned from some businesses, on the claim that they represent a bias in favor of the Christians. References to Santa Claus has also become unacceptable in many circles, on the argument that the fat man in the red suit somehow forces one to incline their beliefs towards the Lord. Partly, it's the basic insecurity the Left has, towards anything that doesn't work to support their own mythology and political NewSpeak. But there's more, and I finally tripped to it.
The Santa Claus myth, the tree, the decorations, and many carols have nothing at all to do, directly with Christianity. There is no Bible verse directing believers to put a tree in their house, or lights on the roof, or any reference to overweight gift-laden strangers. But Christmas is the time for children, more than any other season, and about renewal, and most of all, Hope. And there we see a great many parallels with the Gospel. Jesus brought Hope to the world in many different ways, and Jesus was always very kind and gentle to children. It occurs to me, that this comparison is something that anyne would pick up on at some level, and so the Left fears the possibility, however remote, that folks might find good in Christianity through the observance of Christmas.
That's a losing plan. As long as parents and children share the joy of the season, no matter how the Left tries to hide it, that message of Hope and renewal will find its way to our hearts. And that's just more good news for this Christmas season.
That out of the way, I have noticed the annual siege by the Left and Secularists against Christmas and all things religious. Now, I certainly understand the fear they have of Christianity; once upon a time, the Church was very, very powerful in the world, so the Church's enemies have a reasonable concern that they must prevent the restoration of that influence and power. Then again, it seems a mite peculiar to work so hard to prevent the celebration of the birth of a poor baby, whose work when he grew up was focused on the need for each of us to love each other.
It's been a number of years since Secularists enjoyed the abolition of Nativity scenes from public places, very often even on private land. The ACLU takes cases to protect the right to have porn at your desk, but not a cross. But the battle has moved into the surreal world of hysteria on the Left. A New Jersey School District bans Christmas Carols, even instrumental versions. Bach is made outlaw. Other School Districts ban any Christmas references in plays and pageants, on the claim that they must repel religious references, even as they allow, even praise, Hannukah and Ramadan observances. That baby, it seems, represents a grave threat, at least to the worldview of the no-God-here crowd.
But the move has gone further. Christmas trees are banned from some businesses, on the claim that they represent a bias in favor of the Christians. References to Santa Claus has also become unacceptable in many circles, on the argument that the fat man in the red suit somehow forces one to incline their beliefs towards the Lord. Partly, it's the basic insecurity the Left has, towards anything that doesn't work to support their own mythology and political NewSpeak. But there's more, and I finally tripped to it.
The Santa Claus myth, the tree, the decorations, and many carols have nothing at all to do, directly with Christianity. There is no Bible verse directing believers to put a tree in their house, or lights on the roof, or any reference to overweight gift-laden strangers. But Christmas is the time for children, more than any other season, and about renewal, and most of all, Hope. And there we see a great many parallels with the Gospel. Jesus brought Hope to the world in many different ways, and Jesus was always very kind and gentle to children. It occurs to me, that this comparison is something that anyne would pick up on at some level, and so the Left fears the possibility, however remote, that folks might find good in Christianity through the observance of Christmas.
That's a losing plan. As long as parents and children share the joy of the season, no matter how the Left tries to hide it, that message of Hope and renewal will find its way to our hearts. And that's just more good news for this Christmas season.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Comparisons
Americans Killed in yesterday's Mosul attack: 24
Americans killed in the Nazi Argonne Offensive, 1944: 16,000
Americans killed in WW1 Meuse-Argonne, 1918: 17,000
German Sovereignty restored: April 1949, following almost four years of occupation, which continued in some fashion through 1952.
Iraqi Sovereignty restored: June 2004, to be followed by free elections in January 2005.
We're doing it faster and better. That is all.
Americans killed in the Nazi Argonne Offensive, 1944: 16,000
Americans killed in WW1 Meuse-Argonne, 1918: 17,000
German Sovereignty restored: April 1949, following almost four years of occupation, which continued in some fashion through 1952.
Iraqi Sovereignty restored: June 2004, to be followed by free elections in January 2005.
We're doing it faster and better. That is all.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
An American Christmas Poem
Reader Michael O'Hopp sent in this poem of hope, sacrifice, and meaning:
A Christmas Poem for All Americans
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't to near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!"
"Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light,
Then he sighed and he said, "It's really all right,
I'm out here by choice. ~I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam,
And now it's my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile."
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white and blue. . . an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother
who stand at the front against any and all,
to ensure for all time that this flag will not fall.
So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all to little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone.
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled
is payment enough, and with that we will trust.
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."
A Christmas Poem for All Americans
The embers glowed softly, and in their dim light,
I gazed round the room and I cherished the sight.
My wife was asleep, her head on my chest,
My daughter beside me, angelic in rest.
Outside the snow fell, a blanket of white,
Transforming the yard to a winter delight.
The sparkling lights in the tree, I believe,
Completed the magic that was Christmas Eve.
My eyelids were heavy, my breathing was deep,
Secure and surrounded by love I would sleep.
In perfect contentment, or so it would seem,
So I slumbered, perhaps I started to dream.
The sound wasn't loud, and it wasn't to near,
But I opened my eyes when it tickled my ear.
Perhaps just a cough, I didn't quite know,
Then the sure sound of footsteps outside in the snow.
My soul gave a tremble, I struggled to hear,
And I crept to the door just to see who was near.
Standing out in the cold and the dark of the night,
A lone figure stood, his face weary and tight.
A soldier, I puzzled, some twenty years old,
Perhaps a Marine, huddled here in the cold.
Alone in the dark, he looked up and smiled,
Standing watch over me, and my wife and my child.
"What are you doing?" I asked without fear,
"Come in this moment, it's freezing out here!"
"Put down your pack, brush the snow from your sleeve,
You should be at home on a cold Christmas Eve!"
For barely a moment I saw his eyes shift,
Away from the cold and the snow blown in drifts,
To the window that danced with a warm fire's light,
Then he sighed and he said, "It's really all right,
I'm out here by choice. ~I'm here every night."
"It's my duty to stand at the front of the line,
That separates you from the darkest of times.
No one had to ask or beg or implore me,
I'm proud to stand here like my fathers before me.
My dad stood his watch in the jungles of 'Nam,
And now it's my turn and so, here I am.
I've not seen my own son in more than a while,
But my wife sends me pictures, he's sure got her smile."
Then he bent and he carefully pulled from his bag,
The red, white and blue. . . an American flag.
"I can live through the cold and the being alone,
Away from my family, my house and my home,
I can stand at my post through the rain and the sleet,
I can sleep in a foxhole with little to eat.
I can carry the weight of killing another,
Or lay down my life with my sister and brother
who stand at the front against any and all,
to ensure for all time that this flag will not fall.
So go back inside," he said, "harbor no fright,
Your family is waiting and I'll be all right."
"But isn't there something I can do, at the least,
Give you money," I asked, "or prepare you a feast?
It seems all to little for all that you've done,
For being away from your wife and your son."
Then his eye welled a tear that held no regret,
"Just tell us you love us, and never forget
To fight for our rights back at home while we're gone.
To stand your own watch, no matter how long.
For when we come home, either standing or dead,
To know you remember we fought and we bled
is payment enough, and with that we will trust.
That we mattered to you as you mattered to us."
Monday, December 20, 2004
[ sniff ] They Grow Up SO Fast...
Back in the days before Windows, I tried my hand at Computers. I even had a masochistic stage where I tried to write code (not recommended for 99% of us) . While many in the business think badly of Bill Gates, I loved WindowsTM from the beginning; I'm not overly simplistic in most things, but you can't beat the friendliness of point-n-click.
Enter blogs. It's hard to imagine how they could make it any easier to make an online journal. Obviously, this lends itself to the creation and life of many, many bad blogs. Fortunately, it also allows some truly great minds to display their wisdom for us all to enjoy. Which brings me to La Shawn Barber.
I first read La Shawn over at Baldilocks, which brings up another great feature of blogging; links are like little samples of all sorts of writers. Well, to get to the point, La Shawn has been very successful as a blogger, and a recent post led to writing an article for NRO.
In the old days, a successful writer had to slowly build up an audience, but today growth can be explosive and sudden. When the writer is up to the challenge, that's good for everyone.
Congratulations, La Shawn!
UPDATE: I am a moron. Where I said La Shawn was "linked" by NRO, I should have written that she was contracted to write an article, which meant a signed contract, lawyers, and all of that. I have corrected the information, but need to admit my error in writing in too much of a hurry. In addition to Spell-check, writers like me need Logic-check as well!
Enter blogs. It's hard to imagine how they could make it any easier to make an online journal. Obviously, this lends itself to the creation and life of many, many bad blogs. Fortunately, it also allows some truly great minds to display their wisdom for us all to enjoy. Which brings me to La Shawn Barber.
I first read La Shawn over at Baldilocks, which brings up another great feature of blogging; links are like little samples of all sorts of writers. Well, to get to the point, La Shawn has been very successful as a blogger, and a recent post led to writing an article for NRO.
In the old days, a successful writer had to slowly build up an audience, but today growth can be explosive and sudden. When the writer is up to the challenge, that's good for everyone.
Congratulations, La Shawn!
UPDATE: I am a moron. Where I said La Shawn was "linked" by NRO, I should have written that she was contracted to write an article, which meant a signed contract, lawyers, and all of that. I have corrected the information, but need to admit my error in writing in too much of a hurry. In addition to Spell-check, writers like me need Logic-check as well!
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Arguments
During this season, it may seem strange to mention the subject of arguments, but there's a lot of them going on right now. People fascinated or simply obsessed with Politics are still arguing various elections, from the Presidency (long decided in most people's minds, yet a point of contention on many websites apparently dedicated to beating dead horses) to the Governor's Race in the State of Washington, to perpetual debates on every conceivable policy issue (and several inconceivable issues). In this season of goodwill, over on BeliefNet (check the Discussions Boards), there remains the apparent need to destroy the evil one, that designation applied to whomever happens to be opposite one's own predilection, especially with innuendo and implied condemnation. This is not to say there aren't some very good souls at work there also, but I notice a distinct lack of goodwill at the present moment, no matter what is sung in the carols. I find the churches similarly lacking; the sentiment is cloying and persistent, yet artificial and impersonal. I may have discovered another reason why the Santa Claus paradigm continues; there is such a strong expectation of having to hold and defend a specific doctrine and position, that it is difficult for someone to admit to simply wanting to do something good, to be kind just to be kind, so they pass it off as someone else's work.
My office is rather quarrelsome just now, with different groups vying for limited resources and credit for the company's successes. There are also the arguments over directing next year's strategies; as a Risk Analyst, I am viewed as something of a Grinch, for having to be the one to explain why this plan or that is unfeasible, risky, or, though I won't be so blunt when I address it, stupid.
There are sports contests, with coaches and players arguing calls. There are stores advertising their wares, arguing that their prices are the lowest and their quality is the highest. The message is reinforced that anyone who truly cares about their family will purchase from the "right" store. And of course, there are court cases, with arguments about money, about responsibilities, about custody and guilt and liability. I recall that this is the time of the year where summons servers are likely to carry gift-wrapped boxes, in order to gain access to their targeted recipients. And then there's family squabbles, which often show up this time of year.
Being a blogger, I know all about arguments, and I work up a lot of them. I am, in fact, arguing right now, though you will be the judge as to whether or not my writing is persuasive. But after the last week, with some very serious issues tossed about as if I was the President, Pope, or some other entity with the influence and position to make things right, if I could just be made to see the light. It's fascinating, in a way, to see Atheists and Fundamentalists argue with equal fervor about their beliefs, to hear Republicans and Democrats match each other's energy almost exactly when in dispute, to read positions from every sort of advocate, even if 90% of them would not work as envisioned.
Anyway, it occurs to me that as much as I enjoy discussing all sorts of issues with people, there is only a small chance that anything substantive will change. I enjoy hearing perspectives, and I always like information, but it occurs to me that this is also a time when people are likely to be a bit tired of arguments, and exasperated at having to defend their opinion, even if they bring it up themselves. So, while I am quite satisfied with my own opinions and conclusions on all of the standard issues, since my readers at the moment are unlikely to include anyone who did not already know about me from other sites where I write, and so I am likely to have exchnaged opinions with you on one issue at least, I would like to extend, sans dispute, my sincere thanks for your attendance here, and for your contributions of opinion and thought.
May you all find joy in the coming week, and may it brighten your life and the world you bring to life each day.
Thank you.
My office is rather quarrelsome just now, with different groups vying for limited resources and credit for the company's successes. There are also the arguments over directing next year's strategies; as a Risk Analyst, I am viewed as something of a Grinch, for having to be the one to explain why this plan or that is unfeasible, risky, or, though I won't be so blunt when I address it, stupid.
There are sports contests, with coaches and players arguing calls. There are stores advertising their wares, arguing that their prices are the lowest and their quality is the highest. The message is reinforced that anyone who truly cares about their family will purchase from the "right" store. And of course, there are court cases, with arguments about money, about responsibilities, about custody and guilt and liability. I recall that this is the time of the year where summons servers are likely to carry gift-wrapped boxes, in order to gain access to their targeted recipients. And then there's family squabbles, which often show up this time of year.
Being a blogger, I know all about arguments, and I work up a lot of them. I am, in fact, arguing right now, though you will be the judge as to whether or not my writing is persuasive. But after the last week, with some very serious issues tossed about as if I was the President, Pope, or some other entity with the influence and position to make things right, if I could just be made to see the light. It's fascinating, in a way, to see Atheists and Fundamentalists argue with equal fervor about their beliefs, to hear Republicans and Democrats match each other's energy almost exactly when in dispute, to read positions from every sort of advocate, even if 90% of them would not work as envisioned.
Anyway, it occurs to me that as much as I enjoy discussing all sorts of issues with people, there is only a small chance that anything substantive will change. I enjoy hearing perspectives, and I always like information, but it occurs to me that this is also a time when people are likely to be a bit tired of arguments, and exasperated at having to defend their opinion, even if they bring it up themselves. So, while I am quite satisfied with my own opinions and conclusions on all of the standard issues, since my readers at the moment are unlikely to include anyone who did not already know about me from other sites where I write, and so I am likely to have exchnaged opinions with you on one issue at least, I would like to extend, sans dispute, my sincere thanks for your attendance here, and for your contributions of opinion and thought.
May you all find joy in the coming week, and may it brighten your life and the world you bring to life each day.
Thank you.
Saturday, December 18, 2004
Education 2005 :Retool or Replace
Earlier this year, I began blogging, partly as a way to educate people about the numbers and messages from this year's election. I was appalled in 2000 by the sheer ignorance of basic political and civic truths by many voters, especially in urban areas. This, many Republican strategists believe, is not only the reason why Democrats remain in power in urban regions, but also why reason and evidence have no effect in changing those minds. Democrats, naturally, claim the opposite; that it is Republican myths and distortions which have tricked rural and suburban voters. The lesson is twofold - that education and logic should be able to clear up the confusion, even if planned, but also that the people affected by the political games are unwilling to be educated.
Thinking this through, I recalled how many of my high school and college acquaintances held no interest in retaining their education. They wanted to know enough to pass the class, get the degree, get the job, but they held no desire to expand on that knowledge, to develop a first-class mind or exercise a healthy curiosity. A startlingly high number of people simply have no desire to learn. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of directors in charge of the Old Media networks fall into this category. That class of people, however, has found their nemesis; an unnamed class of thinkers, now resolved to action and empowered by the coalescence of their numbers into discrete groups and identities. Bloggers are just a spin-off of that new demographic, the deliberate thinker.
Education also comes into question when I think about careers. In an earlier post, I noted that companies are beginning to rethink the intellectual requirements of their positions, especially supervisory posts. After all, it should occur to any competent businessman, that an experienced and accomplished employee with years of solid work and the respect of his peers, even without a college degree, may a better choice for a responsible position than someone straight out of school, no matter the degree or grades. Of course, should companies continue to insist on that piece of paper, the rise of online education plans and business-centered universities is making it possible for the degree to be had later, if not sooner. This also opens the possibility that when someone discovers their original education is not going to advance their career, they can keep working and claim the credentials they need.
This brings us around to the need for defining the strategy for this century's educational system. There are reasonable debates about how to teach kids to read and write, but there can be no serious doubt that the system in place is inadequate to direct young citizens towards excellence. Maybe we can demand a disclaimer be posted on the walls of schools, especially high schools:
Warning - The education presented by this school and district may not be sufficient to prepare the individual for the Real World, and is unlikely to prepare the individual for satisfactory employment, advancement, or successive endeavors.
Now, I'm not trashing the whole system. But I sure want to find a way to encourage that sense of curiosity so common in children, yet so dead among many adults. I want teachers to share a sense of responsibility to police their own ranks, to screen out political correctness and theoretical speculation that misleads students to count revisionism as superior to established success. In other words, teachers need to be conscious of their students' futures when they leave school, a factor too long ignored in many districts.
In my title, I suggested that the educational system needs to be retooled or replaced. That dire-sounding recommendation is actually in progress right now. The fight over school vouchers may become a minor front in the war. That's because of the increasing enrollments in private schools, the families who move to school districts with higher standards ... and home schooling. Home schooling is a real phenomenon. While it's true that computers and online associations make the task easier and more of a group effort, it's amazing to see the explosion in home schooling programs, with impressive results overall. I'd say the NEA is on notice. I can't help wondering if they have bothered to read it.
Thinking this through, I recalled how many of my high school and college acquaintances held no interest in retaining their education. They wanted to know enough to pass the class, get the degree, get the job, but they held no desire to expand on that knowledge, to develop a first-class mind or exercise a healthy curiosity. A startlingly high number of people simply have no desire to learn. I have a strong suspicion that the majority of directors in charge of the Old Media networks fall into this category. That class of people, however, has found their nemesis; an unnamed class of thinkers, now resolved to action and empowered by the coalescence of their numbers into discrete groups and identities. Bloggers are just a spin-off of that new demographic, the deliberate thinker.
Education also comes into question when I think about careers. In an earlier post, I noted that companies are beginning to rethink the intellectual requirements of their positions, especially supervisory posts. After all, it should occur to any competent businessman, that an experienced and accomplished employee with years of solid work and the respect of his peers, even without a college degree, may a better choice for a responsible position than someone straight out of school, no matter the degree or grades. Of course, should companies continue to insist on that piece of paper, the rise of online education plans and business-centered universities is making it possible for the degree to be had later, if not sooner. This also opens the possibility that when someone discovers their original education is not going to advance their career, they can keep working and claim the credentials they need.
This brings us around to the need for defining the strategy for this century's educational system. There are reasonable debates about how to teach kids to read and write, but there can be no serious doubt that the system in place is inadequate to direct young citizens towards excellence. Maybe we can demand a disclaimer be posted on the walls of schools, especially high schools:
Warning - The education presented by this school and district may not be sufficient to prepare the individual for the Real World, and is unlikely to prepare the individual for satisfactory employment, advancement, or successive endeavors.
Now, I'm not trashing the whole system. But I sure want to find a way to encourage that sense of curiosity so common in children, yet so dead among many adults. I want teachers to share a sense of responsibility to police their own ranks, to screen out political correctness and theoretical speculation that misleads students to count revisionism as superior to established success. In other words, teachers need to be conscious of their students' futures when they leave school, a factor too long ignored in many districts.
In my title, I suggested that the educational system needs to be retooled or replaced. That dire-sounding recommendation is actually in progress right now. The fight over school vouchers may become a minor front in the war. That's because of the increasing enrollments in private schools, the families who move to school districts with higher standards ... and home schooling. Home schooling is a real phenomenon. While it's true that computers and online associations make the task easier and more of a group effort, it's amazing to see the explosion in home schooling programs, with impressive results overall. I'd say the NEA is on notice. I can't help wondering if they have bothered to read it.
Friday, December 17, 2004
Intelligence Reform
We have the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.S. Customs Service, the Secret Service, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the US Special Operations Command, the Office of Naval Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, The Naval Security Group Command, the National Intelligence Council, the Air Intelligence Agency, the National Security Council, the State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Safety, the State Department Counterterrorism Office, the Energy Department's Office of Intelligence, the Treasury Department's Office of Intelligence Support, and now a Director of National Intelligence.
So, who's in charge?
So, who's in charge?
Thursday, December 16, 2004
The Gangs Are All Here
They say all good things must come to an end, and in my case that includes my initial enthusiasm for author Kyle Mills. I really enjoyed Smoke Screen, and was looking forward to see if his other work was as good. In short, no it is not. I’m plugging my way through Sphere of Influence, but the thick and clumsy stereotypes he throws out, show me that he simply did not do his homework, and the results are disappointing at best.
Mills made three glaring errors early in the book, and they are serious enough that the sense of verisimilitude is lost, frankly blown to pieces. On the one hand, Mils immediately begins by making the CIA bad guys, soulless mercenaries out for money and personal power at all cost. They are also cast as stupid thugs who enjoy violence and do not think through the implications of their actions, morally or pragmatically. Also, Mills casts his hero as a man with a degree in History, yet has done no apparent work to endow his character with even a rudimentary understanding of the major historical events and cultural imperatives of the nations involved in his story. And finally, Mills relies on a decades-obsolete image of Organized Crime dominated by the Sicilian/Italian Mafia, displaying an incredible (literally unbelievable) series of actions and events which would never occur in a real-world 21st-Century environment. All in all, the book is the work which reminds me of a high school ‘D’ student, hoping no one will pay attention to his lack of scholarship and slipshod characterization. I almost feel like re-writing his book myself, so I can read the plot without cringing at so many amateurish errors.
The book prompted me, however, to consider the real nature of crime we know today. Things are both better and worse, as we all know from experience. Violent crime in America is diminishing, and a better feeling of security is present in most people’s lives, for a number of reasons. But looking deeper, I still see a grave threat to our nation, and in many First-World countries, driven by a local menace: Organized Crime, specifically gangs.
In Mill’s laughably simplistic book, the Mafia remains the biggest threat to the citizens of the United States, so far as crime is concerned. And to Mills, ‘Mafia’ means a fat Italian in a silk suit, “The Godfather” without any depth of character. The Sicilian/Italian “Cosa Nostra” remains alive, true, but hardly what it used to be, for three main reasons. First, the FBI has made it a major goal to slice and dice LCN whenever and wherever they can, and all the prosecutions are taking their toll. Second, many LCN bosses began to drive their money into “legitimate” businesses when they could, so that a generation later, the crime going on is less blue-collar (such as hijacking trucks, robbery, drugs, etc.) and more white-collar, especially graft in connection with political officials. And third, rivals have turned on LCN to seize turf and plum opportunities for themselves, and these rivals have grabbed my attention.
Essentially, Organized Crime (OC) in the US has evolved into 4 variant types:
1. “Classic” OC, involving drugs, prostitution, gambling, the usual vices
2. “New Age” OC, including copyright and patent theft, technology robbery and Internet fraud
3. Tiered OC operations, with particular crimes contracted to other OC gangs to hinder investigation and prosecution, leading to highly specialized groups not easily connected to their patrons
4. Youth recruiting movements in 1st-World nations
Major OC gangs and organizations have learned from FBI prosecutions to hide their character and details even from their own memberships, and are made up of major organizations of a variety of sub-groups, including Italian Organized Crime, Eurasian Organized Crime , Asian/African Organized Crime, Central American Gangs, the Russian 'Mafiya', Japanese Yakuza, Jamaican 'Kingfish', Chinese Triads (also here) , Motorcycle Gangs, and American “Street” Gangs.
The good news is, we are winning the war on drugs, prostitution, gambling, and illegal alien smuggling, albeit slowly. The bad news is, the enemy is growing smarter and more diversified, and has targeted new prey.
The US government has not been idle, however. A number of community initiatives are underway (here, here, here, and here, for example), and a number of agencies work hard to provide resources to cross-reference international criminal activity (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), keyed to the types of activity known to be performed by OC or of likely interest to OC. The threat, however, is real and enduring.
Some focus only an Al Qaeda and similar groups, but the war against Terrorism includes the War on Organized Crime.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Toby Keith - MERCENARY HYPOCRITE
Specialist David Mahlenbrock was killed December 3rd by an IED in Kirkuk, Iraq. The milblog Black Five was first with the information,and a simple but important last request from Specialist Mahlenbrock.
Mahlenbrock was a fan of Country musician Toby Keith, and wanted Keith’s song, "American Soldier" played at his funeral. A nationwide effort is underway to have that song played simultaneously at 1 PM EST today by every station willing to participate. Soldier’s Angels, a non-profit group which works to support U.S. military personnel, asked Toby Keith to personally sing the song when Mahlenbrock is laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.
Toby Keith fumbled the ball, to put it bluntly. His manager released a terse statement, saying that Keith "has set aside this time to spend with his family." Black Five confirms that Keith has no intention of showing up at the funeral. Seems that he doesn’t feel obliged to meet Mahlenbrock’s 19-year-old widow or 11-month-old daughter. Apparently, there’s no royalties to be had, by showing up to honor a fallen warrior.
Smash and Blackfive say Keith has "offered to cut a new CD of his song, dedicated to Specialist Mahlenbrock’s memory."
We’ll see. Toby Keith has not bothered to mention this promise on his website, and in my opinion, Toby has shown his true color: GREEN. Toby had no trouble playing up his love for the troops, when he could get a good song, a nice video, and sell out concerts, but when it comes down to meeting a debt of honor, ol’ Toby is just not cut out to meet the same standards as the men he pretends to support.
I’d say Toby has dropped to the level of the Dixie Chicks, but at least they were honest about their loyalties. Toby Keith is a mercenary loser, putting his personal comfort over a soldier’s family. For Christmas, somebody ought to get Keith a dictionary, and highlight the page with the word "honor".
Mahlenbrock was a fan of Country musician Toby Keith, and wanted Keith’s song, "American Soldier" played at his funeral. A nationwide effort is underway to have that song played simultaneously at 1 PM EST today by every station willing to participate. Soldier’s Angels, a non-profit group which works to support U.S. military personnel, asked Toby Keith to personally sing the song when Mahlenbrock is laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.
Toby Keith fumbled the ball, to put it bluntly. His manager released a terse statement, saying that Keith "has set aside this time to spend with his family." Black Five confirms that Keith has no intention of showing up at the funeral. Seems that he doesn’t feel obliged to meet Mahlenbrock’s 19-year-old widow or 11-month-old daughter. Apparently, there’s no royalties to be had, by showing up to honor a fallen warrior.
Smash and Blackfive say Keith has "offered to cut a new CD of his song, dedicated to Specialist Mahlenbrock’s memory."
We’ll see. Toby Keith has not bothered to mention this promise on his website, and in my opinion, Toby has shown his true color: GREEN. Toby had no trouble playing up his love for the troops, when he could get a good song, a nice video, and sell out concerts, but when it comes down to meeting a debt of honor, ol’ Toby is just not cut out to meet the same standards as the men he pretends to support.
I’d say Toby has dropped to the level of the Dixie Chicks, but at least they were honest about their loyalties. Toby Keith is a mercenary loser, putting his personal comfort over a soldier’s family. For Christmas, somebody ought to get Keith a dictionary, and highlight the page with the word "honor".
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Presidential Election Contest Winner - GOLD MEDAL
Hundreds entered the contest,
and twenty-three predictors landed within one percent of the actual results,
but only one walked away with the [mythical] trophy; Robear, or in real life, Robert Kornegay.
Robert has his own blog, called Mission Mind , which Robert sub-titles "The Conservative Nexus of Faith and Reason". I have linked to it from Stolen Thunder, and recommend it for at least a courtesy visit, and more if you like reading up on religion and politics.
Robert tells me an ancestor of his was the youngest singer of the Declaration of Independence (once again affirming the link between bloggers and revolutionary change), and further, Robert tells us “I am as old as Israel (the current version, that is)”.
Robert describes himself as a “political junkie whose first vote was for Nixon in 1968”. Robert is married, a father, and a grandfather, who has also served as a Christian missionary to Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Robert was a General Contractor “who built his last home first (and we still own it)”, and is presently working on his Masters in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. In what remaining spare time he has, Robert loves sailing, and also restores sailboats.
Robert credits his political acumen to excellent political analysis, and for some reason believes our site and articles help in that education. I strongly recommend a visit, soon, to Robert's site.
Congratulations, Robear, and to all the winners of this year’s contest!
and twenty-three predictors landed within one percent of the actual results,
but only one walked away with the [mythical] trophy; Robear, or in real life, Robert Kornegay.
Robert has his own blog, called Mission Mind , which Robert sub-titles "The Conservative Nexus of Faith and Reason". I have linked to it from Stolen Thunder, and recommend it for at least a courtesy visit, and more if you like reading up on religion and politics.
Robert tells me an ancestor of his was the youngest singer of the Declaration of Independence (once again affirming the link between bloggers and revolutionary change), and further, Robert tells us “I am as old as Israel (the current version, that is)”.
Robert describes himself as a “political junkie whose first vote was for Nixon in 1968”. Robert is married, a father, and a grandfather, who has also served as a Christian missionary to Africa, Europe, and the Americas. Robert was a General Contractor “who built his last home first (and we still own it)”, and is presently working on his Masters in Christian Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC. In what remaining spare time he has, Robert loves sailing, and also restores sailboats.
Robert credits his political acumen to excellent political analysis, and for some reason believes our site and articles help in that education. I strongly recommend a visit, soon, to Robert's site.
Congratulations, Robear, and to all the winners of this year’s contest!
Monday, December 13, 2004
Channeling Scrooge
'Tis the season, as they say, so 'Incoming!" says I.
I notice my color turning a Grinch-like green as I react to the incessant demands for money, money, money. This is the season where the hard-sell for all things impractical, whether obscenely pricey jewelry, designer clothing which serves no effective purpose but to highlight the inadequacies of any normal person, while deepening the pockets of french designers, or over-priced toys my little one will delight in for a few days, while I take months to pay the bills.
I have begun to hate the television, as well. Try explaining to a 4-year-old about the Victoria's Secretharlot, er, slut, er, "model" on the TV, wearing a santa hat and a thong and not much more. Try explaining why the kids who scream "gimme!" in a commercial are not good children, even though the commercial clearly shows them getting everything they demand. Try explaining why, with all the peppermint and chocolate candies flying around, you still expect them to eat their vegetables. Arrgh.
I also notice this is when the volume on charity demands gets cranked up. Groups I've never heard from except at Yuletide (if ever before), strongly imply that anyone who wants to consider themselves human, must fork over moolah in exelcious.
And then there's tipping, the peculiar art of paying additional fees and bonuses for something you have already paid for once. Newsweek put out a guide for thisextortion, er, remuneration, suggesting anywhere from $10 to "one or two weeks' pay" for all those things we already pay for. I did a quick summary in my head, and if I followed their advice, I'd blow a month's pay on these bonuses, before I spent even a penny on my own family and friends.
The word flows unbidden to my lips, and escapes without restraint: "Humbug!"
Not that I am unfeeling to my fellow man. Far from that, actually. But the notion that I am somehow obliged to spend money I do not have, solely to please people I barely know, by which action I should deprive my family, strikes me as unacceptable in the extreme. With year-end deadlines, harassed shoppers making driving home a combat exercise, and no bonus (as usual), I could skip the season and find myself greatly relieved.
And there it is; the bonus. Some years back, it seems almost everyone got a Christmas/Holiday/Year-End Bonus, and the extra money made it possible to do some nice things for the family and friends. But enter the auditors. That is, I think I know what happened.
If a company gives out a Year-End bonus, they will necessarily do so before the 4th-Quarter and Annual numbers for a company are known, which adds a known but controllable cost to an unknown balance entering into the period. Someone began to sell companies on the notion of presenting the annual bonus at the end of the succeeding period, the 1st Quarter of the next year. This allowed a company to know how much of a bonus they could afford, but it added an additional advantage. As more and more companies deferred the bonus for 3 or 4 months, they gained the interest from holding the money that much longer. Also, any financial difficulty became a reason to reduce or deny bonuses, especially since the bonus was separated from the moral expectation that the company do the right thing. Legally, the company had never been required to give bonuses, and as more and more companies joined the deferment of bonuses, it became easier and easier to delay, reduce, or deny bonuses at all. In my own personal experience, in 24 years of working, I have only once received a Christmas Bonus, and only four times received any kind of bonus. This, in spite of regular promotions and recognitions for excellence. Companies simply do not reward excellence. The Ghosts of Christmases Past and Present have been sacked, to be replaced by the Spirit of the Bottom Line.
This year, like the last, has been a hard one for my family financially. So while we will buy a few gifts for my daughter and a few close friends, my wife and I have again agreed not to buy anything for each other, planning to save what we can. I find myself grateful for my family, my job, and for the ability to thumb my nose at Madison Avenue.
If you find yourself able to buy the gifts you know your family and friends will delight in, go for it. And if you are able to help others in need, may you receive just as much joy in return. But if you are like me, and find yourself just a mite tired of all of this mercenary exuberance, while working for a company that thinks a form-letter greeting counts as recognition, don't worry too much. You're not channeling Scrooge, it's the people who have forgotten why the old traditions mattered, who are in his sway.
Merry Christmas, no purchase necessary!
I notice my color turning a Grinch-like green as I react to the incessant demands for money, money, money. This is the season where the hard-sell for all things impractical, whether obscenely pricey jewelry, designer clothing which serves no effective purpose but to highlight the inadequacies of any normal person, while deepening the pockets of french designers, or over-priced toys my little one will delight in for a few days, while I take months to pay the bills.
I have begun to hate the television, as well. Try explaining to a 4-year-old about the Victoria's Secret
I also notice this is when the volume on charity demands gets cranked up. Groups I've never heard from except at Yuletide (if ever before), strongly imply that anyone who wants to consider themselves human, must fork over moolah in exelcious.
And then there's tipping, the peculiar art of paying additional fees and bonuses for something you have already paid for once. Newsweek put out a guide for this
The word flows unbidden to my lips, and escapes without restraint: "Humbug!"
Not that I am unfeeling to my fellow man. Far from that, actually. But the notion that I am somehow obliged to spend money I do not have, solely to please people I barely know, by which action I should deprive my family, strikes me as unacceptable in the extreme. With year-end deadlines, harassed shoppers making driving home a combat exercise, and no bonus (as usual), I could skip the season and find myself greatly relieved.
And there it is; the bonus. Some years back, it seems almost everyone got a Christmas/Holiday/Year-End Bonus, and the extra money made it possible to do some nice things for the family and friends. But enter the auditors. That is, I think I know what happened.
If a company gives out a Year-End bonus, they will necessarily do so before the 4th-Quarter and Annual numbers for a company are known, which adds a known but controllable cost to an unknown balance entering into the period. Someone began to sell companies on the notion of presenting the annual bonus at the end of the succeeding period, the 1st Quarter of the next year. This allowed a company to know how much of a bonus they could afford, but it added an additional advantage. As more and more companies deferred the bonus for 3 or 4 months, they gained the interest from holding the money that much longer. Also, any financial difficulty became a reason to reduce or deny bonuses, especially since the bonus was separated from the moral expectation that the company do the right thing. Legally, the company had never been required to give bonuses, and as more and more companies joined the deferment of bonuses, it became easier and easier to delay, reduce, or deny bonuses at all. In my own personal experience, in 24 years of working, I have only once received a Christmas Bonus, and only four times received any kind of bonus. This, in spite of regular promotions and recognitions for excellence. Companies simply do not reward excellence. The Ghosts of Christmases Past and Present have been sacked, to be replaced by the Spirit of the Bottom Line.
This year, like the last, has been a hard one for my family financially. So while we will buy a few gifts for my daughter and a few close friends, my wife and I have again agreed not to buy anything for each other, planning to save what we can. I find myself grateful for my family, my job, and for the ability to thumb my nose at Madison Avenue.
If you find yourself able to buy the gifts you know your family and friends will delight in, go for it. And if you are able to help others in need, may you receive just as much joy in return. But if you are like me, and find yourself just a mite tired of all of this mercenary exuberance, while working for a company that thinks a form-letter greeting counts as recognition, don't worry too much. You're not channeling Scrooge, it's the people who have forgotten why the old traditions mattered, who are in his sway.
Merry Christmas, no purchase necessary!
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Presidential Election Prediction Winner - ‘Silver Medal’
Josh Bauer, or "JB" as he tagged his prediction, claimed second place in the Election Prediction Contest .
Josh will be a junior at Arizona State University next fall, having transferred from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. Josh is working on his first book, entitled Last of the Dreadnoughts: The Story of Battleship Texas. Josh is 32 years old.
Josh describes himself as a "recovering liberal. It’s been 12 years and 1 1/2 months since I voted for a democrat. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell showed me the light."
Josh goes on to note "You and the other influential blogs need to work to draft Jeb in ‘08. I volunteered for Dubya, and although I would vote for Rudy over any Democrat, I could never put in the hours for him that I did for GW."
Next up, the profile for "Robear", our champ.
Congratulations Josh, and thanks for your hard work this election!
Josh will be a junior at Arizona State University next fall, having transferred from the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh. Josh is working on his first book, entitled Last of the Dreadnoughts: The Story of Battleship Texas. Josh is 32 years old.
Josh describes himself as a "recovering liberal. It’s been 12 years and 1 1/2 months since I voted for a democrat. Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell showed me the light."
Josh goes on to note "You and the other influential blogs need to work to draft Jeb in ‘08. I volunteered for Dubya, and although I would vote for Rudy over any Democrat, I could never put in the hours for him that I did for GW."
Next up, the profile for "Robear", our champ.
Congratulations Josh, and thanks for your hard work this election!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
