so i just read this article in the post. Mr Krauthammer not only has a funny name, but also has a problem with the assertion that McCain wants to occupy Iraq for a century.
McCain never clarified hos position. Look at the quotes the he provides.
Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."
the thing is that Americans are being killed and wounded on a daily basis. another thing is that we were allies from the beginning with South Korea, and Japan submitted and accepted our presence. Iraq neither wanted us there to begin with and isnt submitting in any way. i dont see how you can claim that we will stay in Iraq for any time and expect that no harm will come to our troops.
Krauthammer attacks the Democrats for making the jump from a presence to a war, but with the previous thoughts in mind, its more of a baby step than a jump. and if McCain was thinking something else, wouldnt he have called out Obama and Clinton for distorting his words? has he?
the title of the article is "A Rank Falsehood." what Obama and Clinton claim about McCain is not a falsehood at all. its an interpretation given the statement and the conditions in Iraq. the falsehood is the idea that American troops can remain in Iraq without being harmed. its just not a viable idea. im not saying that some, perhaps many, want us there, and need us there. but there is no way we can stay without casualties. there are enough people there who hate us for being there. who will stop at nothing to make us leave, and it is naive to think that our soldiers could remain there without a threat to their safety. Iraq is not Japan. Iraq is not South Korea.
perhaps this is a misunderstanding. but if McCain misunderstands the situation should he really be president? but i am fairly sure that McCain does understand, which is why you havent heard him decry with the Democrats are saying. but that doesnt stop people like Krauthammer from defending an untenable position. and since McCain hasnt corrected Clinton and Obama, then it must not be that far from the truth. keep that in mind as you choose who to vote for.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
UAW wake up call
Dick Dauch, chairman and CEO of American Axle Mfg said that he can take his production elsewhere if the union is unwilling to make a deal. in the Free Press article on this there are all sorts of union sympathizers saying that the union needs to hang in because AAM will have to cave soon because GM is turning the screws.
well, be careful, UAW, or you may just find out that Dick's bite is as bad as his bark.
do you think he relishes puting people out of work? of course not. but the reality is that he in large part built this company and he is not going to let overpriced union labor ruin his company. you have to look at the reality that in a state with 7% plus unemployment that he can easily go out and find non union guys who would jump at the chance to work at $14/hour. and thats keeping jobs right there in Detroit. just think of the wages that he could get in Mexico or Asia.
the reality is this: the UAW cant call the shots anymore. whether you like it or not you have to face the fact that we live in global economy, and no matter how loud you shout 'BUY AMERICAN!' it means nothing. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to compete with VW, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and soon Tata and Mahindra. there is no changing that.
US companies theoretically have the advantage of no or minimal shipping costs. but that is squandered on overpriced union labor making a frequently inferior product the same price or more expensive. i must admit that US auto companies have stepped it up recently, especially GM, but the fact is their reputation is still stuck with the late 90s stigma. unfortunately if US companies dont continue to compete making affordable and high quality cars there will be no more 'American' brands.
to help save the industry and your jobs and future American jobs and the economy, you need to take some cuts. if you want the UAW to be relevant, sit down to a real negotiation. you have to recognize that AAM and Dauch are in the power position. he can make AAM American in name only and you cant do a damn thing about it. then that will be one more part in your 'American' cars that will come from south of the border or across the seas.
well, be careful, UAW, or you may just find out that Dick's bite is as bad as his bark.
do you think he relishes puting people out of work? of course not. but the reality is that he in large part built this company and he is not going to let overpriced union labor ruin his company. you have to look at the reality that in a state with 7% plus unemployment that he can easily go out and find non union guys who would jump at the chance to work at $14/hour. and thats keeping jobs right there in Detroit. just think of the wages that he could get in Mexico or Asia.
the reality is this: the UAW cant call the shots anymore. whether you like it or not you have to face the fact that we live in global economy, and no matter how loud you shout 'BUY AMERICAN!' it means nothing. GM, Ford, and Chrysler all have to compete with VW, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and soon Tata and Mahindra. there is no changing that.
US companies theoretically have the advantage of no or minimal shipping costs. but that is squandered on overpriced union labor making a frequently inferior product the same price or more expensive. i must admit that US auto companies have stepped it up recently, especially GM, but the fact is their reputation is still stuck with the late 90s stigma. unfortunately if US companies dont continue to compete making affordable and high quality cars there will be no more 'American' brands.
to help save the industry and your jobs and future American jobs and the economy, you need to take some cuts. if you want the UAW to be relevant, sit down to a real negotiation. you have to recognize that AAM and Dauch are in the power position. he can make AAM American in name only and you cant do a damn thing about it. then that will be one more part in your 'American' cars that will come from south of the border or across the seas.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
how about no?
check this out. i caught a snippet on the news, but it almost slipped through the cracks.
ok, so the idea is to get guns and drugs off the streets. thats a fairly noble idea. but the execution of this seemingly good idea shows just how out of touch the policy makers are.
so the premise is that the police come to communities with gun and drug issues and knock on doors. they ask the owner or tenant to sign a form allowing the police to search warrant less and that is also intended to give the signer amnesty. the thing is that cops dont have that much good will to make this work. especially in troubled neighborhoods.
i just dont see how they plan to make this work. sure there may be a few cases where a parent has a bad apple staying with them and they might want to cooperate, but in cases where people know they have guns or drugs, they arent going to let the cops in to take them and possibly prosecute their buddies. and if they knock on my door i would definitely send them away. look, the constitution says i have the right to privacy unless i do something to jeopardize that, which i havent, so why would i let you in? what good could possibly come of it? sorry, coppers, maybe the schmuck next door wants you all up in his business, but i dont.
and here are two seemingly contradictory claims:
"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."
"If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges."
furthermore, guns are currently illegal to most citizens in the district. so even having a gun, legal or not, in your home is against the law. so lets see, turn the officers away, youre suspicious. let them in and they find grandpa Joe's rifle from WWII and they could take it from you. let them in and they find out that you have an illegal gun in your house, youre marked for the future. youre damned if you do, damned if you dont.
look, folks, if you want the down low and want to make places safer, try some old fashioned leg work. start patrolling. put cops on beats. thats right, on foot. (gasp!) get to know the residents, gain their trust, become part of the neighborhood and take an interest in it. then the residents might just come to you with information.
again, the thought is good, but the execution is dead wrong.
ok, so the idea is to get guns and drugs off the streets. thats a fairly noble idea. but the execution of this seemingly good idea shows just how out of touch the policy makers are.
so the premise is that the police come to communities with gun and drug issues and knock on doors. they ask the owner or tenant to sign a form allowing the police to search warrant less and that is also intended to give the signer amnesty. the thing is that cops dont have that much good will to make this work. especially in troubled neighborhoods.
i just dont see how they plan to make this work. sure there may be a few cases where a parent has a bad apple staying with them and they might want to cooperate, but in cases where people know they have guns or drugs, they arent going to let the cops in to take them and possibly prosecute their buddies. and if they knock on my door i would definitely send them away. look, the constitution says i have the right to privacy unless i do something to jeopardize that, which i havent, so why would i let you in? what good could possibly come of it? sorry, coppers, maybe the schmuck next door wants you all up in his business, but i dont.
and here are two seemingly contradictory claims:
"If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it," Lanier said. "But amnesty means amnesty. We're trying to get guns and drugs off the street."
"If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges."
furthermore, guns are currently illegal to most citizens in the district. so even having a gun, legal or not, in your home is against the law. so lets see, turn the officers away, youre suspicious. let them in and they find grandpa Joe's rifle from WWII and they could take it from you. let them in and they find out that you have an illegal gun in your house, youre marked for the future. youre damned if you do, damned if you dont.
look, folks, if you want the down low and want to make places safer, try some old fashioned leg work. start patrolling. put cops on beats. thats right, on foot. (gasp!) get to know the residents, gain their trust, become part of the neighborhood and take an interest in it. then the residents might just come to you with information.
again, the thought is good, but the execution is dead wrong.
i agree with McCain
ive been thinking it for a while now. i havent really said much on it. but, seriously, why are we paying to bail people out of their loans. i feel for you if you got laid off, or your time or pay cut back, but if your just an idiot that signed up for a loan that you now cant afford, why should we as taxpayers bail your stupid ass out.
when you buy a home you should know what youre getting into. you should not buy at the top end of what you can afford. allow a margin of error. you dont know what might come up a month or a year down the line. and if you were stupid enough to sign an ARM and now your payments jump and you cant afford it, i have no sympathy for your dumb ass. you deserve to lose your home. if youre an investor or land lord who cant afford it, then just sell it already. oops, the housing bubble collapsed and youre losing an income property. at least you have your own home. to ask the government and thereby the taxpayers to cover your loss is ridiculous. man up and accept your misjudgment.
so im not all out liberal. im a fiscal conservative. and if youre an idiot who cant manage your money and assets, perhaps you desrve to take a hit, and maybe you and the rest of the world will learn from this and not be so eager to spend spend spend.
Post discussion
when you buy a home you should know what youre getting into. you should not buy at the top end of what you can afford. allow a margin of error. you dont know what might come up a month or a year down the line. and if you were stupid enough to sign an ARM and now your payments jump and you cant afford it, i have no sympathy for your dumb ass. you deserve to lose your home. if youre an investor or land lord who cant afford it, then just sell it already. oops, the housing bubble collapsed and youre losing an income property. at least you have your own home. to ask the government and thereby the taxpayers to cover your loss is ridiculous. man up and accept your misjudgment.
so im not all out liberal. im a fiscal conservative. and if youre an idiot who cant manage your money and assets, perhaps you desrve to take a hit, and maybe you and the rest of the world will learn from this and not be so eager to spend spend spend.
Post discussion
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
hush money
The Commonwealth of Virginia along with Virginia Tech are offering the families of those killed in last year's tragedy $100,000 each. there is so much wrong with all this that i have trouble knowing where to begin.
ok, deep breath.... hows this start? someone is afraid of being sued and usually people respond to money, right? and it is true that 20 families have filed a notice that they may sue over the way the whole thing was handled. mostly that more than 2 hours elapsed between the first murder and the later classroom rampage. and that in this time the University and authorities did nothing to safeguard the campus and community.
ok, so i can see how people would be pissed. i can see that the state and university would want to avoid a long and probably costly suit. but who comes up with $100,000? how can you say to a family that your child, your brother, your sister is worth $100,000? i think that i would be insulted. do these people have no concept of the value of human life? and what do they propose to give the friends and girlfriends and boyfriends?
if i was on the receiving end of this offer i would be more inclined to sue than without the offer. i think the best thing for Gov Tim Kaine to do would be to meet personally with every family and offer his sincerest apologies. that goes for University leaders, police chiefs, sheriffs, anyone involved or in some way responsible for the decision that caused the loss of life. i would be far more like to accept a sincere apology than a cash payout that is essentially a bribe.
ultimately the responsibility for the deaths of those students doesnt fall on the state or the university or law enforcement. the responsiblity falls on Seung-Hui Cho. and if youre looking for a living culprit, look at those who allowed him to buy guns. those who released and obviously troubled person from their care. perhaps the state is responsible in that way, but thats not how this payoff looks, at least to me. it looks like hush money. it looks like a bribe. it looks dirty and cheap.
if my brother was killed in such a tragedy, and the government offered me $100,000 not to sue. i would say 'fuck off unless you can bring my brother back. your piddly cash cant make me feel right again. it cant bring back the brother i lost. and i wont let you clear your conscience by accepting a bribe. live with it. deal with it. i have to with or without your dirty money.'
and finally, arent they admitting that they were wrong by offering this money? isnt that just telling a lawyer that they did something wrong? if you wanted money to make up for your loss wouldnt you want the most you could get? and dont you think that you could get a lot more from a jury than a $100,000?
to those families who have received this offer: i hope that you take the high ground and tell them to fuck off if only to make them twist in the wind and feel like shit. and if you want the money, the fucking take some money. make it really hurt. but remember, when you sue the state, you sue your neighbors, you sue your friends, you sue yourself.
ok, deep breath.... hows this start? someone is afraid of being sued and usually people respond to money, right? and it is true that 20 families have filed a notice that they may sue over the way the whole thing was handled. mostly that more than 2 hours elapsed between the first murder and the later classroom rampage. and that in this time the University and authorities did nothing to safeguard the campus and community.
ok, so i can see how people would be pissed. i can see that the state and university would want to avoid a long and probably costly suit. but who comes up with $100,000? how can you say to a family that your child, your brother, your sister is worth $100,000? i think that i would be insulted. do these people have no concept of the value of human life? and what do they propose to give the friends and girlfriends and boyfriends?
if i was on the receiving end of this offer i would be more inclined to sue than without the offer. i think the best thing for Gov Tim Kaine to do would be to meet personally with every family and offer his sincerest apologies. that goes for University leaders, police chiefs, sheriffs, anyone involved or in some way responsible for the decision that caused the loss of life. i would be far more like to accept a sincere apology than a cash payout that is essentially a bribe.
ultimately the responsibility for the deaths of those students doesnt fall on the state or the university or law enforcement. the responsiblity falls on Seung-Hui Cho. and if youre looking for a living culprit, look at those who allowed him to buy guns. those who released and obviously troubled person from their care. perhaps the state is responsible in that way, but thats not how this payoff looks, at least to me. it looks like hush money. it looks like a bribe. it looks dirty and cheap.
if my brother was killed in such a tragedy, and the government offered me $100,000 not to sue. i would say 'fuck off unless you can bring my brother back. your piddly cash cant make me feel right again. it cant bring back the brother i lost. and i wont let you clear your conscience by accepting a bribe. live with it. deal with it. i have to with or without your dirty money.'
and finally, arent they admitting that they were wrong by offering this money? isnt that just telling a lawyer that they did something wrong? if you wanted money to make up for your loss wouldnt you want the most you could get? and dont you think that you could get a lot more from a jury than a $100,000?
to those families who have received this offer: i hope that you take the high ground and tell them to fuck off if only to make them twist in the wind and feel like shit. and if you want the money, the fucking take some money. make it really hurt. but remember, when you sue the state, you sue your neighbors, you sue your friends, you sue yourself.
Monday, March 24, 2008
good news
something positive is happening in the middle east. Yousaf Raza Gillani has been approved by the Pakistani National Assembly to step into the role of prime minister. and before even being sworn in he ordered the release of judges that Musharraf had ordered under house arrest because they would have stood in the way of his power grab.
the west has largely supported Musharraf, but the Pakistani people overwhelmingly want Mr Gallani as their prime minister. it is elections and self rule that we are supposedly after in Iraq, and perhaps this shows that it can work.
when popular and formerly exiled Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December after some failed attempts many feared that Musharraf's leadership would go unquestioned. instead, Gallani stepped up into a leadership role from his former position as a top aide and carried the election as well as the overwhelming approval of the nation's lawmakers.
its nice to see something work the way it should. to see the people get the leadership that they want. and that the constitution and the rule of law have the final say.
post article.
the west has largely supported Musharraf, but the Pakistani people overwhelmingly want Mr Gallani as their prime minister. it is elections and self rule that we are supposedly after in Iraq, and perhaps this shows that it can work.
when popular and formerly exiled Pakistan People's Party leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December after some failed attempts many feared that Musharraf's leadership would go unquestioned. instead, Gallani stepped up into a leadership role from his former position as a top aide and carried the election as well as the overwhelming approval of the nation's lawmakers.
its nice to see something work the way it should. to see the people get the leadership that they want. and that the constitution and the rule of law have the final say.
post article.
the why
i have figured out, i think, why it is i have never felt like i fit in on the east coast. perhaps the east coast is too broad. its why i dont fit in in DC.
this place is so career oriented. so materially oriented. i am not so much. i have never really worried about doing well professionally and have never been all that driven to be the best. i have always know that i am smart enough to make it work and that i dont need millions to be happy. my happiness has never come from money. i dont discount that you need a modicum of income in order to avoid certain woes. call me a fool, but that has never concerned me. i have never been afraid to work hard, dont mistake that, but i dont feel the need to have a showy house and car.
in my young adult life my dreams have never been of riches, but of love and life. the professional world is a means to an end. money and therefore an occupation are necessary evils, but something that has not been of much trouble. perhaps i am naive, but ive been laid off, ive had troubles finding work, but i have come through. that which eludes me is that which i care most about, but perhaps thats just the way it is. the grass is always greener on the other side, right.
what my life lacks is not money, tho i am not rich. it is love, tho i am not unloved. its that i pick up the phone to find something to do, and find that i lack many good friends (locally) and that i have a knack for finding dead ends in the dating world. i seem to have trouble in this money oriented world finding kindred spirits who care to talk about books or music or politics in a meaningful way. or just to shoot the shit, to ponder people's follies, to drink beer and play darts.
its frustrating to keep coming up empty. its frustrating to write blogs about stuff that captures my interest because i dont have a local friend to talk about it with. and its disappointing when no one argues with me about it or tells me how right i am. an i continue to wonder what it is about michigan that in this place my closest friends all hail from that state. and i continue to hope that things turn around there, and i can find my golden ticket back home. it would be nice to be proven wrong. that there are people here on my wavelength. but if they do exist, i dont know them.
this place is so career oriented. so materially oriented. i am not so much. i have never really worried about doing well professionally and have never been all that driven to be the best. i have always know that i am smart enough to make it work and that i dont need millions to be happy. my happiness has never come from money. i dont discount that you need a modicum of income in order to avoid certain woes. call me a fool, but that has never concerned me. i have never been afraid to work hard, dont mistake that, but i dont feel the need to have a showy house and car.
in my young adult life my dreams have never been of riches, but of love and life. the professional world is a means to an end. money and therefore an occupation are necessary evils, but something that has not been of much trouble. perhaps i am naive, but ive been laid off, ive had troubles finding work, but i have come through. that which eludes me is that which i care most about, but perhaps thats just the way it is. the grass is always greener on the other side, right.
what my life lacks is not money, tho i am not rich. it is love, tho i am not unloved. its that i pick up the phone to find something to do, and find that i lack many good friends (locally) and that i have a knack for finding dead ends in the dating world. i seem to have trouble in this money oriented world finding kindred spirits who care to talk about books or music or politics in a meaningful way. or just to shoot the shit, to ponder people's follies, to drink beer and play darts.
its frustrating to keep coming up empty. its frustrating to write blogs about stuff that captures my interest because i dont have a local friend to talk about it with. and its disappointing when no one argues with me about it or tells me how right i am. an i continue to wonder what it is about michigan that in this place my closest friends all hail from that state. and i continue to hope that things turn around there, and i can find my golden ticket back home. it would be nice to be proven wrong. that there are people here on my wavelength. but if they do exist, i dont know them.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
yikes.
check out this article before you read this. even if you just get the gist.
whether for guns or against them, i dont know how its ever a good idea to allow people to come into restaurants that serve alcohol. i dont know how it is a good idea to have them in any restaurant, really. i had never really thought about this before. i figured its your choice on whether or not to own a gun, but its kinda scary to think that the guy at the next table could be armed.
i dont like that idea one bit. and as a owner or manager of a restaurant, i would not let armed people eat there. i dont care how much the NRA doesnt like it, there are plenty of people who would like to eat in a place and not have to worry about gunfire.
i have always felt like i fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on gun control. i think that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. i think that people should be able to have the hobbies that they want like hunting and target shooting. i have never understood why any private citizen would need any automatic weapons or any crazy powerful or high powered weapons. and think it would be a terrible mistake to allow anyone with a history of violent crimes to own any firearm.
it mystifies me that a state that has rather tight liquor laws could have such lax gun laws. perhaps what shows my position best is that i live in DC where it is currently illegal to own a gun. i dont think an all out ban is the right answer, but certainly going out to eat armed is a wrong answer. this isnt the wild west. this isnt Iraq. i believe in the second amendment. but there is a time and place for everything. dinner is not the time and restaurants are not the place for guns.
whether for guns or against them, i dont know how its ever a good idea to allow people to come into restaurants that serve alcohol. i dont know how it is a good idea to have them in any restaurant, really. i had never really thought about this before. i figured its your choice on whether or not to own a gun, but its kinda scary to think that the guy at the next table could be armed.
i dont like that idea one bit. and as a owner or manager of a restaurant, i would not let armed people eat there. i dont care how much the NRA doesnt like it, there are plenty of people who would like to eat in a place and not have to worry about gunfire.
i have always felt like i fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum on gun control. i think that people should be able to protect themselves in their homes. i think that people should be able to have the hobbies that they want like hunting and target shooting. i have never understood why any private citizen would need any automatic weapons or any crazy powerful or high powered weapons. and think it would be a terrible mistake to allow anyone with a history of violent crimes to own any firearm.
it mystifies me that a state that has rather tight liquor laws could have such lax gun laws. perhaps what shows my position best is that i live in DC where it is currently illegal to own a gun. i dont think an all out ban is the right answer, but certainly going out to eat armed is a wrong answer. this isnt the wild west. this isnt Iraq. i believe in the second amendment. but there is a time and place for everything. dinner is not the time and restaurants are not the place for guns.
Man in Black
today im taking a cue from Johnny Cash. today is the fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Iraq. im not going to make a comment on the politics, the money, the right or the wrong. i simply want to express my sadness for all those who have lost loved ones. thousands of Americans and even more Iraqis have perished, and no end is in sight. today im wearing the black to mourn the thousands who have died, and who will die. and my heart goes out to those who have lost someone to the war.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
a note
i just wrote the following email to Michael Gerson in response to his opinion piece.
Mr Gerson,
I have read a number of your articles/opinions in the Post.(I have also used them as a jumping off point for my own writings.) I have enjoyed them and found that i like the way that you look at things, even when I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And because it is opinion, I hesitated to write this email, only realize that I don't wish to write to criticize, to ask and try to understand.
I wonder if you think that it is possible to have a mentor who is flawed? Can you live with and learn from a man who is flawed, but in large part exemplifies many of the qualities that we admire most? Do you think that it is possible to see and separate that which is flawed and not only learn from good examples, but also from mistakes?
Our own founding fathers risked everything for their freedom. All the while the enslaved other human beings. They took on the most powerful country in the world and risked their lives to ensure their rights and freedoms while stripping others of their rights and freedom. These are men that we still hold in the utmost regard to this day. I don't think that we should denounce great men like Jefferson and Washington for something they got wrong, when the got some many things right. Rev. Wright has said, no, preached some terrible ideas. But he has united one very troubled community in a very poor area of Chicago. he has done a great deal of good for that community. When other large congregations left for the suburbs, Wright stayed, and built a new church in the community he served. He reached out to bring white congregations to his church to hear his sermons.
While he is not Jefferson or Washington, should we judge him only by that which is negative about him, or should we give him the benefit of the doubt? And beyond Rev Wright, can we not allow Obama to embrace a flawed man? Is it so audacious to believe that he can separate the good from the bad? That he can take Wright's concern and drive to better those in need, and leave his racist feelings behind? If not, what is Obama to do? Can he really renounce a man that helped to shape his life? What would you have him do? We can change from generation to generation, or Barack Obama wouldn't matter at all.
I don't mean this to be accusatory, and I apologize if it seems so.
Dan Davis.
Mr Gerson,
I have read a number of your articles/opinions in the Post.(I have also used them as a jumping off point for my own writings.) I have enjoyed them and found that i like the way that you look at things, even when I don't entirely agree with your opinion. And because it is opinion, I hesitated to write this email, only realize that I don't wish to write to criticize, to ask and try to understand.
I wonder if you think that it is possible to have a mentor who is flawed? Can you live with and learn from a man who is flawed, but in large part exemplifies many of the qualities that we admire most? Do you think that it is possible to see and separate that which is flawed and not only learn from good examples, but also from mistakes?
Our own founding fathers risked everything for their freedom. All the while the enslaved other human beings. They took on the most powerful country in the world and risked their lives to ensure their rights and freedoms while stripping others of their rights and freedom. These are men that we still hold in the utmost regard to this day. I don't think that we should denounce great men like Jefferson and Washington for something they got wrong, when the got some many things right. Rev. Wright has said, no, preached some terrible ideas. But he has united one very troubled community in a very poor area of Chicago. he has done a great deal of good for that community. When other large congregations left for the suburbs, Wright stayed, and built a new church in the community he served. He reached out to bring white congregations to his church to hear his sermons.
While he is not Jefferson or Washington, should we judge him only by that which is negative about him, or should we give him the benefit of the doubt? And beyond Rev Wright, can we not allow Obama to embrace a flawed man? Is it so audacious to believe that he can separate the good from the bad? That he can take Wright's concern and drive to better those in need, and leave his racist feelings behind? If not, what is Obama to do? Can he really renounce a man that helped to shape his life? What would you have him do? We can change from generation to generation, or Barack Obama wouldn't matter at all.
I don't mean this to be accusatory, and I apologize if it seems so.
Dan Davis.
im with the black guy.
as i start to write this i wonder what form it will take. im overwhelmed by Barack Obama's speech. i wasnt able to watch it yesterday, but i just finished reading the transcript. its overwhelming it its honesty, its hope, and its attitude. i dont think that i can do it much justice by adding it, but i do want to elaborate on some of what i was impressed with.
the speech was sparked, as im sure youre aware, but some inflammatory remarks made by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama could have handled this in a number of ways. he could have turned his back on a man who has helped define him. he could have turned his back on the church that brought him into the Christian fold. he could have attacked those who attacked him for being divisive. he could have attacked them for judging something that they dont understand. but what makes Obama's reactions great is that he rose above it all.
he turned it all around. he denounced the words, but accepted the man. he exercised something that many supposed Christians have forgotten: forgiving. no one is perfect, everyone has flaws. but you dont stop loving your mother or brother for saying something that you dont agree with. you forgive them, then try to open their eyes.
just like any person in America, the United States is not perfect. but rather than stoop and cut down the people and the problem as Rev. Wright did, Obama acknowledged it and vowed to work on it. he used the phrase "more perfect union" a number of times. the point is that we are not perfect now, nor have ever been. and we may never be. but the idea is to always strive to be, and to grow in that vein.
what makes this speech, and Obama, so great is the unyielding hope and tenacity to cling to those thoughts and ideas that will make this country better, and his unwillingness to let issues dictate his path. his path is set. he is walking the path to make America more perfect. the issues that block this path are obstacles to hurdle. not road signs to another future. everything points to hope.
he wont let his campaign or himself be defined by a single, or even a few issues. he is defined by his overriding push towards a better future for America. it is because of this drive, this hope, this unwillingness to be stopped or derailed by attacks and issues, that i think he is best for the job of President of the United States of America. he does not have all the answers, but he has the intellect and the mindset to absorb the issues that trouble our nation, to seek advice, to think through a solution, and lead this country into a better future.
at this point i cannot see myself casting a ballot for any person other than Obama come November. it would be tragic if he loses the nomination of his party. Hilary may be able to win the White House, but in the process many young Americans will feel disenfranchised with the process. and i feel that Hilary is not as well suited to lead America.
the worst thing that could happen is that Obama loses the nomination, and that as a result the Democratic party is unable to rally behind Hilary, and McCain wins a back door victory built on the rubble of a crumbling Democratic party.
Barack Obama is not perfect. but he is more perfect, and he is everyday striving to be yet more perfect. thats what we need in a president. someone flexible and open minded who can act in the best interest of our nation, not based on preconceived notions, fear, popularity, or money.
youll vote for whomever you like. i just hope that your decision is not defined by a single issue, or by party lines, or by who you'd like to have a beer with. i hope youll take into account all the facets of the person and the country and world that they will be leading. choose wisely America. choose wisely.
the speech was sparked, as im sure youre aware, but some inflammatory remarks made by Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama could have handled this in a number of ways. he could have turned his back on a man who has helped define him. he could have turned his back on the church that brought him into the Christian fold. he could have attacked those who attacked him for being divisive. he could have attacked them for judging something that they dont understand. but what makes Obama's reactions great is that he rose above it all.
he turned it all around. he denounced the words, but accepted the man. he exercised something that many supposed Christians have forgotten: forgiving. no one is perfect, everyone has flaws. but you dont stop loving your mother or brother for saying something that you dont agree with. you forgive them, then try to open their eyes.
just like any person in America, the United States is not perfect. but rather than stoop and cut down the people and the problem as Rev. Wright did, Obama acknowledged it and vowed to work on it. he used the phrase "more perfect union" a number of times. the point is that we are not perfect now, nor have ever been. and we may never be. but the idea is to always strive to be, and to grow in that vein.
what makes this speech, and Obama, so great is the unyielding hope and tenacity to cling to those thoughts and ideas that will make this country better, and his unwillingness to let issues dictate his path. his path is set. he is walking the path to make America more perfect. the issues that block this path are obstacles to hurdle. not road signs to another future. everything points to hope.
he wont let his campaign or himself be defined by a single, or even a few issues. he is defined by his overriding push towards a better future for America. it is because of this drive, this hope, this unwillingness to be stopped or derailed by attacks and issues, that i think he is best for the job of President of the United States of America. he does not have all the answers, but he has the intellect and the mindset to absorb the issues that trouble our nation, to seek advice, to think through a solution, and lead this country into a better future.
at this point i cannot see myself casting a ballot for any person other than Obama come November. it would be tragic if he loses the nomination of his party. Hilary may be able to win the White House, but in the process many young Americans will feel disenfranchised with the process. and i feel that Hilary is not as well suited to lead America.
the worst thing that could happen is that Obama loses the nomination, and that as a result the Democratic party is unable to rally behind Hilary, and McCain wins a back door victory built on the rubble of a crumbling Democratic party.
Barack Obama is not perfect. but he is more perfect, and he is everyday striving to be yet more perfect. thats what we need in a president. someone flexible and open minded who can act in the best interest of our nation, not based on preconceived notions, fear, popularity, or money.
youll vote for whomever you like. i just hope that your decision is not defined by a single issue, or by party lines, or by who you'd like to have a beer with. i hope youll take into account all the facets of the person and the country and world that they will be leading. choose wisely America. choose wisely.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
dinosaur mummy
some kid found nearly fully preserved dinosaur. skin and everything. this is pretty cool if youre a dork. which i obviously am.
dino-mummy
just think of what crap Hollywood could make of this....
dino-mummy
just think of what crap Hollywood could make of this....
13% of Americans think that Barack Obama is Muslim. i found this out when i was watching the news and eating my breakfast this morning. the bit started out with them interviewing random people on the streets of NYC to see what they would say. and at first, i felt a bit embarrassed as i wasnt sure, but i thought he was Christian, which, in fact, he is.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
then i realized something. if i cared i would have known, im sure of that. so then i felt pretty happy realizing that the major candidate that i like best could have been a Muslim and i didnt care. he could be Jewish or an atheist, it really doesnt matter to me.
it was one of those realizations that you have to step outside yourself a bit to make. whether Senator Obama practices Christianity or Islam doesnt matter to me, and i really only realized when the news made a point about the perceptions of the public, and somewhat covertly about how believing that Obama was not Christian would affect their vote. im very happy that i can see past this and be able to look issues that really should matter when selecting a candidate.
this reminds me of the hoopla that surrounded Keith Ellison in his choice to use the Qur'an to be sworn into office as the first Muslim US congressman. there was a call for him to use the Bible, which makes no sense to me. the oath of office is taken over a holy book in order to promise to not just your constituents, but also to your deepest faith, to take your position seriously and abide by your values that got you elected and to honor your promises. having a Muslim take such an oath over the Bible is like a Christian saying "by Allah, i swear i will do my best." it means nothing. (check out the un-bias in this article)
the point here is that too much is made of things that really shouldnt be of great importance. have you heard anything of Keith Ellison since he was sworn into office? has he tried to topple our government from the inside? it really doesnt matter, and it doesnt matter that Obama has a Muslim father. it doesnt matter that Obama is in fact Christian. what matters is what he stands for.
i also find it interesting that the religious right attacks his links to Islam through his father and step father, they also take the opportunity to attack his connections to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright has come to light lately and his sermons have been all over youtube. Obama has tried to distance himself from the man who baptized his children and married he and his wife, Michelle. its hard to ignore this connection. i dont see it as a liability, but many could. i like Ralph Nader, but i wholly disagree with some things he says. i like Rolling Stone magazine, but i think the lean a little too far left and sometimes go too far in endorsing and denouncing candidates. the point is that Wright probably helped Obama by encouraging his early political activism in Chicago, but that doesnt meant that Obama stands for all that Wright does. just like Obama's enrollment in a Muslim school does not mean he is in fact Muslim.
the important thing here is not what religion Obama is. its not who Obama is associated with, or whose sermons he has heard. the important thing is to look at the candidates yourself. to see who they are through your own eyes. dont let media spin make your decisions. dont let me make your decisions. take it all in, do your own research, and decide for yourself. then cast your vote for the person who you think will do best on the job.
i think that Obama's exposure to Islam and Christianity alike make him the best suited of all candidates to understand and better the situation in the middle east. he has already made trips to Iraq, Israel, and Syria. i think that he above the other candidates is best suited for diplomacy in that troubled region of the world. but its no up to me. its up to you and me.
Monday, March 17, 2008
i'm worried.
the thought of losing America's largest generation and soon to be largest portion of the electorate to a democratic party meltdown it terribly frightening and depressing. all those jokes that Jon Stewart and his contemporaries make about how the democrats will lose the election that Bush has served up for them now seem dangerously close to coming true. this article points out the problem and the consequences and i just hope that our country doesnt suffer as a result, but i fear it will.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
freakin sweet!!!
remember the Ford Ranchero and Chevy El Camino? of course you do. style like that is not easily forgotten. and Pontiac is answering the call of goof-balls, red necks, and quirky gearheads alike with a car/truck of their own based on the G8 model that will in all likelihood have better performance that the current line of GM small trucks. it probably wont be too bad on gas either with the strides Gm has made with their small blocks. the only question is if their are enough wacky people out there to make this once popular design profitable.
personally, i like it. i one of the wacky ones who likes El Caminos. but in reality, i dont know that i would buy one. a new one anyway. i dont think i could justify what im guessing will be a roughly $30,000 new price for this. maybe $8,000 for a 2 year old, tho.
Freep.
personally, i like it. i one of the wacky ones who likes El Caminos. but in reality, i dont know that i would buy one. a new one anyway. i dont think i could justify what im guessing will be a roughly $30,000 new price for this. maybe $8,000 for a 2 year old, tho.
Freep.
pandora
my good friend out on the southwest turned me on to a very cool website. if you like music youll like this. pandora.com is an internet radio service where your tastes are the dj. you give it a band or song as a starting point then it plays similar things, based on musical composition, which you give the thumbs up or down and it tailors itself to your tastes. ive been playing around with it for an hour or so this morning, and am infatuated with it.
not only does it find stuff that youre likely to enjoy, it streams them in pretty high quality, and has more information than you could possibly want. it has details on musical composition, band history and details on just about any band imaginable.
you can set up a profile and set up a number of different stations so that if youre like me and like a wide range of music, you can set up various stations to play indie, hip hop, and bluegrass. im going to quit rambling and keep playing with this.
i reccomend you check it out. also, i am not being paid to say this. i just like it.
pandora
not only does it find stuff that youre likely to enjoy, it streams them in pretty high quality, and has more information than you could possibly want. it has details on musical composition, band history and details on just about any band imaginable.
you can set up a profile and set up a number of different stations so that if youre like me and like a wide range of music, you can set up various stations to play indie, hip hop, and bluegrass. im going to quit rambling and keep playing with this.
i reccomend you check it out. also, i am not being paid to say this. i just like it.
pandora
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ryan on Ralph
now thats hot.
since i wrote my blog about Ralph Nader's candidacy, i have been waiting for Mr Dinkgrave to comment on the situation. it has happened!
Ryan's article. read it. think about it. think about it before you vote. or choose not to vote. think about it. always think.
since i wrote my blog about Ralph Nader's candidacy, i have been waiting for Mr Dinkgrave to comment on the situation. it has happened!
Ryan's article. read it. think about it. think about it before you vote. or choose not to vote. think about it. always think.
two a day
thats how many in Michigan die from lack of health insurance. 650 people a year die because of late diagnosis, inadequate treatment, and inability to afford drugs. this doesnt even take into account those who suffer everything from colds to chronic conditions without medical help.
there are many on the right who oppose universal health care, mostly on the grounds that it is not the government's job. but the government's primary concern is the wellbeing of its citizens. people are dying and suffering every day because they dont have the means and access to good health care. this should be of utmost concern to our government.
some conservatives claim that the free market can handle health care better than the government. well the free market has dropped the ball. the government is responsible to ensure the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it has neglected the first. its time for a change.
i am thankful every day that i have always had good health insurance. if not for that i wouldnt be here rambling in this blog day after day. i have a condition called still's disease that can be life threatening. i was hospitalized for 10 days due to it about 5 years ago. that hospital bill came to over $60,000. i think its fair to say that the average American cannot afford that and quite a few, myself included, dont make that in a full year. not to mention that one of my perscriptions would cost close to $1500 a month if not for the generous medical benefits at my company.
many folks are not lucky enough to have had the high quality care that i have because i have been lucky enough to have very good health insurance my entire life. i would be one of those statistics of those folks suffering without insurance, if i had not succumbed to my illness years ago with treatment out of reach. i am fortunate again in that i grew up with hard working parents who provided everything for me. and fortunate that i was able to go to college and get a well paying job and insurance benefits to go with it. but many are not so fortunate. many need help. its time that we help them.
once again, thanks to the free press.
there are many on the right who oppose universal health care, mostly on the grounds that it is not the government's job. but the government's primary concern is the wellbeing of its citizens. people are dying and suffering every day because they dont have the means and access to good health care. this should be of utmost concern to our government.
some conservatives claim that the free market can handle health care better than the government. well the free market has dropped the ball. the government is responsible to ensure the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. it has neglected the first. its time for a change.
i am thankful every day that i have always had good health insurance. if not for that i wouldnt be here rambling in this blog day after day. i have a condition called still's disease that can be life threatening. i was hospitalized for 10 days due to it about 5 years ago. that hospital bill came to over $60,000. i think its fair to say that the average American cannot afford that and quite a few, myself included, dont make that in a full year. not to mention that one of my perscriptions would cost close to $1500 a month if not for the generous medical benefits at my company.
many folks are not lucky enough to have had the high quality care that i have because i have been lucky enough to have very good health insurance my entire life. i would be one of those statistics of those folks suffering without insurance, if i had not succumbed to my illness years ago with treatment out of reach. i am fortunate again in that i grew up with hard working parents who provided everything for me. and fortunate that i was able to go to college and get a well paying job and insurance benefits to go with it. but many are not so fortunate. many need help. its time that we help them.
once again, thanks to the free press.
perhaps i can help
the following is a fairly casual and not entirely persuasive blog/article about the perception of Muslims in America and that few Muslim leaders do anything to denounce and discredit violent and extremist Muslims.
The Spell of Islamophobia.
the point is that most Muslims are not terrorists. most are peaceful people just like any other religious group. there are certainly Christians who are militant about beliefs that the Bible doesn't even address. the same can be said for just about every mainstream religion, they all have their radical factions.
having grown up in metro Detroit, that has the largest Arab population in the US and is home to the Islamic Center of America, i dont see the threat that many do who havent been exposed to Arabs and Muslims might. i dont claim to fully understand their culture and beleifs, but never felt threatened at home or when visiting Dearborn, MI that has a population of over 30,000 Muslims.
i feel like the media is at least partially responsible for perceptions. few views of prominent Muslims are published widely, and i must comment the Post for putting the link to the article on their main page. another problem is that while Arabs are a large group in metro Detroit, they make up a fairly small percentage of the total US population. various studies and polls spout numbers anywhere from 0.5% to 2% of the US population. its no wonder that they arent fully understood. it would be nice if media outlets took more note of those Islamic leaders who denounced violence and preached peace, because they are out there. i guarantee it.
if i may comment on the subject, and i think i may, as this is my blog, i would have to say that religions is the root of too much violence. i cant recall who, but i want to say that it was a comedian or satirist(im pretty sure it was Chris Rock in Dogma...), but someone posed the idea that the reason for interfaith conflict is beleifs. beleifs are unchanging. written in stone. when you refuse to yield, conflict arises. it would be far better if everyone just had ideas. ideas are much more malleable than beleifs. i dont claim to know what is right, but i have an idea. i just try to be a good person. to act as my family taught me, which are Christian values, but the worlds dominant religions all espouse the same core values.
i think bad religion may have said it best: "we’re ready now to feast on an atheist peace."
The Spell of Islamophobia.
the point is that most Muslims are not terrorists. most are peaceful people just like any other religious group. there are certainly Christians who are militant about beliefs that the Bible doesn't even address. the same can be said for just about every mainstream religion, they all have their radical factions.
having grown up in metro Detroit, that has the largest Arab population in the US and is home to the Islamic Center of America, i dont see the threat that many do who havent been exposed to Arabs and Muslims might. i dont claim to fully understand their culture and beleifs, but never felt threatened at home or when visiting Dearborn, MI that has a population of over 30,000 Muslims.
i feel like the media is at least partially responsible for perceptions. few views of prominent Muslims are published widely, and i must comment the Post for putting the link to the article on their main page. another problem is that while Arabs are a large group in metro Detroit, they make up a fairly small percentage of the total US population. various studies and polls spout numbers anywhere from 0.5% to 2% of the US population. its no wonder that they arent fully understood. it would be nice if media outlets took more note of those Islamic leaders who denounced violence and preached peace, because they are out there. i guarantee it.
if i may comment on the subject, and i think i may, as this is my blog, i would have to say that religions is the root of too much violence. i cant recall who, but i want to say that it was a comedian or satirist(im pretty sure it was Chris Rock in Dogma...), but someone posed the idea that the reason for interfaith conflict is beleifs. beleifs are unchanging. written in stone. when you refuse to yield, conflict arises. it would be far better if everyone just had ideas. ideas are much more malleable than beleifs. i dont claim to know what is right, but i have an idea. i just try to be a good person. to act as my family taught me, which are Christian values, but the worlds dominant religions all espouse the same core values.
i think bad religion may have said it best: "we’re ready now to feast on an atheist peace."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
dear kwame,
youre making national news for being an idiot. i think you should stop. you say you wont quit on the city of Detroit, which sounds noble, except that it is that city which you have disgraced. it is because of you that Detroit has another black eye. (i'm beginning to wonder how many eyes the D has to blacken...) you are doing Detroit and Michigan a disservice by staying in office.
take a cue from Eliot Sptitzer, who has resigned after being caught up in a prostitution ring. he hasnt even lied under oath, before firing and then paying off cops with $9 million in city funds. get your head out of your ass and step aside so that Detroit can move on.
and in response to your state of the city address, which would have been a commendable effort except for the tirade at the end, i offer the following. how dare you call out council members for not sitting by your side on the stage. it is their prerogative to protest your actions and not sit on your stage while you try to sweep your illicit and illegal behavior under the rug.
i must commend those council members who did boycott the address for standing up to the corruption in the mayor's office. i also must commend those who stood outside orchestra hall to protest the mayor. i hope that you will see through this Kilpatrick jab: "This unethical, illegal lynch mob mentality has to stop." the citizens should and must continue their protests and cries for his your resignation, Kwame, because it is you that behaved in and unethical and illegal way. you are damn lucky that this is a figurative and not literal lynch mob. i want your figurative head on a charger. you can keep your literal and worthless one.
as far as the racial epithets that have been hurled at him, thats just stupid. lets not give Mr Kilpatrick realistic grounds to be upset at the public. we should especially care to leave his family out of this. they are not the ones that were wrong. they have been harmed most of all, being citizens of Detroit and being the family that he betrayed in his affair. they should receive nothing but our sympathy for dealing with and presumably loving and obviously flawed and stubborn man.
the following is straight form the Free Press.
"The last five minutes of that speech was stupid, childish and in the vein of our gangster mayor," said Detroit resident Thomas Ward, 19. "When he was defending his position and his family he should have stopped right there, but he continued on in that strange manner. To have a press conference about the state of the city devolve into a circus does not look good. It only discredits him."
i love Detroit. it boggles the minds of people here in DC. i love the changes that i have seen in the city since i was in high school. but i and others keep calling for your head because you have harmed Detroit. and not only have you not appologized to the city for spending its money to cover up your illegal and illicit behavior, you refuse to step down and let Detroit continue its progress. you continue to mire Detroit in scandal. it is you who keeps the city from addressing real and pressing issues. its you. you are the problem. not the city council. not the protesters. since you dont have the good sense to resign, i sincerely hope that Kim Worthy serves up your walking papers if not worse.
i hope that everyone sees that this is not a race issue. Eliot Spitzer has shown that white guys have just as poor judgment as anyone else. he had the grace to step down and put his energy into saving his family life, not fighting a public battle and trying to run the constituents that he has let down. its not a black and white issue. its a right and wrong issue.
another more eloquent rebuttal to the mayors speech by Stephen Henderson.
take a cue from Eliot Sptitzer, who has resigned after being caught up in a prostitution ring. he hasnt even lied under oath, before firing and then paying off cops with $9 million in city funds. get your head out of your ass and step aside so that Detroit can move on.
and in response to your state of the city address, which would have been a commendable effort except for the tirade at the end, i offer the following. how dare you call out council members for not sitting by your side on the stage. it is their prerogative to protest your actions and not sit on your stage while you try to sweep your illicit and illegal behavior under the rug.
i must commend those council members who did boycott the address for standing up to the corruption in the mayor's office. i also must commend those who stood outside orchestra hall to protest the mayor. i hope that you will see through this Kilpatrick jab: "This unethical, illegal lynch mob mentality has to stop." the citizens should and must continue their protests and cries for his your resignation, Kwame, because it is you that behaved in and unethical and illegal way. you are damn lucky that this is a figurative and not literal lynch mob. i want your figurative head on a charger. you can keep your literal and worthless one.
as far as the racial epithets that have been hurled at him, thats just stupid. lets not give Mr Kilpatrick realistic grounds to be upset at the public. we should especially care to leave his family out of this. they are not the ones that were wrong. they have been harmed most of all, being citizens of Detroit and being the family that he betrayed in his affair. they should receive nothing but our sympathy for dealing with and presumably loving and obviously flawed and stubborn man.
the following is straight form the Free Press.
"The last five minutes of that speech was stupid, childish and in the vein of our gangster mayor," said Detroit resident Thomas Ward, 19. "When he was defending his position and his family he should have stopped right there, but he continued on in that strange manner. To have a press conference about the state of the city devolve into a circus does not look good. It only discredits him."
In singling out Cockrel, who sat in the audience instead of his usual spot on stage because of the text message scandal, the mayor said, "President Cockrel, we have much more serious issues affecting our city than whether we attend a speech or not."
Cockrel said he expected Kilpatrick to call him out during the speech, but noted the mayor has not returned any of his requests to speak with him since the scandal broke.
"To be addressed in a public forum, I don't have a problem with it, but I have to question the sincerity behind that comment," he said. "If that's the way the mayor feels, he knows where to find me."(Freep)
Mr Kilpatrick, how can you call out President Cockrel like that when it is your scandal that keeps the city mired up, unable to effectively move forward. it is completely wrong of you to blame him for the mess that you have created. you have dug yourself into quite the hole, and for you to blame and accuse the city council for not digging you out is asinine.
i hope that President Cockrel continues to confront you on this and not let it got. i hope that the citizens of Detroit do the same. I hope that you finally come to your senses, and step aside, and let the city of Detroit move on and move forward on the trail that you helped to blaze. up until this scandal i was one of those who was willing to overlook your 'gangster' ways because of the progress that i have seen in Detroit since Coleman Young left office.i love Detroit. it boggles the minds of people here in DC. i love the changes that i have seen in the city since i was in high school. but i and others keep calling for your head because you have harmed Detroit. and not only have you not appologized to the city for spending its money to cover up your illegal and illicit behavior, you refuse to step down and let Detroit continue its progress. you continue to mire Detroit in scandal. it is you who keeps the city from addressing real and pressing issues. its you. you are the problem. not the city council. not the protesters. since you dont have the good sense to resign, i sincerely hope that Kim Worthy serves up your walking papers if not worse.
i hope that everyone sees that this is not a race issue. Eliot Spitzer has shown that white guys have just as poor judgment as anyone else. he had the grace to step down and put his energy into saving his family life, not fighting a public battle and trying to run the constituents that he has let down. its not a black and white issue. its a right and wrong issue.
another more eloquent rebuttal to the mayors speech by Stephen Henderson.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
a rebuttal to a rebuttal.
be fore you read my rebuttal, you should probably read the article here.
Mr. Hitchens goes to great lengths to try and shoot holes in the argument of Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stigliz, but makes no real point in his article, despite the title which might lead someone to believe that the struggle in Iraq is entirely worth the $12 billion a month we are currently spending and all that we have already spent.
Hitchens asserts in his article that Iraq was not a war of choice. well i personally havent seen a real reason for it yet. and he presented nothing new. nothing at all really. people have said that Saddam was a despot, but such was the case when we funded him in fighting Iran, was it not? i heard that he had weapons of mass destruction. we all did. then we found out that was entirely false. sure intelligence is not infallible, but it should be damn accurate when thousands of American, and many fold Iraqi citizens', lives are at stake. am i wrong?
his next argument is that the article he is picking apart contains the flawed logic that they only calculated the cost of the war and didnt compare it to the cost of not going to war and imposing diplomatic and military measures to cripple and oust Saddam. i have to say that Mr Hitchens is correct on this point. But i can counter that a couple of ways.
first, the war, including indirect costs, all of which is in the original article that Hitchens attacks, has cost the US $3 trillion dollars. 3 trillion. THREE FUCKING TRILLION. there is no way that embargoes, enforcing no fly zones, restricting trade and dimplomacy could have come close to that figure. thats almost a quarter of the total US gross domestic product last year. im sure that has nothing to do with the looming r-word.
second, and more importantly than any monetary amount, Hitchens completely fails to take the human cost into account. tell any soldier's young widow that the war is worth the cost, worth her husband dying, and see what she says. look a dead soldier's mother in the eye and tell her that her child's life is just the price we have to pay. and pay for what, i might add. anarchy?
Hitchens also addresses the costs of keeping Saddam in power, which i havent seen any figures on, he is quite correct in that. i want to emphasize at this point that i in no way sympathize with Saddam Hussein. he was a terrible person and ran a ruthless cold blooded government that repressed, tortured and slaughtered its own people. its hard to know when to get involved. and in this case even worse because of the way the US once supported and funded the same man that we effectively brought to the gallows. at what point do we say that you cannot behave in that same way that you did and that we funded you to do? why, after years of this, did the US deem it necessary to end it and send to the slaughter our own men and women?
he next asks that we take into account the value that the future independent Iraq will be a third party to the petroleum duopoly of Saudi Arabia and Iran. talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. plus, those chickens arent even ours. and who says that Iraq is going to look favorably on us whenever they come to run their country and oil. there will be people who have grown up entirely under US occupation and relative anarchy. i doubt that their view of the US will be all that magnanimous. and i thought this war wasnt about the oil...
next, Hitchens notes that our troops have gained valuable experience in fighting terrorist groups such as Al-Queada. sure they have. but i doubt that would be nearly as big of concern had we not sent the country and region into anarchy. plus, where are his calculations on how many troops have lost their lives to IEDs, guerrilla attacks, and suicide bombers in the process? learning to fight a foe that we in large part created with the Iraq war is circular logic at its best. to expand an analogy i have used before, this logic is like repeatedly shitting in youre bed, then saying that doing this has allowed you to become very good at cleaning up shit in your bed.
Mr Hitchens completes his article by making fun of Bilmes and Stigliz. and while i cannot say that they were entirely correct in their calculations, it just seems like a low blow. he then suggests that all the money that Obama and Clinton have raised should be used to help resolve poverty, which is again a low blow at the left, and a surprisingly civic minded thing to come from such a right side voice.
ill end by saying that Hitchens is dead on in that most war cost calculations fail to take into account a cost of other options. but he, and we, must acknowledge that war is an expensive proposition. that there is no way that no war is more expensive that a prolonged war that adds $13 TRILLION every month. i certainly cannot say that anything we have achieved there has been worth the loss in life. there is no way that this war in Iraq has been worth it. no way.
Mr. Hitchens goes to great lengths to try and shoot holes in the argument of Linda J. Bilmes and Joseph E. Stigliz, but makes no real point in his article, despite the title which might lead someone to believe that the struggle in Iraq is entirely worth the $12 billion a month we are currently spending and all that we have already spent.
Hitchens asserts in his article that Iraq was not a war of choice. well i personally havent seen a real reason for it yet. and he presented nothing new. nothing at all really. people have said that Saddam was a despot, but such was the case when we funded him in fighting Iran, was it not? i heard that he had weapons of mass destruction. we all did. then we found out that was entirely false. sure intelligence is not infallible, but it should be damn accurate when thousands of American, and many fold Iraqi citizens', lives are at stake. am i wrong?
his next argument is that the article he is picking apart contains the flawed logic that they only calculated the cost of the war and didnt compare it to the cost of not going to war and imposing diplomatic and military measures to cripple and oust Saddam. i have to say that Mr Hitchens is correct on this point. But i can counter that a couple of ways.
first, the war, including indirect costs, all of which is in the original article that Hitchens attacks, has cost the US $3 trillion dollars. 3 trillion. THREE FUCKING TRILLION. there is no way that embargoes, enforcing no fly zones, restricting trade and dimplomacy could have come close to that figure. thats almost a quarter of the total US gross domestic product last year. im sure that has nothing to do with the looming r-word.
second, and more importantly than any monetary amount, Hitchens completely fails to take the human cost into account. tell any soldier's young widow that the war is worth the cost, worth her husband dying, and see what she says. look a dead soldier's mother in the eye and tell her that her child's life is just the price we have to pay. and pay for what, i might add. anarchy?
Hitchens also addresses the costs of keeping Saddam in power, which i havent seen any figures on, he is quite correct in that. i want to emphasize at this point that i in no way sympathize with Saddam Hussein. he was a terrible person and ran a ruthless cold blooded government that repressed, tortured and slaughtered its own people. its hard to know when to get involved. and in this case even worse because of the way the US once supported and funded the same man that we effectively brought to the gallows. at what point do we say that you cannot behave in that same way that you did and that we funded you to do? why, after years of this, did the US deem it necessary to end it and send to the slaughter our own men and women?
he next asks that we take into account the value that the future independent Iraq will be a third party to the petroleum duopoly of Saudi Arabia and Iran. talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. plus, those chickens arent even ours. and who says that Iraq is going to look favorably on us whenever they come to run their country and oil. there will be people who have grown up entirely under US occupation and relative anarchy. i doubt that their view of the US will be all that magnanimous. and i thought this war wasnt about the oil...
next, Hitchens notes that our troops have gained valuable experience in fighting terrorist groups such as Al-Queada. sure they have. but i doubt that would be nearly as big of concern had we not sent the country and region into anarchy. plus, where are his calculations on how many troops have lost their lives to IEDs, guerrilla attacks, and suicide bombers in the process? learning to fight a foe that we in large part created with the Iraq war is circular logic at its best. to expand an analogy i have used before, this logic is like repeatedly shitting in youre bed, then saying that doing this has allowed you to become very good at cleaning up shit in your bed.
Mr Hitchens completes his article by making fun of Bilmes and Stigliz. and while i cannot say that they were entirely correct in their calculations, it just seems like a low blow. he then suggests that all the money that Obama and Clinton have raised should be used to help resolve poverty, which is again a low blow at the left, and a surprisingly civic minded thing to come from such a right side voice.
ill end by saying that Hitchens is dead on in that most war cost calculations fail to take into account a cost of other options. but he, and we, must acknowledge that war is an expensive proposition. that there is no way that no war is more expensive that a prolonged war that adds $13 TRILLION every month. i certainly cannot say that anything we have achieved there has been worth the loss in life. there is no way that this war in Iraq has been worth it. no way.
dumb-o-crats
sweet title, huh? yea, i thought of that all by myself.
in all seriousness, the democrats need to get their shit together. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, violating party rules, so the democrats didnt count them. now that Obama and Clinton are nose to nose, maybe they do want to count those states.
thing is, they can use the previous numbers, Obama wasnt even on Michigan's ballot. so that means a new one. but they are talking $10mil for a new one. i dont know about Florida, but the mitten cannot afford that on public money. so there have been all sorts of ideas, the latest being a mail in vote.
wake up, dummies. its called the internet. set up a website. send party members a letter or email with a login and password to get on and vote. the party can set this up and run it easily an inexpensively, and they should handle it. it shouldnt fall to the states or the voters, because its their own squabbling that brought this about. kids have polls on their myspace pages. for free. it takes like 5 minutes. FOR FREE.
c'mon, its the 90's!!!
dude, its freepy.
in all seriousness, the democrats need to get their shit together. Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries, violating party rules, so the democrats didnt count them. now that Obama and Clinton are nose to nose, maybe they do want to count those states.
thing is, they can use the previous numbers, Obama wasnt even on Michigan's ballot. so that means a new one. but they are talking $10mil for a new one. i dont know about Florida, but the mitten cannot afford that on public money. so there have been all sorts of ideas, the latest being a mail in vote.
wake up, dummies. its called the internet. set up a website. send party members a letter or email with a login and password to get on and vote. the party can set this up and run it easily an inexpensively, and they should handle it. it shouldnt fall to the states or the voters, because its their own squabbling that brought this about. kids have polls on their myspace pages. for free. it takes like 5 minutes. FOR FREE.
c'mon, its the 90's!!!
dude, its freepy.
this sounds fucking sweet
the Red Bull Air Race World Series: yet another reason to be in Michigan. as if i needed another.
planes flying at 200+mph 30 feet above the Detroit River making lots of crazy turns. sounds awesome. good work to those who put this thing together.
planes flying at 200+mph 30 feet above the Detroit River making lots of crazy turns. sounds awesome. good work to those who put this thing together.
detroit diesel
really the lack there of. for some reason the big 3 are struggling with bringing passenger diesels to the market, relegating them to trucks and heavy vehicles. diesel vehicles are a huge portion of the European car market. granted, diesel prices are a bit lower in Europe than in North America, but the benefits are easy to see, even at 10% up charge from the old world.
VW has diesel engines in Jettas and Rabbits that get 40+ mpg. 'nuf said. not to mention the longer life of diesel power plants, the crazy high resale of diesels, and now the ability to meet emisions standards without a huge cost. i wanted one when i bought my new car, but even VW didnt have any available in my price range. and the domestic brands claim there isnt a market.
the market doesnt exist because you dont sell any. the only thing with a US badge you can get with a diesel is a truck. all this while they market and sell diesels like gasoline engines on the other side of the Atlantic. GM is going to bring its Opel Astra to the US under the Saturn badge, which is a great move, and may allow GM to compete more effectively against a number of popular small cars from foreign auto makers, a market in which GM is barely a presence in North America. the stupid thing is that they are not bringing with it the popular turbo diesel option. on that puts out equivalent horse power(~150), more torque, and nearly twice the fuel economy as its gasoline counterpart.
some claim that diesel is dirty, but with emissions standards inexpensively within reach, thats just nonsense. some say that they are loud, but any VW diesel owner can tell you thats not an issue with passenger vehicles. sure, they sound different, but not any louder. the only other barrier that the new world faces is population centers in colder climates that can be rough on diesels, making it difficult to start them. but guess what, people have been driving diesel trucks for decades in the north, and it takes a fairly inexpensive block heater to make it completely viable in any climate.
the only legitimate challenge that i see is that many urban gas stations dont have a diesel pump. but most stations near freeways have them, plus with 40+mpg economy, who needs to worry about passing a couple of stations by before filling up
ill leave the puns to the News.
VW has diesel engines in Jettas and Rabbits that get 40+ mpg. 'nuf said. not to mention the longer life of diesel power plants, the crazy high resale of diesels, and now the ability to meet emisions standards without a huge cost. i wanted one when i bought my new car, but even VW didnt have any available in my price range. and the domestic brands claim there isnt a market.
the market doesnt exist because you dont sell any. the only thing with a US badge you can get with a diesel is a truck. all this while they market and sell diesels like gasoline engines on the other side of the Atlantic. GM is going to bring its Opel Astra to the US under the Saturn badge, which is a great move, and may allow GM to compete more effectively against a number of popular small cars from foreign auto makers, a market in which GM is barely a presence in North America. the stupid thing is that they are not bringing with it the popular turbo diesel option. on that puts out equivalent horse power(~150), more torque, and nearly twice the fuel economy as its gasoline counterpart.
some claim that diesel is dirty, but with emissions standards inexpensively within reach, thats just nonsense. some say that they are loud, but any VW diesel owner can tell you thats not an issue with passenger vehicles. sure, they sound different, but not any louder. the only other barrier that the new world faces is population centers in colder climates that can be rough on diesels, making it difficult to start them. but guess what, people have been driving diesel trucks for decades in the north, and it takes a fairly inexpensive block heater to make it completely viable in any climate.
the only legitimate challenge that i see is that many urban gas stations dont have a diesel pump. but most stations near freeways have them, plus with 40+mpg economy, who needs to worry about passing a couple of stations by before filling up
ill leave the puns to the News.
Monday, March 10, 2008
DST
really, whats the point? to me all daylight saving time ever seems to do is fuck with everybody's schedule twice a year. the spring is always worse, as you lose that hour and it feels like getting up an hour earlier. probably because we are getting up an hour earlier. and instead of getting up along with the sun in the morning, i am at work by the time its up for another month or so.
then in the fall, all the sudden we lose that hour of daylight in the evening, so that we get to use up all the daylight being indoors at work. it sucks to leave in the morning and its dark, then return home in the evening, and its dark.
i cant understand why it is that we dont just stick to DST all year. its not like our time ever reflects what the sun does, time zones put an end to that long long ago. so what else keeps us going back during the winter? that the world uses GMT as the base. who cares? why not just do what is more comfortable for people, which means not fucking with the clocks every spring and fall.
oh, and the extension of DST by a month a couple years back was designed to save energy by not needing to use lights. and that may be the case, but what about the need for extra cooling during the summer by arriving at home an hour earlier and cranking up the AC. they also claim its safer, you can complete your commute in the daylight. but if youre at all like me, you woke up well before dark and the sun came up as you arrived at work. kids are waiting at bus stops and walking to school in the dark, too. so maybe the afternoon is safer, but the morning cant be. i think its about time to just pick a time and stick with it. ben franklin's idea may have worked well back in the 18th century, but i think its time has passed.
sure its not really that big of a deal, but if congress can waste their time with this, then so can i. the freep has an article on it too, so im not the only one.
then in the fall, all the sudden we lose that hour of daylight in the evening, so that we get to use up all the daylight being indoors at work. it sucks to leave in the morning and its dark, then return home in the evening, and its dark.
i cant understand why it is that we dont just stick to DST all year. its not like our time ever reflects what the sun does, time zones put an end to that long long ago. so what else keeps us going back during the winter? that the world uses GMT as the base. who cares? why not just do what is more comfortable for people, which means not fucking with the clocks every spring and fall.
oh, and the extension of DST by a month a couple years back was designed to save energy by not needing to use lights. and that may be the case, but what about the need for extra cooling during the summer by arriving at home an hour earlier and cranking up the AC. they also claim its safer, you can complete your commute in the daylight. but if youre at all like me, you woke up well before dark and the sun came up as you arrived at work. kids are waiting at bus stops and walking to school in the dark, too. so maybe the afternoon is safer, but the morning cant be. i think its about time to just pick a time and stick with it. ben franklin's idea may have worked well back in the 18th century, but i think its time has passed.
sure its not really that big of a deal, but if congress can waste their time with this, then so can i. the freep has an article on it too, so im not the only one.
Friday, March 7, 2008
optimism defeict
the reality is that the economy is struggling a bit. but it remains to be seen exactly how much. many believe that if we are not already in a recession that one is on the horizon. but how much of this is based in fact and empirical data, and how much is fueled by a self sustaining circle of gloominess?
check out this article. it makes a fairly strong argument. all i know is that whatever the cause, the economy is limping at the moment. what happens tomorrow and beyond is anyone's guess. well, anyone but me.
check out this article. it makes a fairly strong argument. all i know is that whatever the cause, the economy is limping at the moment. what happens tomorrow and beyond is anyone's guess. well, anyone but me.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Effect and Cause
i was listening to Icky Thump by the White Stripes on the way to work this morning. i have always really like the last song, Effect and Cause. and i kind of thought that it was the best come back to what John McCain has been spouting lately.
he has said repeatedly that 'we are where we are.' which has about as much substance as Jessica Simpson. really, i thought that we are where we were from what hes been saying. all the while claiming that he has the record to prove he is the one to lead. but then he missed the vote on the economic stimulus package. the economy has got to be in the top 3 of just about everybody's big issues this election year. if not the issue that determines who they will vote for.
so McCain is basically saying "dont look at the past, we need to focus on the present. and what makes me best to lead in the present is my past, which shouldnt be looked at, but trust me its what qualifies me." he is pulling a Bush/Cheney and riding the Iraq war, terrorism, and fear to success. he has made these issues his cause, but in reality they are the three musketeers' effect and legacy, not the cause. I dont understand how the republicans have been able to run on the same issues for more than 6 years.
now if we focus on what McCain is doing now, its not so bad, but what he has proposed for the future is a little scary. he has admitted that he doesnt know jack about the economy and says that we will be in Iraq for another 100 years. i dont understand how people can consider voting for a candidate that says these things. in contrast Obama has denounced NAFTA in an appeal to bring back jobs lost to our neighbors to the north and south. mostly south. he has also pushed to withdraw troops as quickly as possible and push for talks with Iran and other hostile nations. while this sounds better to me than McCain, its still has its problems as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post lays out.
the issue i have here is that McCain is deliberately redirecting our attention to a cause that is really the effect of what he is in large part responsible for. Obama and Clinton have made promises that are unlikely to be honored, mostly because they sound good, the idea is right, but as president all actions must be calculated, thought through thoroughly, and planned out. one cant shoot first and ask questions later or you end up in a prolonged conflict with people you dont really understand, hemorrhaging money in a place where you didnt belong in in the first place.
what we cant do is allow McCain to get away with turning a horrible thing that he is at least partially responsible for into a cause that he can ride to the white house. its like if i came into your house and crapped in your bed, then said 'i am the one to resolve this problem! over the next month we will use a tooth pick to slowly remove the shit, then leave the sheets on the bed for the next year, and maybe, sometime after that, we will rinse off the sheets.' when any idiot can see that you kick the asshole who fucked up your house out, clean up the mess, and get on with life.
people keep saying that this is an historic election, what with a black guy, and girl, and and old white guy vying for the presidency. but its also historic because of what is at stake. the economy, the war, the renewal of real diplomacy, the restoration of fundamental American rights, and restoring the world's respect for the US. i have been pointing the finger at McCain, but i have little more confidence in Clinton, and a bit more for Obama, but i fear that none of them is really bringing America together and proposing realistic solutions.
like i said before, ill probably become disenfranchised by the time of the election and vote for someone like Ralph Nader. while i dont agree with all that he says, he does address the issues at hand, propose solutions to them, and seem to actually care about America and Americans.
woe is me. when i think about the future, i get scared. maybe ill move to Denmark, not have to worry about social issues, work 3o hours a week, and stay out of the worlds business. except for the occasional inflammatory cartoon...
he has said repeatedly that 'we are where we are.' which has about as much substance as Jessica Simpson. really, i thought that we are where we were from what hes been saying. all the while claiming that he has the record to prove he is the one to lead. but then he missed the vote on the economic stimulus package. the economy has got to be in the top 3 of just about everybody's big issues this election year. if not the issue that determines who they will vote for.
so McCain is basically saying "dont look at the past, we need to focus on the present. and what makes me best to lead in the present is my past, which shouldnt be looked at, but trust me its what qualifies me." he is pulling a Bush/Cheney and riding the Iraq war, terrorism, and fear to success. he has made these issues his cause, but in reality they are the three musketeers' effect and legacy, not the cause. I dont understand how the republicans have been able to run on the same issues for more than 6 years.
now if we focus on what McCain is doing now, its not so bad, but what he has proposed for the future is a little scary. he has admitted that he doesnt know jack about the economy and says that we will be in Iraq for another 100 years. i dont understand how people can consider voting for a candidate that says these things. in contrast Obama has denounced NAFTA in an appeal to bring back jobs lost to our neighbors to the north and south. mostly south. he has also pushed to withdraw troops as quickly as possible and push for talks with Iran and other hostile nations. while this sounds better to me than McCain, its still has its problems as Michael Gerson of the Washington Post lays out.
the issue i have here is that McCain is deliberately redirecting our attention to a cause that is really the effect of what he is in large part responsible for. Obama and Clinton have made promises that are unlikely to be honored, mostly because they sound good, the idea is right, but as president all actions must be calculated, thought through thoroughly, and planned out. one cant shoot first and ask questions later or you end up in a prolonged conflict with people you dont really understand, hemorrhaging money in a place where you didnt belong in in the first place.
what we cant do is allow McCain to get away with turning a horrible thing that he is at least partially responsible for into a cause that he can ride to the white house. its like if i came into your house and crapped in your bed, then said 'i am the one to resolve this problem! over the next month we will use a tooth pick to slowly remove the shit, then leave the sheets on the bed for the next year, and maybe, sometime after that, we will rinse off the sheets.' when any idiot can see that you kick the asshole who fucked up your house out, clean up the mess, and get on with life.
people keep saying that this is an historic election, what with a black guy, and girl, and and old white guy vying for the presidency. but its also historic because of what is at stake. the economy, the war, the renewal of real diplomacy, the restoration of fundamental American rights, and restoring the world's respect for the US. i have been pointing the finger at McCain, but i have little more confidence in Clinton, and a bit more for Obama, but i fear that none of them is really bringing America together and proposing realistic solutions.
like i said before, ill probably become disenfranchised by the time of the election and vote for someone like Ralph Nader. while i dont agree with all that he says, he does address the issues at hand, propose solutions to them, and seem to actually care about America and Americans.
woe is me. when i think about the future, i get scared. maybe ill move to Denmark, not have to worry about social issues, work 3o hours a week, and stay out of the worlds business. except for the occasional inflammatory cartoon...
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
the rain came down.
its been rather warm here the last few days. a little summer preview, i suppose. and it has been nice. especially last night. we had a summer style rain storm last night. not like crazy thunder and lightning. just steady heavy rain with a bit of wind. and all this went down as i was going to bed. and it made me really happy. i really like the rain. obviously it gets old if it drags out for days and days, but usually i really like it. it was nice to drift off to sleep with the window open, listening to the rain come down and the cars sloshing down the street. the occasional person caught in it running for cover.
if it was me i would play in the puddles. last summer it finally rained after a month without. that night i went to a show. i got home at like 1am, then spent 20 minutes jumping in puddles and whatnot. i was wet to the skin. i peeled off the wet clothes, dried off a bit, and slept like the dead.
if it was me i would play in the puddles. last summer it finally rained after a month without. that night i went to a show. i got home at like 1am, then spent 20 minutes jumping in puddles and whatnot. i was wet to the skin. i peeled off the wet clothes, dried off a bit, and slept like the dead.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
remember what i said about Russia last week?
well, sometime a picture says more. worth a thousand words. or something.
they just dont listen
and now GM is laying people off.
the American Axle vs UAW strike is now rippling through the auto industry. Delphi and Lear are now looking at layoffs. they say they are temporary, but if AAM cant supply the parts that they had been because of this, then the will be less temporary.
while i dont ethically agree with AAM's tactics and stance, i cant say i blame them. they want to stay competitive. and with a surplus of labor in in Detroit, why not push the union. if GM hurts for parts, they will start to push the UAW as well. there are plenty of people who would sign up for jobs at the rates that AAM is offering, and the UAW wont meet them.
I dont blame the UAW for trying to hold their ground, theyve got a great deal going. those guys making those ridiculously high wages dont want to give them up. but the reality is that they are over paid and that AAM could go out and find workers to train and pay half of what the current union guys make. and those workers would be happy. the union is try to shore up pay rates that the market cannot support.
its a delicate balance, and i can see both sides, and i can see why this isnt getting resolved as quickly as i had hoped. i just have trouble justifying the union side of this. if it was AAM trying to rob people and pay them minimum wage, i could see it. but thats not the case. domestic manufacturing needs to be able to compete with outsourced manufacturing. and that doesnt mean paying Americans cut rate prices that they get away with in other parts of the world. US companies have an advantage of being able to buy raw materials domestically and sell the finished ones domestically avoiding all sorts of shipping costs and tariffs. therefore they can still pay decent wages, which i have to say AAM is offering.
maybe im missing something, but the way i see it, the union has to give more. not completely agree to AAM's conditions, but it cannot single handedly shore up unrealistic wages.
im pulling for you, Detroit.
i like the freep.
the American Axle vs UAW strike is now rippling through the auto industry. Delphi and Lear are now looking at layoffs. they say they are temporary, but if AAM cant supply the parts that they had been because of this, then the will be less temporary.
while i dont ethically agree with AAM's tactics and stance, i cant say i blame them. they want to stay competitive. and with a surplus of labor in in Detroit, why not push the union. if GM hurts for parts, they will start to push the UAW as well. there are plenty of people who would sign up for jobs at the rates that AAM is offering, and the UAW wont meet them.
I dont blame the UAW for trying to hold their ground, theyve got a great deal going. those guys making those ridiculously high wages dont want to give them up. but the reality is that they are over paid and that AAM could go out and find workers to train and pay half of what the current union guys make. and those workers would be happy. the union is try to shore up pay rates that the market cannot support.
its a delicate balance, and i can see both sides, and i can see why this isnt getting resolved as quickly as i had hoped. i just have trouble justifying the union side of this. if it was AAM trying to rob people and pay them minimum wage, i could see it. but thats not the case. domestic manufacturing needs to be able to compete with outsourced manufacturing. and that doesnt mean paying Americans cut rate prices that they get away with in other parts of the world. US companies have an advantage of being able to buy raw materials domestically and sell the finished ones domestically avoiding all sorts of shipping costs and tariffs. therefore they can still pay decent wages, which i have to say AAM is offering.
maybe im missing something, but the way i see it, the union has to give more. not completely agree to AAM's conditions, but it cannot single handedly shore up unrealistic wages.
im pulling for you, Detroit.
i like the freep.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
