Howdy y'all!
It's been a whirlwind year for me. At the onset of 2005 I was quitting my job in NY to move to Miami. By July I met the woman whom I'd end up being engaged to. Unfortunately she lived 4 hours north of me and so from about August to the end of October I drove back and forth from Miami to Tampa every weekend to be with her. All the while I still made sure that provided fresh content for this blog.
I started PC back in November of 2004 just after the presidential election. I had spent the previous 3 years (since 9/11) arguing with and ulitimately alienating my friends and family with my political analysis. Up to that point I didn't even know what a blog was. I was turned on to the blogging world, ironically, by a group of "friends" who actually thought my opinions bordered somewhere between insanity and fascism. Anywho, this blog ended up being the perfect outlet for all of my political energy and more importantly, it got me back into a hobby I've long neglected, writing.
PC is a labor of love. When I started it, I had visions of being "seen" and possibly tapped to be a professional opinion writer. I used to joke that I wanted to apprentice under Sean Hannity as I could shill with the best of them for the rice price ; )
However, at 100 hits a day, while anything is possible, I've gotten away from the idea that this is a living resume for political writing and have just embraced the fact that this blog is indeed my hobby. A hobby I relish and will continue to pour my heart and soul into in the new year.
There will be some changes though.
Over the passed year many people have commented to me that while I write well and cover interesting topics, many people don't comment because they either don't see the relevance of the story to their lives or my commentary isn't particularly bombastic. Some folks have said that my blog tends to be very reasonable and even-handed. There's not much I can do about the latter but the former I intend to fix.
Next year I will abandon my own rule about covering stories that nobody else seems to be looking at. I used to believe that doing this would peel away Drudges readership. It ain't gonna happen. Instead I will mix it up a bit. I didn't talk at all about Iraq because everyone else seemed to be doing and I wanted to stand apart from the pack. Next year I will make more of an effort to throw my two cents in on mainstream topics along side the more obscure foriegn affairs stories. As they say in Hollywood, you do one for the business and one for yourself.
I'm also going to try and write more authentic columns drawing on my experiences as a social worker and a therapist. I've already started to experiment with these themes and although I personally enjoy writing about foriegn affairs, it is the social commentaries that seem to garner the most positive responses. In fact, my "Politics of Star Wars," piece ended up being the most commented on story of the year on PC. In addition, my pieces on farm subsidies, parenting, education, child welfare/sex trade and alternative fuels were the most reprinted stories across the blogosphere according to a recent google search of my name.
Intermitten with the news items, both domestic and foriegn, and the social commentaries, I will still try to cover some business news. It's not the most popular part of my blog but I still like it and in reading about these things I end up learning a lot. I will however try to make those posts more interesting for you readers.
The other part of my blog that seems to get a lot of responses in reposts if not in direct comments is book reviews. As a matter of fact, my review of "South Park Conservatives" ended up being linked to Wikipedia. Maybe that doesn't mean much but I think it's pretty cool.
Unless I'm told otherwise, I'll still be reviewing books for Popandpolitics.com once a week in the new year. My editor seems to be posting my reviews Thursday nights so said reviews will still be posted here Friday mornings and through the weekend.
This year I'm going to try and balance what I review between 5 main topics. Politics/Current affairs, religion, history, business/financial and science. I've mapped out my reading list for the 6 months (because I'm a nerd) and here are some of the books that I will be reviewing:
Plows, Plagues and Petroleum by William F. Ruddiman
How to Make Love Like a Porn Start by Jenna Jameson
Rogue State by William C. Triplett II
House Poor by June Fletcher
The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney
Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan, Jonathan L. Reed
The Search: How Google and Its Rivals Rewrote the Rules of Business and Transformed Our Culture by John Battelle
The First World War by Hew Strachan
Why Is Sex Fun?: The Evolution of Human Sexuality by Jared Diamond
Paris 1919 by Margaret Macmillan, Richard Holbrooke
Pornified by Pamela Paul
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
That about wraps it up for me. They'll be one more joint post with 411Mania.com sometime between tomorrow and the New Year and then we'll start fresh on January 2nd.
Thanks to all the people that have kept coming back to this blog and have left comments. I appreciate it.
Happy New Year! (Condi in '08)
Heard at Blogtalkradio.com/whiskeyrebellion every Tuesday Night at 8:00 PM Eastern, Call In At (646) 915-8862 Intellectual Honesty is a Greater Virtue Than Party Loyalty
Friday, December 30, 2005
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Home Sweet Home
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
I’ve always lived in the suburbs. Whether it was on the outskirts of New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Boston or Tampa, in almost all places where I’ve laid my head, I’ve been surrounded by the familiar visage of sprawling well-kept lawns and knotty pines. Even when I briefly lived in an apartment in Miami, my complex was well within range of dozens of housing developments. Now despite being suburbs, they may not have been the best of neighborhoods; that is to say that in my youth growing up in Uniondale, Long Island (NY) I could find my way to the local elementary school by closely following the crack vials that lined the curbed sidewalks. The nearest park was forbidden for me to enter by my parents as it was infested with gangs and drug dealers.
Aside from the occasional descent into city-like criminal patterns, the suburbs are, in my humble opinion, a nice place to live and bring up a family. Where I’m living now, in a suburb outside of Tampa, FL, I just got back from walking my spoiled, inbred Pomeranian around the neighborhood and there was nary a person in sight. Mind you, it was 11:00 PM when I went on this jaunt.
Typically people want to live in suburbs not only because of their aesthetic value but also because in theory, they are the safest places to bring up ones family. Another reason people tend to prefer the suburbs to the city is because it is assumed that environmentally speaking, there are fewer hazards among the sprawl than there are in urban centers. We all know that city’s are blighted not only with endless noise pollution but are also scarred with tons of toxins in the air. Surely rolling hills of finely mowed lawns accenting well kept two story homes is preferable to an army of skyscrapers blocking out the sun and factories blowing plumes of black death into the atmosphere. At least you’d think that was the case.
According to an article in USA Today, our beloved suburbs are, “also environmentally more worrisome than people realize, according to researchers reporting at a meeting this month of the American Geophysical Union, an international association of scientists.
Suburbs today make up an area very likely three or four times the size of Ohio, says Jennifer Jenkins, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Vermont.
And a standard feature that is raising red flags is the septic tank. Where houses are far apart, individual septic tanks are much less expensive than sewer lines for dealing with human waste. And as municipalities limit sewer extensions to save money and limit growth, more subdivisions are being built with septic tanks.
Lawrence Band, a professor of geography at the University of North Carolina, says his research shows that septic tanks are more responsible than previously believed for the nitrogen runoff that fouls the nation's lakes, streams and waterways.
"Nitrogen causes algae blooms, fishery declines and low water quality," says Band, who has been researching nitrogen runoff in the Baltimore suburbs. "We were surprised to find that areas zoned to be low-density to protect watersheds had the highest nitrogen levels."
It's estimated that a person puts out 7 pounds of nitrogen a year in waste, and about half of the nitrogen in a septic tank reaches the water table, says Judy Denver, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.”
The same article also cites those lawns we’re so proud of as yet another source of pollution. “However green, lawns aren't anywhere near as ecologically friendly as undeveloped land, the researchers say. Keeping them lush means lots of water and nitrogen-rich fertilizer, which further damages waterways.
Though a single lawn may not seem that big, grass is now "the largest irrigated crop in the U.S.," Jenkins says; it equals the area planted in corn in the USA.”
I mentioned those knotty pines that are so familiar and inviting on my treks through the old neighborhood. Yet, according to another article, “of all the carbon stored in trees in Maryland, only about two-thirds is in forests; the rest is in trees planted in yards and median strips…”
Now there’s a debate in the science community about the effectiveness of carbon sequestration in trees is for the environment overall. Some studies have shown that this method of combating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and attempting to mitigate global warming then turns around and causes water and nutrient depletion and increased soil salinity and acidity. I tell you, we can’t win for losing in this world.
Unfortunately, it is not like we’re going to stop building suburbs. As a matter of fact, in a growing state such as Florida, the trend has been that more and more families are moving down here from the colder states like my old stomping grounds of New York. In some cases new families are able to buy resold homes but the majority of folks are going to buy newly constructed suburban homes, complete with all the trappings of possible environmental degradation.
On a side note, my liberal pappy keeps saying that he hopes more and more Yankees move to Fl and change the political colors from red to blue. He says this in a very condescending way toward the traditional resents of the Sunshine State.
Getting back to the housing market, it is in fact flourishing though, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance reports that, “Homebuilders, however, sense that the boom is fading. Toll Brothers, which builds luxury homes in expensive suburbs, will build fewer homes in 2006 than it had planned. And existing homes are taking longer to sell. Still, real estate isn't in a crisis. Home prices have crested in parts of the Northeast and West, but values in those areas will deflate only a little and in an orderly fashion. Nationally, house prices will rise at their historical rate, 4% to 6%.”
With all of the great institutions civilized society has brought us, there’s no escaping the fact that it also brings harbingers of our own undoing. Even worse is the juvenile debate between those who believe there’s no such thing as environmental degradation caused by the existence of human civilization and those that believe the way to environmental preservation is for us to tear it all down and go back to hunter/gatherer lifestyles (with lots of marijuana of course). As per usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. As all of the above scientists have stated and many more will echo, it isn’t that suburban life is inherently bad, it’s that there has to be a better way of going about building it. That’s a good theme for many facets of life.
I’ve always lived in the suburbs. Whether it was on the outskirts of New York City, Los Angeles, Miami, Boston or Tampa, in almost all places where I’ve laid my head, I’ve been surrounded by the familiar visage of sprawling well-kept lawns and knotty pines. Even when I briefly lived in an apartment in Miami, my complex was well within range of dozens of housing developments. Now despite being suburbs, they may not have been the best of neighborhoods; that is to say that in my youth growing up in Uniondale, Long Island (NY) I could find my way to the local elementary school by closely following the crack vials that lined the curbed sidewalks. The nearest park was forbidden for me to enter by my parents as it was infested with gangs and drug dealers.
Aside from the occasional descent into city-like criminal patterns, the suburbs are, in my humble opinion, a nice place to live and bring up a family. Where I’m living now, in a suburb outside of Tampa, FL, I just got back from walking my spoiled, inbred Pomeranian around the neighborhood and there was nary a person in sight. Mind you, it was 11:00 PM when I went on this jaunt.
Typically people want to live in suburbs not only because of their aesthetic value but also because in theory, they are the safest places to bring up ones family. Another reason people tend to prefer the suburbs to the city is because it is assumed that environmentally speaking, there are fewer hazards among the sprawl than there are in urban centers. We all know that city’s are blighted not only with endless noise pollution but are also scarred with tons of toxins in the air. Surely rolling hills of finely mowed lawns accenting well kept two story homes is preferable to an army of skyscrapers blocking out the sun and factories blowing plumes of black death into the atmosphere. At least you’d think that was the case.
According to an article in USA Today, our beloved suburbs are, “also environmentally more worrisome than people realize, according to researchers reporting at a meeting this month of the American Geophysical Union, an international association of scientists.
Suburbs today make up an area very likely three or four times the size of Ohio, says Jennifer Jenkins, a professor of environmental economics at the University of Vermont.
And a standard feature that is raising red flags is the septic tank. Where houses are far apart, individual septic tanks are much less expensive than sewer lines for dealing with human waste. And as municipalities limit sewer extensions to save money and limit growth, more subdivisions are being built with septic tanks.
Lawrence Band, a professor of geography at the University of North Carolina, says his research shows that septic tanks are more responsible than previously believed for the nitrogen runoff that fouls the nation's lakes, streams and waterways.
"Nitrogen causes algae blooms, fishery declines and low water quality," says Band, who has been researching nitrogen runoff in the Baltimore suburbs. "We were surprised to find that areas zoned to be low-density to protect watersheds had the highest nitrogen levels."
It's estimated that a person puts out 7 pounds of nitrogen a year in waste, and about half of the nitrogen in a septic tank reaches the water table, says Judy Denver, a hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.”
The same article also cites those lawns we’re so proud of as yet another source of pollution. “However green, lawns aren't anywhere near as ecologically friendly as undeveloped land, the researchers say. Keeping them lush means lots of water and nitrogen-rich fertilizer, which further damages waterways.
Though a single lawn may not seem that big, grass is now "the largest irrigated crop in the U.S.," Jenkins says; it equals the area planted in corn in the USA.”
I mentioned those knotty pines that are so familiar and inviting on my treks through the old neighborhood. Yet, according to another article, “of all the carbon stored in trees in Maryland, only about two-thirds is in forests; the rest is in trees planted in yards and median strips…”
Now there’s a debate in the science community about the effectiveness of carbon sequestration in trees is for the environment overall. Some studies have shown that this method of combating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and attempting to mitigate global warming then turns around and causes water and nutrient depletion and increased soil salinity and acidity. I tell you, we can’t win for losing in this world.
Unfortunately, it is not like we’re going to stop building suburbs. As a matter of fact, in a growing state such as Florida, the trend has been that more and more families are moving down here from the colder states like my old stomping grounds of New York. In some cases new families are able to buy resold homes but the majority of folks are going to buy newly constructed suburban homes, complete with all the trappings of possible environmental degradation.
On a side note, my liberal pappy keeps saying that he hopes more and more Yankees move to Fl and change the political colors from red to blue. He says this in a very condescending way toward the traditional resents of the Sunshine State.
Getting back to the housing market, it is in fact flourishing though, Kiplinger’s Personal Finance reports that, “Homebuilders, however, sense that the boom is fading. Toll Brothers, which builds luxury homes in expensive suburbs, will build fewer homes in 2006 than it had planned. And existing homes are taking longer to sell. Still, real estate isn't in a crisis. Home prices have crested in parts of the Northeast and West, but values in those areas will deflate only a little and in an orderly fashion. Nationally, house prices will rise at their historical rate, 4% to 6%.”
With all of the great institutions civilized society has brought us, there’s no escaping the fact that it also brings harbingers of our own undoing. Even worse is the juvenile debate between those who believe there’s no such thing as environmental degradation caused by the existence of human civilization and those that believe the way to environmental preservation is for us to tear it all down and go back to hunter/gatherer lifestyles (with lots of marijuana of course). As per usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. As all of the above scientists have stated and many more will echo, it isn’t that suburban life is inherently bad, it’s that there has to be a better way of going about building it. That’s a good theme for many facets of life.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
White House lends a hand to Anna Nicole
Yeah, it's a slow news week.I suppose the only relevance this has to the real world is that its outcome will set a precedent for how judges will handle matters of federal vs state jurisdiction.
The other reason I was mildly amused by this story is that in a strange way it reminded me of how the White House got involved in the struggle for Terry Schiavo's life. Is it just me or do they pick some strange battles? By strange I mean private and really not the federal governments business.
Anywho, here's the story:
Playboy playmate Anna Nicole Smith has an unusual bedfellow in the Supreme Court fight over her late husband’s fortune: the Bush administration.
The administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer filed arguments on Smith’s behalf and wants to take part when the case is argued before the justices.
The court will decide early next year whether to let the U.S. solicitor general share time with Smith’s attorney during the one hour argument on Feb. 28.
Smith, a television reality star and native Texan, plans to attend the court argument.
She is trying to collect millions of dollars from the estate of J. Howard Marshall II, the oil tycoon she married in 1994 when he was 89 and she was a 26-year-old topless dancer in Houston. Marshall died in 1995.
Like Marshall, President Bush was a Texas oil man. Both attended Yale. Both held government positions in Washington.
There are differences. Marshall had a penchant for strippers, and the court record before the justices is one of poverty, greed, sex and family rivalry.
In and out of courts
A federal bankruptcy judge sided with Smith in the fight over her late husband’s estate, awarding her $474 million. That was reduced to about $89 million by a federal district judge, then thrown out altogether by a federal appeals court.
The issue before the high court is one only lawyers would love: when may federal courts hear claims that involve state probate proceedings. Smith lost in Texas state courts, which found that E. Pierce Marshall was the sole heir to his father’s estate.
The Bush administration’s filings in the case are technical. Without getting into the details of the family squabble, Solicitor General Paul Clement said that the justices should protect federal court jurisdiction in disputes.
Filings are due next month by groups backing E. Pierce Marshall.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Researchers Study Newlyweds: My Opinion
Now I'm not married yet but I think I know what it takes to stay in a marriage.
First off, in my (admittedly limited) experience, it appears to me that people get married for the wrong reasons. Some guys seem to "surrender," that is to say that they marry their girlfriends out of what one could describe as obligation. It's like you've been with this person forever and in some folk’s minds, you owe them a ring for the time spent in the relationship. In addition, men tend to seek out comfortable situations and quite frankly, dating today sucks. They will stick with what they know, not out of passion but out of complacency.
Other's get married because when they were dating they got along real well and thought that their ability to co-exist would translate well into married life. In some cases they are right and in others they realize the other person is a complete psychopath.
These days many marriages are done shotgun style. Due to unwanted or unexpected pregnancies, there's a contingent of men out there trying to do right by the women they done knocked up by marrying them. Unfortunately, the magic many find in bed doesn't follow them anywhere else and a good number of those relationships go straight to hell.
My personal favorites though are the ones who get married very young, like high school sweethearts, and the girl states rather frequently, "I just want to get married and have babies." I wish those girls would kindly stop voting.
But seriously folks, these are the people that have good intentions and all but don't have the tools to keep a marriage together. They are young and though they have a lot of spirit, today’s youth have no patience and less ability to communicate effectively. I deal with this on a constant basis. Half of the personality problems I'm dealing with at my job as a substance abuse counselor are the result of spoiling children to death. Now, imagine if you will two spoiled brats having to make adult decisions together and having to share the burden of adult responsibilities like paying rent. Scary isn't it.
Today's young couples tend to resemble something out "Lord of the Flies" including trying to run a fat kid off of a cliff.
In order to make a marriage work, you have to be able to listen to one another, even...especially when the other person is ranting like the Tasmanian devil. Every word out of their mouth could be an absolute lie but you as that person’s partner have to give them that time or you'll never be able to move forward. Far too many people, both men and women alike are so caught up in trying to be "right" they lose sight of what's important in a relationship.
That elusive element my friends is sharing. You and your partner must both share your thoughts, your fears, your loves and your money. It doesn't work any other way. This is why you hear so many women complaining that their man doesn't share his feelings. He may want to but if he doesn't feel like he's going to be heard, why should he bother? It takes two people listening to make a new marriage work, in my humble opinion.
But here's what the article has to say:
Researchers at the University of Rochester want to survey 800 newlyweds in the U.S. and Canada in the hopes of finding out why some new marriages are so full of bliss and others are so full of battles.
Couples taking part in the study must be married for six months or less and have to submit to a 20-minute phone interview. Couples then take an online survey and complete another online survey each year for three more years.
The study has gathered about 200 couples so far and is looking to quadruple that number through ads in newspaper classified sections all over the country.
One U of R researcher tells the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle that getting along in a new marriage basically boils down to what we learned in kindergarten: be nice to each other.
First off, in my (admittedly limited) experience, it appears to me that people get married for the wrong reasons. Some guys seem to "surrender," that is to say that they marry their girlfriends out of what one could describe as obligation. It's like you've been with this person forever and in some folk’s minds, you owe them a ring for the time spent in the relationship. In addition, men tend to seek out comfortable situations and quite frankly, dating today sucks. They will stick with what they know, not out of passion but out of complacency.
Other's get married because when they were dating they got along real well and thought that their ability to co-exist would translate well into married life. In some cases they are right and in others they realize the other person is a complete psychopath.
These days many marriages are done shotgun style. Due to unwanted or unexpected pregnancies, there's a contingent of men out there trying to do right by the women they done knocked up by marrying them. Unfortunately, the magic many find in bed doesn't follow them anywhere else and a good number of those relationships go straight to hell.
My personal favorites though are the ones who get married very young, like high school sweethearts, and the girl states rather frequently, "I just want to get married and have babies." I wish those girls would kindly stop voting.
But seriously folks, these are the people that have good intentions and all but don't have the tools to keep a marriage together. They are young and though they have a lot of spirit, today’s youth have no patience and less ability to communicate effectively. I deal with this on a constant basis. Half of the personality problems I'm dealing with at my job as a substance abuse counselor are the result of spoiling children to death. Now, imagine if you will two spoiled brats having to make adult decisions together and having to share the burden of adult responsibilities like paying rent. Scary isn't it.
Today's young couples tend to resemble something out "Lord of the Flies" including trying to run a fat kid off of a cliff.
In order to make a marriage work, you have to be able to listen to one another, even...especially when the other person is ranting like the Tasmanian devil. Every word out of their mouth could be an absolute lie but you as that person’s partner have to give them that time or you'll never be able to move forward. Far too many people, both men and women alike are so caught up in trying to be "right" they lose sight of what's important in a relationship.
That elusive element my friends is sharing. You and your partner must both share your thoughts, your fears, your loves and your money. It doesn't work any other way. This is why you hear so many women complaining that their man doesn't share his feelings. He may want to but if he doesn't feel like he's going to be heard, why should he bother? It takes two people listening to make a new marriage work, in my humble opinion.
But here's what the article has to say:
Researchers at the University of Rochester want to survey 800 newlyweds in the U.S. and Canada in the hopes of finding out why some new marriages are so full of bliss and others are so full of battles.
Couples taking part in the study must be married for six months or less and have to submit to a 20-minute phone interview. Couples then take an online survey and complete another online survey each year for three more years.
The study has gathered about 200 couples so far and is looking to quadruple that number through ads in newspaper classified sections all over the country.
One U of R researcher tells the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle that getting along in a new marriage basically boils down to what we learned in kindergarten: be nice to each other.
Monday, December 26, 2005
A Merry Christmas for Africa
Not much to say here. There's a couple of stories in the news that I wanted people to see though I don't have any commentary besides I hope these stories are signs of hope to come for a continent devastated by greed and misery.
New Congo Constitution All but Approved
draft constitution viewed as a crucial step toward lasting peace in Congo appeared likely to pass Saturday as vote counting from last weekend's referendum neared completion.
With 75 percent of Congo's 40,000 polling centers reporting, 83 percent of Congolese had voted in favor of the proposed charter, while 17 percent had voted against it, according to electoral commission Chairman Apollinaire Malu-Malu.
Final results are due next week.
The charter is meant to pave the way for general elections next year in the central African country, after which a democratically elected government would succeed a transitional administration set up after the two wars that wracked the country from 1998 to 2002.
The constitution would ensure female participation at all levels of government and grant greater autonomy to mineral-laden regions throughout the vast country, but it is viewed by some as another attempt by corrupt politicians to enrich themselves. continued
New Council Takes Control in Mogadishu
Warlords and civilians installed a council Sunday to govern Somalia's capital, an action that further fragments the nation but could bring the city under the control of a single group after 14 years of anarchy.
The swearing-in of the 64 new legislators formalized a break with Somalia's transitional government, which was formed last year under President Abdullahi Yusuf after lengthy peace talks in Kenya.
Somalia has been without a central government since warlords in 1991 ousted a dictatorship. They then turned on each other, carving the nation of 8.2 million into a patchwork of fiefdoms.
The new council contains mainly members of the Hawiye clan that dominates the capital of about 2 million people, which previously was divided under the control of rival warlords. There was no immediate comment from Yusuf, whose transitional government is based in Jowhar, north of Mogadishu.
The U.N. envoy to Somalia, Francois Lonseny Fall, warned last month that Somalia could become a terrorist haven because it is a failed state where extremist Islamic groups are growing.
A 1992 attempt by the U.N. to intervene in Somalia yielded some success, but deteriorated in October 1993 when U.S. troops tried to capture one of the most powerful warlords, Farah Aidid. That battle, featured in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," left 18 U.S. soldiers dead.
Mostly Muslim Senegal Celebrates Christmas
Hundreds of young men decked with tinsel wander outside Senegal's mosques, hawking plastic Christmas trees. Women pray to Allah on a sidewalk where an inflatable Santa Claus happens to be hanging.
Senegal may be 95 percent Muslim, but it certainly knows it's Christmas. In fact, for this nation of 12 million it's a national holiday.
Blame it on globalization, which has turned the West's yuletide icons into a worldwide commodity. Or the Internet, or Hollywood, or the availability of travel that allows new generations of Senegalese to sample Christmas at close quarters. But mainly, Senegalese revel in the trappings of Christmas because they can and want to.
Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet, but don't generally celebrate the date of his birth. Many Muslim societies discourage Christmas hoopla. But Senegalese say they have a long history of tolerance and coexistence with Christians, so why not share Christmas? Continued
New Congo Constitution All but Approved
draft constitution viewed as a crucial step toward lasting peace in Congo appeared likely to pass Saturday as vote counting from last weekend's referendum neared completion.
With 75 percent of Congo's 40,000 polling centers reporting, 83 percent of Congolese had voted in favor of the proposed charter, while 17 percent had voted against it, according to electoral commission Chairman Apollinaire Malu-Malu.
Final results are due next week.
The charter is meant to pave the way for general elections next year in the central African country, after which a democratically elected government would succeed a transitional administration set up after the two wars that wracked the country from 1998 to 2002.
The constitution would ensure female participation at all levels of government and grant greater autonomy to mineral-laden regions throughout the vast country, but it is viewed by some as another attempt by corrupt politicians to enrich themselves. continued
New Council Takes Control in Mogadishu
Warlords and civilians installed a council Sunday to govern Somalia's capital, an action that further fragments the nation but could bring the city under the control of a single group after 14 years of anarchy.
The swearing-in of the 64 new legislators formalized a break with Somalia's transitional government, which was formed last year under President Abdullahi Yusuf after lengthy peace talks in Kenya.
Somalia has been without a central government since warlords in 1991 ousted a dictatorship. They then turned on each other, carving the nation of 8.2 million into a patchwork of fiefdoms.
The new council contains mainly members of the Hawiye clan that dominates the capital of about 2 million people, which previously was divided under the control of rival warlords. There was no immediate comment from Yusuf, whose transitional government is based in Jowhar, north of Mogadishu.
The U.N. envoy to Somalia, Francois Lonseny Fall, warned last month that Somalia could become a terrorist haven because it is a failed state where extremist Islamic groups are growing.
A 1992 attempt by the U.N. to intervene in Somalia yielded some success, but deteriorated in October 1993 when U.S. troops tried to capture one of the most powerful warlords, Farah Aidid. That battle, featured in the book and movie "Black Hawk Down," left 18 U.S. soldiers dead.
Mostly Muslim Senegal Celebrates Christmas
Hundreds of young men decked with tinsel wander outside Senegal's mosques, hawking plastic Christmas trees. Women pray to Allah on a sidewalk where an inflatable Santa Claus happens to be hanging.
Senegal may be 95 percent Muslim, but it certainly knows it's Christmas. In fact, for this nation of 12 million it's a national holiday.
Blame it on globalization, which has turned the West's yuletide icons into a worldwide commodity. Or the Internet, or Hollywood, or the availability of travel that allows new generations of Senegalese to sample Christmas at close quarters. But mainly, Senegalese revel in the trappings of Christmas because they can and want to.
Muslims recognize Jesus Christ as a prophet, but don't generally celebrate the date of his birth. Many Muslim societies discourage Christmas hoopla. But Senegalese say they have a long history of tolerance and coexistence with Christians, so why not share Christmas? Continued
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Naughty and Nice in 2005
{Editor's note: this originally appeared in the 411 Politics Zone and split into two parts. The following post was my part of a roundtable discussion with my fellow 411 staff writers.
Also, this will be the last entry until after Christmas. Once again, to all my readers, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, and very Mad Kwanza to all!
Well I've been mostly caught up in what's going on in Iran this passed year but I think I can muster enough material to cover the rest of the items on Santa Easley's list. Here's where I'm coming from with all this as far as naughty or nice criteria: If said person or entity did something particularly malicious out of the scope of something they would normally do than I believe that qualifies them as naughty. However, if they did something rather ordinary though not particularly good, well that's the way the Christmas cookie crumbles. So without further ado...
1). Pres. George W. Bush - Nice. I'm not laying the hurricanes or the aftermath's that followed at his doorstep. George Bush didn't cause the hurricanes or global warming and of course none of this had squat to do with the Kyoto Treaty. The merits of that treaty are debatable as well with respect to global warming. I'm also not going to fault the guy for whom he nominates to the Supreme Court. He won the election. Period. There's nothing else to talk about. It really irks me when folks on the other side of the political aisle get upset with their opponents for having the nerve to promote their agenda. Harriet Miers was a mistake obviously but that wasn't done out of malice, it was done out of cronyism and GW is not the only politician stricken with that disease. The man tried his best to "fix" Social Security and that was a complete bust. Again, he wasn't being evil or malicious; he was doing what most other Republicans in his position would have tried. And in the end he failed anyway. George W. Bush was nice this year because he didn't do anything beyond what's expected of a man in his position.
2). New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin - Naughty. Don't get me wrong. I'm not laying the hurricane at his feet either. The whole federal and state system blew it. That's as plain as I can say it. Between graft and shortsightedness all around, nobody did what was needed to save NOLA and it's not all Nagin's fault. However, I've deemed him naughty for putting the blame for the destruction of New Orleans on racism. Sorry, you can't cry racism in the face of apparent incompetence. That's malicious. That is not taking responsibility for your actions. I could have lived with him just blaming FEMA or the entire federal government to protect his political hide. That would be normal. But blaming racism is in the realm paranoid delusions and it's just plain wrong. Ray Nagin is naughty for laying out cheap shots and promoting negative race relations.
3). Peacenik Cindy Sheehan - Naughty. As far as I'm concerned she besmirched her sons name for the cause of leftist, anti-war politics. She lied to get on TV and promote herself. Her efforts had no affected on the war other than hurting the morale of some of our troops and their family that believe in what they are trying to do. If she had been honest about her intentions, being an anti-war activist instead of saying she just wanted to "talk" to the President, I would have deemed her nice. But she didn't. Instead she sacrificed any integrity she had.
4). The 107th US Congress - Naughty. I'm still annoyed by what happened with Terry Schiavo. Congress hasn't yet passed Social Security or tax reform. They haven't done enough to promote cars that use alternative fuels nor have they been able to string together a cogent energy policy. There's a whole host of issues that have not been dealt with this passed year but when the evangelicals demanded that several courts should be ignored and a law should be passed to save Schiavo's life, suddenly a law could get passed in a day. That's still ridiculous, even after all this time. Whatever else they might have accomplished this year, I have not forgiven them for this travesty.
5). British PM Tony Blair - Nice I suppose. I can't recall him doing anything abnormal this year.
6). Wal-Mart - Nice. See above.
7). The United Nations - Nice. Whatever happened with the Oil-For-Food scandal and the sexual assaults in the Congo, it's being handled. That's all that I can ask of this organization. I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone or anything can fix the UN overnight but at least there's something akin to reform going on. I think what really made them nice this year was how the Hariri probe was handled and the subsequent withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon. Considering the reputation and potential the UN has for disaster, I'll take this as a sign that the UN is not completely useless.
8). The People's Republic of China - Nice. Hooray for balance! China is the next great superpower and it's the perfect counterweight to American hegemony. I've been chronicling China all year and though I thought they were going to invade Taiwan over the summer, I believe now that they realize war on any level is counterproductive to their grand designs. Economics is king and they are primed to be the engine that drives the world economy. Taiwan isn't going to break away from China and therefore, even though China is expanding its military, there's really nothing to be afraid of. Protectionists will of course think I'm a lunatic but as I've said all year, you can't fight progress. The world is shrinking and the global economy makes living peacefully with your neighbors across our vast oceans of paramount importance.
9). The oil and natural gas industries - Naughty. They knew we were going to be in trouble back in the 70's when the oil embargo's started. Yet the oil and natural gas industries did nothing progressive in the way of finding alternative or renewable fuel sources. There hasn't even any investment in drilling and refinery technology that can absorb category 5 hurricanes. Once again, that borders on malicious. The oil industry should have been able to absorb hurricane Rita but instead we all thought gasoline at the pump was going to hit 5 dollars a gallon. That strikes me as particularly naughty.
10). The American People - Nice...I'm writing this under duress as I actually think the American People were naughty but my lovely, vivacious, and persuasive fiancé "convinced" me to change my opinion. : P
Happy Holidays and God Bless Everyone!
Also, this will be the last entry until after Christmas. Once again, to all my readers, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, and very Mad Kwanza to all!
Well I've been mostly caught up in what's going on in Iran this passed year but I think I can muster enough material to cover the rest of the items on Santa Easley's list. Here's where I'm coming from with all this as far as naughty or nice criteria: If said person or entity did something particularly malicious out of the scope of something they would normally do than I believe that qualifies them as naughty. However, if they did something rather ordinary though not particularly good, well that's the way the Christmas cookie crumbles. So without further ado...
1). Pres. George W. Bush - Nice. I'm not laying the hurricanes or the aftermath's that followed at his doorstep. George Bush didn't cause the hurricanes or global warming and of course none of this had squat to do with the Kyoto Treaty. The merits of that treaty are debatable as well with respect to global warming. I'm also not going to fault the guy for whom he nominates to the Supreme Court. He won the election. Period. There's nothing else to talk about. It really irks me when folks on the other side of the political aisle get upset with their opponents for having the nerve to promote their agenda. Harriet Miers was a mistake obviously but that wasn't done out of malice, it was done out of cronyism and GW is not the only politician stricken with that disease. The man tried his best to "fix" Social Security and that was a complete bust. Again, he wasn't being evil or malicious; he was doing what most other Republicans in his position would have tried. And in the end he failed anyway. George W. Bush was nice this year because he didn't do anything beyond what's expected of a man in his position.
2). New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin - Naughty. Don't get me wrong. I'm not laying the hurricane at his feet either. The whole federal and state system blew it. That's as plain as I can say it. Between graft and shortsightedness all around, nobody did what was needed to save NOLA and it's not all Nagin's fault. However, I've deemed him naughty for putting the blame for the destruction of New Orleans on racism. Sorry, you can't cry racism in the face of apparent incompetence. That's malicious. That is not taking responsibility for your actions. I could have lived with him just blaming FEMA or the entire federal government to protect his political hide. That would be normal. But blaming racism is in the realm paranoid delusions and it's just plain wrong. Ray Nagin is naughty for laying out cheap shots and promoting negative race relations.
3). Peacenik Cindy Sheehan - Naughty. As far as I'm concerned she besmirched her sons name for the cause of leftist, anti-war politics. She lied to get on TV and promote herself. Her efforts had no affected on the war other than hurting the morale of some of our troops and their family that believe in what they are trying to do. If she had been honest about her intentions, being an anti-war activist instead of saying she just wanted to "talk" to the President, I would have deemed her nice. But she didn't. Instead she sacrificed any integrity she had.
4). The 107th US Congress - Naughty. I'm still annoyed by what happened with Terry Schiavo. Congress hasn't yet passed Social Security or tax reform. They haven't done enough to promote cars that use alternative fuels nor have they been able to string together a cogent energy policy. There's a whole host of issues that have not been dealt with this passed year but when the evangelicals demanded that several courts should be ignored and a law should be passed to save Schiavo's life, suddenly a law could get passed in a day. That's still ridiculous, even after all this time. Whatever else they might have accomplished this year, I have not forgiven them for this travesty.
5). British PM Tony Blair - Nice I suppose. I can't recall him doing anything abnormal this year.
6). Wal-Mart - Nice. See above.
7). The United Nations - Nice. Whatever happened with the Oil-For-Food scandal and the sexual assaults in the Congo, it's being handled. That's all that I can ask of this organization. I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone or anything can fix the UN overnight but at least there's something akin to reform going on. I think what really made them nice this year was how the Hariri probe was handled and the subsequent withdrawal by Syria from Lebanon. Considering the reputation and potential the UN has for disaster, I'll take this as a sign that the UN is not completely useless.
8). The People's Republic of China - Nice. Hooray for balance! China is the next great superpower and it's the perfect counterweight to American hegemony. I've been chronicling China all year and though I thought they were going to invade Taiwan over the summer, I believe now that they realize war on any level is counterproductive to their grand designs. Economics is king and they are primed to be the engine that drives the world economy. Taiwan isn't going to break away from China and therefore, even though China is expanding its military, there's really nothing to be afraid of. Protectionists will of course think I'm a lunatic but as I've said all year, you can't fight progress. The world is shrinking and the global economy makes living peacefully with your neighbors across our vast oceans of paramount importance.
9). The oil and natural gas industries - Naughty. They knew we were going to be in trouble back in the 70's when the oil embargo's started. Yet the oil and natural gas industries did nothing progressive in the way of finding alternative or renewable fuel sources. There hasn't even any investment in drilling and refinery technology that can absorb category 5 hurricanes. Once again, that borders on malicious. The oil industry should have been able to absorb hurricane Rita but instead we all thought gasoline at the pump was going to hit 5 dollars a gallon. That strikes me as particularly naughty.
10). The American People - Nice...I'm writing this under duress as I actually think the American People were naughty but my lovely, vivacious, and persuasive fiancé "convinced" me to change my opinion. : P
Happy Holidays and God Bless Everyone!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Lost, Unwanted, and High
I currently work in an inpatient substance abuse rehabilitation program for teenagers in the Hillsborough and Polk County areas of West Central Florida. The program is co-ed, and currently the girls outnumber the boys. When it was the other way around many of the young women felt that their voice would not be heard so they mostly kept silent about their issues and just went through the motions of doing what they had to do behaviorally to graduate from the program. Now that the tables have turned, the girls are speaking up more and talking about the traumas they’ve suffered.
Many of the girls I work with fall into the 38% of all women who have been raped between the ages of 14-17 years old. Many come from broken homes or single parent homes where the mother of the household is an active drug user herself or allows men to come into the home who are users. Many of these men will assault or abuse their “step-daughters,” thus send said ladies on a tailspin of self-destruction.
Every other week I meet with these parents in either a family support meeting or in an individual family session. On occasion they will tell me when their children can’t hear them, that they never wanted children in the first place. It isn’t enough that many of these girls hate themselves but they are carrying the extra shame of knowing that their mother hates them as well. It isn’t enough that they wish they’d never been born, but they are also carrying the shame of knowing that their mother also wishes they’d never been born.
I begin many of my sessions reminding the parents that our program is not a babysitting service and that the time for planning for their child to re-enter the home begins almost as soon as the child enters our 6-month rehabilitation center. I always say, 6 months goes by in the blink of an eye and there’s no time to waste in making changes in the home environment. However, there’s not much one can do to help these families set goals for reunification when the mother tells their daughter that they don’t want them home in the first place.
This theme prompted a conversation between one group home behavioral technician and myself about how nearly impossible it is for us to help these kids when the most important people in the world to them have ostensibly cast them into the wilderness. At the end of the conversation I said the staff member, “If I had only one wish, it would be that from now on, women that don’t want or cannot take of a child would no longer bring children into this world.”
According to a new survey, my wishes are far from coming true. The survey shows that, “U.S. women of childbearing age who were surveyed in 2002 revealed that 14 percent of their recent births were unwanted at the time of conception, federal researchers said Monday.
In a similar 1995 survey, only 9 percent were unwanted at the time of conception.”
It would appear, though the survey says that the correlation is inconclusive, that the reason there are more unwanted babies being brought into the world is because less and less women, for a variety of reasons are having abortions.
From the same survey, “At least one anti-abortion group said the numbers reflect a national “pro-life shift,” while others who research reproductive health issues suggested it might mean less access to abortion.
The latest findings are consistent with the falling rate of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.
In 1995, for every 100 births that ended in abortion or a birth, almost 26 ended in abortion. In 2002, 24 ended in abortion, according to Guttmacher data.
That information seems to be in synch with the federal data released Monday, said Lawrence Finer, Guttmacher’s associate director for domestic research.
“The two statistics together suggest — but don’t confirm — that a greater percentage of unintended pregnancies resulted in births rather than abortions,” Finer said.”
I’m not an advocate of abortion by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve often argued that any legalized, justified, or sanctified effort to kill your fellow man is an abomination and should only be reserved for the most severest of circumstances. I don’t believe the death penalty should used under any circumstances. While I realize perfectly well that not every criminal can nor should be rehabilitated, I’ve yet to see a cogent argument for the death penalty that holds up against life imprisonment and hard labor.
Euthanasia, while it has been argued as an act of mercy for terminally ill folks or the elderly in considerable and irreversible pain, I believe is also ethically wrong. The propensity for our culture to abuse assisted suicide is too great, in my opinion, to allow in any civilized society.
Getting back to abortion, unless bringing the child to term will result in the death of the mother or said mother is pregnant as the result of a sexual assault, I believe it is unethical to have an abortion. However, on this issue I’m also a states rightist, thus I believe the legality of abortion should be left up to the majority of tax-paying voters.
Unfortunately, for whatever the reasons are that women are having less abortions and instead more unwanted babies, that only means that there are bound to be more girls using methamphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, and in the case of one 11-year-old girl, heroin, to numb the trauma of never being wanted in the first place being born into this world. Now the question becomes, which is the greater evil; killing an unborn child or birthing a child that will inevitably have her soul murdered before her body dies from a drug overdose or God only knows?
It’s not an easy question to answer. As most important issues are, the matter is complicated. What is more precious, the life of the many or the life of the one?
Many of the girls I work with fall into the 38% of all women who have been raped between the ages of 14-17 years old. Many come from broken homes or single parent homes where the mother of the household is an active drug user herself or allows men to come into the home who are users. Many of these men will assault or abuse their “step-daughters,” thus send said ladies on a tailspin of self-destruction.
Every other week I meet with these parents in either a family support meeting or in an individual family session. On occasion they will tell me when their children can’t hear them, that they never wanted children in the first place. It isn’t enough that many of these girls hate themselves but they are carrying the extra shame of knowing that their mother hates them as well. It isn’t enough that they wish they’d never been born, but they are also carrying the shame of knowing that their mother also wishes they’d never been born.
I begin many of my sessions reminding the parents that our program is not a babysitting service and that the time for planning for their child to re-enter the home begins almost as soon as the child enters our 6-month rehabilitation center. I always say, 6 months goes by in the blink of an eye and there’s no time to waste in making changes in the home environment. However, there’s not much one can do to help these families set goals for reunification when the mother tells their daughter that they don’t want them home in the first place.
This theme prompted a conversation between one group home behavioral technician and myself about how nearly impossible it is for us to help these kids when the most important people in the world to them have ostensibly cast them into the wilderness. At the end of the conversation I said the staff member, “If I had only one wish, it would be that from now on, women that don’t want or cannot take of a child would no longer bring children into this world.”
According to a new survey, my wishes are far from coming true. The survey shows that, “U.S. women of childbearing age who were surveyed in 2002 revealed that 14 percent of their recent births were unwanted at the time of conception, federal researchers said Monday.
In a similar 1995 survey, only 9 percent were unwanted at the time of conception.”
It would appear, though the survey says that the correlation is inconclusive, that the reason there are more unwanted babies being brought into the world is because less and less women, for a variety of reasons are having abortions.
From the same survey, “At least one anti-abortion group said the numbers reflect a national “pro-life shift,” while others who research reproductive health issues suggested it might mean less access to abortion.
The latest findings are consistent with the falling rate of abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York-based nonprofit group that researches reproductive health issues.
In 1995, for every 100 births that ended in abortion or a birth, almost 26 ended in abortion. In 2002, 24 ended in abortion, according to Guttmacher data.
That information seems to be in synch with the federal data released Monday, said Lawrence Finer, Guttmacher’s associate director for domestic research.
“The two statistics together suggest — but don’t confirm — that a greater percentage of unintended pregnancies resulted in births rather than abortions,” Finer said.”
I’m not an advocate of abortion by any stretch of the imagination. I’ve often argued that any legalized, justified, or sanctified effort to kill your fellow man is an abomination and should only be reserved for the most severest of circumstances. I don’t believe the death penalty should used under any circumstances. While I realize perfectly well that not every criminal can nor should be rehabilitated, I’ve yet to see a cogent argument for the death penalty that holds up against life imprisonment and hard labor.
Euthanasia, while it has been argued as an act of mercy for terminally ill folks or the elderly in considerable and irreversible pain, I believe is also ethically wrong. The propensity for our culture to abuse assisted suicide is too great, in my opinion, to allow in any civilized society.
Getting back to abortion, unless bringing the child to term will result in the death of the mother or said mother is pregnant as the result of a sexual assault, I believe it is unethical to have an abortion. However, on this issue I’m also a states rightist, thus I believe the legality of abortion should be left up to the majority of tax-paying voters.
Unfortunately, for whatever the reasons are that women are having less abortions and instead more unwanted babies, that only means that there are bound to be more girls using methamphetamines, marijuana, cocaine, and in the case of one 11-year-old girl, heroin, to numb the trauma of never being wanted in the first place being born into this world. Now the question becomes, which is the greater evil; killing an unborn child or birthing a child that will inevitably have her soul murdered before her body dies from a drug overdose or God only knows?
It’s not an easy question to answer. As most important issues are, the matter is complicated. What is more precious, the life of the many or the life of the one?
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Happiness is the key to success : Study
These days I'm often having to remind the people I love in my personal life to just relax and be happy. This is especially true during the holiday season when, even though we're supposed to be getting closer, it would seem everyone around me has an extra level of stress. I try to remind people that happiness breeds more happiness and that one should make an extra attempt to not be so miserable. Usually this is met with groans and littany of complaints as to why they shouldn't be happy.
I often think of the kids I work in an inpatient drug program that can be miserable all the time due to their home circumstances. One kid recently made a pledge to smile more just so people wouldn't perceive him to be miserable and thus give him less hours on his home pass.
It's nice to know that once again, my thoughts on actively working on ones own inner happiness being the impetus for success has legitmacy it science.
Here's the story:
Success is the key to happiness' is a commonly believed notion; but if a new research is to be believed, it is happiness that makes people successful, and not vice-versa.
In the study, published in American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, the researchers state that happy individuals are predisposed to seek out and undertake new goals in life, and this reinforces positive emotions.
Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky of the University of California and colleagues examined the connections between desirable characteristics, life successes and well-being of over 275,000 people, and found that chronically happy people are in general more successful across many life domains than less happy people.
"Happy people are more likely to achieve favorable life circumstances, and this may be because happy people frequently experience positive moods and these positive moods prompt them to be more likely to work actively toward new goals and build new resources. When people feel happy, they tend to feel confident, optimistic, and energetic and others find them likable and sociable," said said Dr. Lyubomirsky.
The researchers examined studies involving three different types of evidence - cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental designs - to determine how happiness and positive affect are related to culturally-valued success.
They chose to use these different types of evidence to bolster their confidence in establishing cause-and-effect relationships among happiness, positive affect, and success. Cross-sectional studies compare different groups of people and answer questions like, "Are happy people more successful than unhappy people?" and "Does long-term happiness and short term positive affect co-occur with desirable behaviors?"
Longitudinal studies examine groups of people over a period of time and address questions like, "Does happiness precede success?" and "Does positive affect pave the way for success-like behaviors?" Finally, experimental studies manipulate variables to test whether an outcome will occur under controlled conditions and answer questions like, "Does positive affect lead to success-oriented behaviors?"
The results of all three types of studies suggests that happiness does lead to behaviors that often produce further success in work, relationships and health, and these successes result in part from a person's positive affect.
Furthermore, evidence from the cross-sectional studies confirm that a person's well-being is associated with positive perceptions of self and others, sociability, creativity, prosocial behavior, a strong immune system, and effective coping skills. The authors also note that happy people are capable of experiencing sadness and negative emotions in response to negative events, which is a healthy and appropriate response.
Much of the previous research on happiness presupposed that happiness followed from success and accomplishments in life. But the new study found that this isn't always true. Positive affect is one attribute among several that can lead to success-oriented behaviors. Other resources, such as intelligence, family, expertise and physical fitness, can also play a role in people's successes.
"Our review provides strong support that happiness, in many cases, leads to successful outcomes, rather than merely following from them, and happy individuals are more likely than their less happy peers to have fulfilling marriages and relationships, high incomes, superior work performance, community involvement, robust health and even a long life," said Lyubomirsk.
I often think of the kids I work in an inpatient drug program that can be miserable all the time due to their home circumstances. One kid recently made a pledge to smile more just so people wouldn't perceive him to be miserable and thus give him less hours on his home pass.
It's nice to know that once again, my thoughts on actively working on ones own inner happiness being the impetus for success has legitmacy it science.
Here's the story:
Success is the key to happiness' is a commonly believed notion; but if a new research is to be believed, it is happiness that makes people successful, and not vice-versa.
In the study, published in American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin, the researchers state that happy individuals are predisposed to seek out and undertake new goals in life, and this reinforces positive emotions.
Dr. Sonja Lyubomirsky of the University of California and colleagues examined the connections between desirable characteristics, life successes and well-being of over 275,000 people, and found that chronically happy people are in general more successful across many life domains than less happy people.
"Happy people are more likely to achieve favorable life circumstances, and this may be because happy people frequently experience positive moods and these positive moods prompt them to be more likely to work actively toward new goals and build new resources. When people feel happy, they tend to feel confident, optimistic, and energetic and others find them likable and sociable," said said Dr. Lyubomirsky.
The researchers examined studies involving three different types of evidence - cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental designs - to determine how happiness and positive affect are related to culturally-valued success.
They chose to use these different types of evidence to bolster their confidence in establishing cause-and-effect relationships among happiness, positive affect, and success. Cross-sectional studies compare different groups of people and answer questions like, "Are happy people more successful than unhappy people?" and "Does long-term happiness and short term positive affect co-occur with desirable behaviors?"
Longitudinal studies examine groups of people over a period of time and address questions like, "Does happiness precede success?" and "Does positive affect pave the way for success-like behaviors?" Finally, experimental studies manipulate variables to test whether an outcome will occur under controlled conditions and answer questions like, "Does positive affect lead to success-oriented behaviors?"
The results of all three types of studies suggests that happiness does lead to behaviors that often produce further success in work, relationships and health, and these successes result in part from a person's positive affect.
Furthermore, evidence from the cross-sectional studies confirm that a person's well-being is associated with positive perceptions of self and others, sociability, creativity, prosocial behavior, a strong immune system, and effective coping skills. The authors also note that happy people are capable of experiencing sadness and negative emotions in response to negative events, which is a healthy and appropriate response.
Much of the previous research on happiness presupposed that happiness followed from success and accomplishments in life. But the new study found that this isn't always true. Positive affect is one attribute among several that can lead to success-oriented behaviors. Other resources, such as intelligence, family, expertise and physical fitness, can also play a role in people's successes.
"Our review provides strong support that happiness, in many cases, leads to successful outcomes, rather than merely following from them, and happy individuals are more likely than their less happy peers to have fulfilling marriages and relationships, high incomes, superior work performance, community involvement, robust health and even a long life," said Lyubomirsk.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Military sale to Thailand means 'Russia controls region'
With all this talk about Iraq plus the added stress of being amidst the holiday season, it's easy to miss stories that aren't reported in mainstream news but, in my opinion, are monumentally important. The fact that our competition in Moscow just signed a lucrative arms deal with one of our traditional clients is big news and could have a far reaching impact on global trade and relations. At the very least, this development clearly puts Russia at the epicenter of decision making throughout the world. The bear is back my friends. As I've been saying all year, between the Russians and Chinese, the US can no longer made unilateral decisions based solely on their own interests. With a strong economic presence throughout the Middle East and Asia, Russia now has significant influence in about half of the world. What they will do with that influence only time will tell.
Here's the story:
The Russian media reported this morning that the Thai government has agreed to a secret $500 million deal to buy Russian fighter jets and helicopters for the Royal Thai Air Force.
The reports made no mention of the Thai government's claim at home that this is to be a barter deal. Premier Thaksin Shinawatra also has never mentioned helicopters before, although he confirmed there might be a deal to obtain the 12 Sukhol-30 fighter jets.
"This is good news for Russia, we haven't sold a single cartridge to Thailand," enthused Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies to the Moscow Times today.
"It also means that Russia has taken over the region - we have fighter jets in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and now Thailand."
The Moscow media report said the deal is preliminary and was signed last week in Kuala Lumpur when President Vladimir Putin and Mr Thaksin were both at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur.
It said Russia has signed a preliminary agreement to sell $500 million worth of military aircraft to Thailand, and added it was "the first such deal with the traditional US arms client."
"We signed a memorandum for 12 Sukhoi-30MKMs during President Vladimir Putin's visit [last week] to Malaysia," a senior official at Irkut, the privately controlled maker of the Sukhoi fighter, was quoted as saying.
Thailand originally agreed to buy the jets last year but put off the deal after a tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people hit the region last December, said the Moscow reports.
The Irkut executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of negotiations, said the memorandum of understanding also included delivery of helicopters to Thailand, according to Moscow reports.
"We have gone half the distance and expect to sign the contract in the first half of next year," said Alexei Fyodorov, Irkut board chairman.
Makiyenko estimated that the deal would bring Russia at least $500 million. Rosoboronexport, the state arms sales agency, was not available for comment to the Russian media.
Here's the story:
The Russian media reported this morning that the Thai government has agreed to a secret $500 million deal to buy Russian fighter jets and helicopters for the Royal Thai Air Force.
The reports made no mention of the Thai government's claim at home that this is to be a barter deal. Premier Thaksin Shinawatra also has never mentioned helicopters before, although he confirmed there might be a deal to obtain the 12 Sukhol-30 fighter jets.
"This is good news for Russia, we haven't sold a single cartridge to Thailand," enthused Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy head of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies to the Moscow Times today.
"It also means that Russia has taken over the region - we have fighter jets in China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam and now Thailand."
The Moscow media report said the deal is preliminary and was signed last week in Kuala Lumpur when President Vladimir Putin and Mr Thaksin were both at the East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur.
It said Russia has signed a preliminary agreement to sell $500 million worth of military aircraft to Thailand, and added it was "the first such deal with the traditional US arms client."
"We signed a memorandum for 12 Sukhoi-30MKMs during President Vladimir Putin's visit [last week] to Malaysia," a senior official at Irkut, the privately controlled maker of the Sukhoi fighter, was quoted as saying.
Thailand originally agreed to buy the jets last year but put off the deal after a tsunami that killed hundreds of thousands of people hit the region last December, said the Moscow reports.
The Irkut executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of negotiations, said the memorandum of understanding also included delivery of helicopters to Thailand, according to Moscow reports.
"We have gone half the distance and expect to sign the contract in the first half of next year," said Alexei Fyodorov, Irkut board chairman.
Makiyenko estimated that the deal would bring Russia at least $500 million. Rosoboronexport, the state arms sales agency, was not available for comment to the Russian media.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Poll Wrap-up/New Poll 12/17/05
A few months back my father and I had a debate over whether or not the American people would get behind a war against Iran if they attacked Israel. If I remember correctly, I didn't they would as we tend to be isolationist at heart. My father, a rare showing of faith in his common man, stated that they would support a war, even if the US itself didn't get attacked. So I put it to you, my loyal readers to make the call:
If there were even the slightest indication that Iran directly or indirectly (Hezbollah) initiated a nuclear attack against Israel, would that compel you to stand behind the US retaliating with our own nuclear weapons against Iran?
The responses came in as follows:
1. Yes, no questions asked 95 47%
2. No, I don't believe in nuclear retaliation ever 38 19%
3. No, Israel can defend itself and we should stay out of their issue 53 26%
4. I don't know. What does Tom Cruise think? 18 9%
The Yes' outnumbered the No's wether you combined the No's or not, which leads me to rethink my earlier position in that I suppose we would support a war with Iran if Israel was attacked. Bully for us! Though it wasn't exactly a blow out. Just as we are in Iraq, the American people would be divided on this. I guess that's a good thing. Dissention keeps us honest.
Now on to a new poll, just in time for the holidays:
There is a War on Christmas that is designed to marginalize Christianity and it is carried out by forcibly eliminating Christmas trees, the colors green and red, Santa Claus, nativity scenes and the phrase "Merry Christmas!" from the public square in places like schools and other tax-payer funded properties.
1. Hooey! Bill O'Reilly made it up.
2. Absolutely, and those commies will never get away with it.
3. What's Christmas?
Happy voting.
If there were even the slightest indication that Iran directly or indirectly (Hezbollah) initiated a nuclear attack against Israel, would that compel you to stand behind the US retaliating with our own nuclear weapons against Iran?
The responses came in as follows:
1. Yes, no questions asked 95 47%
2. No, I don't believe in nuclear retaliation ever 38 19%
3. No, Israel can defend itself and we should stay out of their issue 53 26%
4. I don't know. What does Tom Cruise think? 18 9%
The Yes' outnumbered the No's wether you combined the No's or not, which leads me to rethink my earlier position in that I suppose we would support a war with Iran if Israel was attacked. Bully for us! Though it wasn't exactly a blow out. Just as we are in Iraq, the American people would be divided on this. I guess that's a good thing. Dissention keeps us honest.
Now on to a new poll, just in time for the holidays:
There is a War on Christmas that is designed to marginalize Christianity and it is carried out by forcibly eliminating Christmas trees, the colors green and red, Santa Claus, nativity scenes and the phrase "Merry Christmas!" from the public square in places like schools and other tax-payer funded properties.
1. Hooey! Bill O'Reilly made it up.
2. Absolutely, and those commies will never get away with it.
3. What's Christmas?
Happy voting.
Friday, December 16, 2005
New Review: The War on Christmas
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:‘Tis the season to be a polemic!
Actually that’s not really fair. John Gibson, author of the best seller, “Hating America,” and anchor of Fox News Channel’s, “The Big Story,” has written a reasonably rational book cataloging events where the federal holiday, Christmas, seems to be under attack in several school districts and municipalities throughout America. “The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought,” isn’t nearly as bad as the title makes it sound.
First, this is not an opinion piece like an Ann Coulter or Michael Savage book. Gibson editorializes somewhat, but his thoughts are not what comprises most of the volume. Instead, as stated above, what Gibson does is break the book down chapter by chapter based on a town where something happened that appeared to be -- or was absolutely meant to be -- a threat toward the public celebration and recognition of the Christmas holiday. The chapters take place in Covington, Georgia; Mustang, Oklahoma; Baldwin City, Kansas; Plano, Texas; Eugene, Oregon; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Maplewood, New Jersey. The narrative comes from Gibson’s first person interviews with the players of each chapter.
At 29-years-old, I can still vividly remember how my public elementary school in Uniondale, Long Island in New York plastered the halls and classrooms with Christmas trees, Santa Claus, stars (not the Jewish kind) and decidedly secular but appropriate snowflakes. On the calendar, plain as day, it read for the last two weeks of December, “Christmas Break.” This theme followed when my family moved to the other side of Nassau County and I attended Plainedge Public High School. Though my school had a large population of Jewish families, the last two weeks of school were known as the “Christmas Break.” To my recollection, not a single Jewish kid cared in the slightest why they were getting nearly two weeks off from school.
Therein lies the problem, which is the impetus for Gibson’s book. More
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Tehran's xenophobia could isolate it - Russian MP
A word of caution to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - don't piss off the only friends you have. If not for Russia and China, the drums of war against your country would already be beating much louder. The fact is that Israel too has relations with both regional super powers and nobody else (at least publicly) wants to see Israel moved or destroyed. It's safe to say that of Ahmadinejad doesn't stop acting like a petulant child when he's in front of a live mic, he may find that all those countries willing to back him up will no longer be there. Here's the story:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Jewish statements could increase his country's international isolation and impede its economic development, a high-profile Russian lawmaker said Thursday.
Mikhail Margelov, who heads the international relations committee in Russia's upper house of parliament, said Ahmadinejad's public denial of the Holocaust and his calling it "a myth" cast a shadow on the co-sponsors of the Middle East peace process, Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations.
"Iran seems to have taken upon itself the mission of stoking up the Middle Eastern conflict, playing into the hands of extremist forces of all sorts, including [those] far beyond Israel and the Palestinian Authority," he said.
On live TV in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan Wednesday, Ahmadinejad described the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews in World War II as a fabrication concocted to justify Israel's existence. He said the Europeans "have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets."
This is not the first time Ahmadinejad has caused controversy with his anti-Jewish rhetoric. He recently said Israel must be wiped off the world map and called on Europe or North America to host a Jewish state. This string of xenophobic remarks sparked international outrage and increased the world community's pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program.
However, according to Margelov, Jewish public organizations have not been vocal enough in their condemnation of Iran's ultra nationalist president. Anti-Semitic slurs from the head of a large Islamic state cannot be brushed aside as a case of personal prejudice, the MP said.
Moscow's criticism of Tehran has been relatively mild since Russia and Iran cooperate on a number of economic projects, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, a significant source of income for Russian companies.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Jewish statements could increase his country's international isolation and impede its economic development, a high-profile Russian lawmaker said Thursday.
Mikhail Margelov, who heads the international relations committee in Russia's upper house of parliament, said Ahmadinejad's public denial of the Holocaust and his calling it "a myth" cast a shadow on the co-sponsors of the Middle East peace process, Russia, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations.
"Iran seems to have taken upon itself the mission of stoking up the Middle Eastern conflict, playing into the hands of extremist forces of all sorts, including [those] far beyond Israel and the Palestinian Authority," he said.
On live TV in the southeastern Iranian city of Zahedan Wednesday, Ahmadinejad described the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews in World War II as a fabrication concocted to justify Israel's existence. He said the Europeans "have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets."
This is not the first time Ahmadinejad has caused controversy with his anti-Jewish rhetoric. He recently said Israel must be wiped off the world map and called on Europe or North America to host a Jewish state. This string of xenophobic remarks sparked international outrage and increased the world community's pressure on Tehran to abandon its nuclear program.
However, according to Margelov, Jewish public organizations have not been vocal enough in their condemnation of Iran's ultra nationalist president. Anti-Semitic slurs from the head of a large Islamic state cannot be brushed aside as a case of personal prejudice, the MP said.
Moscow's criticism of Tehran has been relatively mild since Russia and Iran cooperate on a number of economic projects, including the nuclear power plant at Bushehr, a significant source of income for Russian companies.
Annan 'shocked' by Iran's Holocaust remarks
You know you've messed up when even Kofi Annan thinks you're a lunatic. The Iranian leadership isn't doing itself any favors by making "wet-fart-in-church" type comments like there was no Holocaust. President Ahmadinejad also seems to be failing to understand basic religious history. The facts are that Palestine was the Jewish nation and countless attempts to wipe them out have driven the jews across the world and back. It isn't a matter of just giving Jews land to have a country, it's a matter of giving them their land they lost in the first place as consolation for years of genocide besides the Holocaust. But I'm probably preaching to the choir here.
In any case, here's this rediculous story:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed shock over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks questioning the Holocaust and suggesting that the state of Israel be moved to Europe, AFP said.
"The Secretary General was shocked to see the remarks attributed to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which he reportedly cast doubt on the truth of the Holocaust and suggested that the State of Israel should be moved from the Middle East to Europe," a UN statement said.
Annan noted that only last month the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which "rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or in part".
The UN chief called on all member states "to combat such denial, and to educate their populations about the well established historical facts of the Holocaust, in which one third of the Jewish people were murdered, along with countless members of other minorities."
Annan also recalled that last October he had reminded all member states that Israel is a "long-standing UN member with the same rights and obligations as every other member", and that, under the UN Charter, "all members have pledged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Ahmadinejad's suggestion, in an interview with Iranian state television's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam, that the "tumour" of the state of Israel should be relocated to Europe, triggered new Western outcry Thursday.
The Iranian leader, who in October had said arch-enemy Israel must be "wiped off the map", said that if Germany and Austria believed Jews were massacred during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil.
In any case, here's this rediculous story:
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan expressed shock over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's remarks questioning the Holocaust and suggesting that the state of Israel be moved to Europe, AFP said.
"The Secretary General was shocked to see the remarks attributed to the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which he reportedly cast doubt on the truth of the Holocaust and suggested that the State of Israel should be moved from the Middle East to Europe," a UN statement said.
Annan noted that only last month the UN General Assembly passed a resolution which "rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or in part".
The UN chief called on all member states "to combat such denial, and to educate their populations about the well established historical facts of the Holocaust, in which one third of the Jewish people were murdered, along with countless members of other minorities."
Annan also recalled that last October he had reminded all member states that Israel is a "long-standing UN member with the same rights and obligations as every other member", and that, under the UN Charter, "all members have pledged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Ahmadinejad's suggestion, in an interview with Iranian state television's Arabic-language satellite channel, Al-Alam, that the "tumour" of the state of Israel should be relocated to Europe, triggered new Western outcry Thursday.
The Iranian leader, who in October had said arch-enemy Israel must be "wiped off the map", said that if Germany and Austria believed Jews were massacred during World War II, a state of Israel should be established on their soil.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Bah Hum Bug or Something Like it
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network.
I haven’t really been in to Christmas since probably high school. My dad is a devout atheist who hates religion and my mother is a lapsed Jew. My dad’s side of the family is Italian Catholic and though they’ve attended midnight Mass and all of that jazz, I can’t say we’re the most religious family going. Most folks in my family see the holiday season as both a curse and a blessing. We love each other very much but get annoyed by all of the pomp and circumstance that goes along with it.
Thoughtful gifts have been replaced with Amazon wish lists, gift cards, or money.
The once mighty and tall Christmas tree that lit our living room like a miniature Rockefeller Center has been replaced with what can only be described as a colorful bush.
We’ve never put up Christmas lights around the house preferring to spend our time doing other important things…like looking at dirty pictures on the internet and gossiping on the phone : P
Needless to say, though we love each other very much and enjoy spending the holidays together, Christmas just doesn’t mean as much to as it once did when I was a child.
Then I met my beautiful fiancé. Her idea of decorating for Christmas is that our house should look like Santa’s winter wonderland exploded all over our living room. This chick has got not one but something like 5 trees of various sizes, one of which is 10 feet tall. The medium size tree is 6 feet. There’s enough garland and lights strung up around our house to tie down Gulliver. And I haven’t gotten to the outside lights that took not one day but 2 days and three adult men to hang up (and she still has more stuff to put up out there). Look, my lovely woman even has 3 festive holiday outfits for our Pomeranian.
Clearly we have two different philosophies when it comes to celebrating the alleged birth of our lord Jesus Christ…you remember him don’t you? He’s the guy that this holiday is supposed to be about.
Anywho, she looks at my family and me and thinks we are lacking in the spirit of the holiday. To her and many others Christmas should be as big and monumental as possible. There should be cards and cookies, big trees and bright lights, and an endless river of gifts bought with love (and credit…lots and lots of credit).
I see the celebration of the holiday as something that should be tad subtler. I think the whole business with the lights and all is the height of vanity. I can remember decorating our tree as a child as being a sort of haphazard but exercise in family togetherness. Decorating the 10-foot monster this year with the soon-to-be Mrs. Radulich was like two artists trying to paint on the same canvas. It was an example of something that can only be described the height of vanity.
In my opinion, that is what this holiday has become. A long, on-going exercise in vanity – the very thing Jesus was against. Now out of respect for those such as my lovely partner who enjoy this sort of thing, I generally keep my mouth shut because we are talking about a subjective matter that really doesn’t harm too many people in the grand scheme of things. However, after reading the following article, I have been vindicated.
For those who feel like Christmas costs the earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has a message - it actually does.
ACF executive director Don Henry said the result of the foundation's first analysis of the environmental impact of Christmas spending shocked him.
The University of Sydney-calculated data found December sales of typical Christmas goods - confectionary, alcohol, household appliances, clothes and books and magazines - created 2,861,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses and used 100,000 megalitres of water.
All those too-tight jumpers, ugly bedspreads and tacky ornaments that miss their mark at Christmas and end up stashed at the back of the closet were not just a waste of money, they also were laying waste to the environment, Mr Henry said.
He said figures showed an increase in Australian Christmas spending over the past five years, climbing to a predicted $30 billion this year.
"There is a spike in consumption (at Christmas), there is a spike in the impact on the environment," Mr Henry said.
"We are almost overconsuming."
The Hidden Cost of Christmas found spending just $30 on chocolate santas and candy canes also cost 940 litres of water, created 16kg of greenhouse gasses and disturbed 26 square metres of land.
The boozy holiday season leaves water catchments as well as merrymakers the worse for wear, using up 42,000 Olympic sized swimming pools full of drinking water to produce the Christmas tipple.
And the $1.5 billion Australians spent on clothes last Christmas required more than half a million hectares of land to produce, while the $1.5 billion spent on electrical appliances generated 780,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses before they were even plugged in, the ACF figures show.
It is this sort of vanity that led to the collapse of Easter Island’s civilization.
When the first Europeans visited the island in the eighteenth century it was completely treeless apart from a handful of isolated specimens at the bottom of the deepest extinct volcano crater of Rano Kao. However, recent scientific work, involving the analysis of pollen types, has shown that at the time of the initial settlement Easter Island had a dense vegetation cover including extensive woods. As the population slowly increased, trees would have been cut down to provide clearings for agriculture, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for household goods, pole and thatch houses and canoes for fishing. The most demanding requirement of all was the need to move the large number of enormously heavy statues to ceremonial sites around the island. The only way this could have been done was by large numbers of people guiding and sliding them along a form of flexible tracking made up of tree trunks spread on the ground between the quarry and the aha. Prodigious quantities of timber would have been required and in increasing amounts as the competition between the clans to erect statues grew. As a result by1600 the island was almost completely deforested and statue erection was brought to a halt leaving many stranded at the quarry. (More)
I get that we should be able to have fun during the holidays and get into the spirit if things but once again, Western society can’t seem to get a handle on its excesses. Just how much are we going to pollute this earth attempting to prove to one another who has the biggest penis? It’s the same mentality that has people driving hummers to work when they living in the suburbs.
I’m not trying to be a Scrooge but when it comes to ones affection for the holidays causing environmental degradation I have no problem saying, bah hum bug!
I haven’t really been in to Christmas since probably high school. My dad is a devout atheist who hates religion and my mother is a lapsed Jew. My dad’s side of the family is Italian Catholic and though they’ve attended midnight Mass and all of that jazz, I can’t say we’re the most religious family going. Most folks in my family see the holiday season as both a curse and a blessing. We love each other very much but get annoyed by all of the pomp and circumstance that goes along with it.
Thoughtful gifts have been replaced with Amazon wish lists, gift cards, or money.
The once mighty and tall Christmas tree that lit our living room like a miniature Rockefeller Center has been replaced with what can only be described as a colorful bush.
We’ve never put up Christmas lights around the house preferring to spend our time doing other important things…like looking at dirty pictures on the internet and gossiping on the phone : P
Needless to say, though we love each other very much and enjoy spending the holidays together, Christmas just doesn’t mean as much to as it once did when I was a child.
Then I met my beautiful fiancé. Her idea of decorating for Christmas is that our house should look like Santa’s winter wonderland exploded all over our living room. This chick has got not one but something like 5 trees of various sizes, one of which is 10 feet tall. The medium size tree is 6 feet. There’s enough garland and lights strung up around our house to tie down Gulliver. And I haven’t gotten to the outside lights that took not one day but 2 days and three adult men to hang up (and she still has more stuff to put up out there). Look, my lovely woman even has 3 festive holiday outfits for our Pomeranian.
Clearly we have two different philosophies when it comes to celebrating the alleged birth of our lord Jesus Christ…you remember him don’t you? He’s the guy that this holiday is supposed to be about.
Anywho, she looks at my family and me and thinks we are lacking in the spirit of the holiday. To her and many others Christmas should be as big and monumental as possible. There should be cards and cookies, big trees and bright lights, and an endless river of gifts bought with love (and credit…lots and lots of credit).
I see the celebration of the holiday as something that should be tad subtler. I think the whole business with the lights and all is the height of vanity. I can remember decorating our tree as a child as being a sort of haphazard but exercise in family togetherness. Decorating the 10-foot monster this year with the soon-to-be Mrs. Radulich was like two artists trying to paint on the same canvas. It was an example of something that can only be described the height of vanity.
In my opinion, that is what this holiday has become. A long, on-going exercise in vanity – the very thing Jesus was against. Now out of respect for those such as my lovely partner who enjoy this sort of thing, I generally keep my mouth shut because we are talking about a subjective matter that really doesn’t harm too many people in the grand scheme of things. However, after reading the following article, I have been vindicated.
For those who feel like Christmas costs the earth, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has a message - it actually does.
ACF executive director Don Henry said the result of the foundation's first analysis of the environmental impact of Christmas spending shocked him.
The University of Sydney-calculated data found December sales of typical Christmas goods - confectionary, alcohol, household appliances, clothes and books and magazines - created 2,861,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses and used 100,000 megalitres of water.
All those too-tight jumpers, ugly bedspreads and tacky ornaments that miss their mark at Christmas and end up stashed at the back of the closet were not just a waste of money, they also were laying waste to the environment, Mr Henry said.
He said figures showed an increase in Australian Christmas spending over the past five years, climbing to a predicted $30 billion this year.
"There is a spike in consumption (at Christmas), there is a spike in the impact on the environment," Mr Henry said.
"We are almost overconsuming."
The Hidden Cost of Christmas found spending just $30 on chocolate santas and candy canes also cost 940 litres of water, created 16kg of greenhouse gasses and disturbed 26 square metres of land.
The boozy holiday season leaves water catchments as well as merrymakers the worse for wear, using up 42,000 Olympic sized swimming pools full of drinking water to produce the Christmas tipple.
And the $1.5 billion Australians spent on clothes last Christmas required more than half a million hectares of land to produce, while the $1.5 billion spent on electrical appliances generated 780,000 tonnes of greenhouse gasses before they were even plugged in, the ACF figures show.
It is this sort of vanity that led to the collapse of Easter Island’s civilization.
When the first Europeans visited the island in the eighteenth century it was completely treeless apart from a handful of isolated specimens at the bottom of the deepest extinct volcano crater of Rano Kao. However, recent scientific work, involving the analysis of pollen types, has shown that at the time of the initial settlement Easter Island had a dense vegetation cover including extensive woods. As the population slowly increased, trees would have been cut down to provide clearings for agriculture, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for household goods, pole and thatch houses and canoes for fishing. The most demanding requirement of all was the need to move the large number of enormously heavy statues to ceremonial sites around the island. The only way this could have been done was by large numbers of people guiding and sliding them along a form of flexible tracking made up of tree trunks spread on the ground between the quarry and the aha. Prodigious quantities of timber would have been required and in increasing amounts as the competition between the clans to erect statues grew. As a result by1600 the island was almost completely deforested and statue erection was brought to a halt leaving many stranded at the quarry. (More)
I get that we should be able to have fun during the holidays and get into the spirit if things but once again, Western society can’t seem to get a handle on its excesses. Just how much are we going to pollute this earth attempting to prove to one another who has the biggest penis? It’s the same mentality that has people driving hummers to work when they living in the suburbs.
I’m not trying to be a Scrooge but when it comes to ones affection for the holidays causing environmental degradation I have no problem saying, bah hum bug!
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Enjoy your last Christmas before the bear market
I thik I mentioned something like this a while back. I've talked about the housing bubble eventually bursting and I've talked about how the high price of oil will effect the average Americans ability to negotiate their household bills. Consumer spending took a beating this year and though Christmas promises to be fruitful, I agree with the sentiments of the below article, next year there will be some serious changes. Noww combine the natural cycle of American economic patterns with an increase in joblessness and an even greater increase in outsourced jobs. Then factor in an increase in the price of housing plus consumer goods while wages remain stagnent or decrease. No matter how you look at it, we're due for a crash and then an adjustment.
Good luck folks. Happy Holidays!
Yes, you heard me right: This is the very last Christmas before next recession and bear market. So make the most of it. Seriously, have fun, buy lots of presents (on credit), celebrate with the folks, eat hearty, enjoy the eggnog, kiss a cutie under the mistletoe, root for your favorite team on New Year's Day.
Have fun, because the party's almost over. The bets are that 2006 is going to be bad news for the market, the economy and your pocketbook. So live it up, folks! You may as well have one last big fling before reality sets in and the bottom falls out. Here's what some of America's meanest old Scrooges are saying to try to dampen your holiday spirit:
Jeremy Grantham of GMO ($135 billion assets): "Everyone agrees that there are extreme imbalances in the U.S. and the global economy ... The bulls believe that all will work out ... The bears believe that sooner or later these imbalances will come home to roost. ... The probable winning bet [is] a very mean reversal ... for the next few years."
Gary Shilling, economist: "A bursting of the housing bubble will probably be the expansion ender. Signs of the bubble's demise are accumulating, making a 2006 recession probable."
Bill Gross of Pimco ($475 billion assets): "Now after 300 basis points and 17 months of tightening -- which by the way is typical of prior bear cycles as well -- it should only be logical to expect a slower economy in 2006."
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: "Our budget position will substantially worsen in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken. The consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe."
So how can you prepare for a bear market and recession? Forget the typical year-end articles like year-end tax planning that fill the financial press like a well-lit Christmas tree and mall bell-ringers. Preparing for a recession and bear market is not about tweaking strategies that worked in a bull market.
What will work? One more time I could launch into a reminder of the advantages of a well-diversified portfolio of no-load index funds. But you don't need more softball tools, platitudinous tips and easy-to-do tactics about stuff you already know.
You need a wake up call: Total shift of consciousness, an extreme mental makeover, a massive attitude adjustment. You're not going to play armchair war games on your new Xbox 360. This is real war. In the coming years it is going to take a whole new way of thinking for you and for the rest of America. And the best advice for getting a new mindset will never, never come from Wall Street. Remember, a bullish bias and greed are all they know! (More)
Good luck folks. Happy Holidays!
Yes, you heard me right: This is the very last Christmas before next recession and bear market. So make the most of it. Seriously, have fun, buy lots of presents (on credit), celebrate with the folks, eat hearty, enjoy the eggnog, kiss a cutie under the mistletoe, root for your favorite team on New Year's Day.
Have fun, because the party's almost over. The bets are that 2006 is going to be bad news for the market, the economy and your pocketbook. So live it up, folks! You may as well have one last big fling before reality sets in and the bottom falls out. Here's what some of America's meanest old Scrooges are saying to try to dampen your holiday spirit:
Jeremy Grantham of GMO ($135 billion assets): "Everyone agrees that there are extreme imbalances in the U.S. and the global economy ... The bulls believe that all will work out ... The bears believe that sooner or later these imbalances will come home to roost. ... The probable winning bet [is] a very mean reversal ... for the next few years."
Gary Shilling, economist: "A bursting of the housing bubble will probably be the expansion ender. Signs of the bubble's demise are accumulating, making a 2006 recession probable."
Bill Gross of Pimco ($475 billion assets): "Now after 300 basis points and 17 months of tightening -- which by the way is typical of prior bear cycles as well -- it should only be logical to expect a slower economy in 2006."
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan: "Our budget position will substantially worsen in the coming years unless major deficit-reducing actions are taken. The consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe."
So how can you prepare for a bear market and recession? Forget the typical year-end articles like year-end tax planning that fill the financial press like a well-lit Christmas tree and mall bell-ringers. Preparing for a recession and bear market is not about tweaking strategies that worked in a bull market.
What will work? One more time I could launch into a reminder of the advantages of a well-diversified portfolio of no-load index funds. But you don't need more softball tools, platitudinous tips and easy-to-do tactics about stuff you already know.
You need a wake up call: Total shift of consciousness, an extreme mental makeover, a massive attitude adjustment. You're not going to play armchair war games on your new Xbox 360. This is real war. In the coming years it is going to take a whole new way of thinking for you and for the rest of America. And the best advice for getting a new mindset will never, never come from Wall Street. Remember, a bullish bias and greed are all they know! (More)
Monday, December 12, 2005
Iran offers the United States share in building nuclear power plants
There aren't too many more ways for Iran to cry innocence. This is yet another attempt by the Iranians to show the world that they are not trying build a bomb. It's a hell of a PR move, that's for certain. The US won't go for it obviously but that's hardly the issue here. Regardless of where Iran is really going in this world, they have to try and convince the world that they are just trying to get along. This is one way to do it. The ball is in the US' court now.
Here's the story:
Iran opened the door Sunday for U.S. help in building a nuclear power plant - a move designed to ease American suspicions that Tehran is using its nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons.
The offer, which did not seem likely to win acceptance in Washington, was issued as Israel said it had not ruled out a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a news conference.
Asefi was apparently talking about a 360-megawatt light water nuclear power plant that the head of the country's atomic organization said on Saturday would be constructed in southwestern Iran.
Iran also wants to produce 2,000 megawatts of electricity by building nuclear power plants with foreign help in southern Iran.
While it was unclear how the Americans would react to the Iranian proposal, relations between Tehran and Washington, which were severed after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, have seldom been worse. The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran, preventing U.S. companies from doing business in Iran.
In Washington, neither the State Department nor the White House issued any comment on the proposal.
The United States also has ratcheted up pressure against Iran, accusing it of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and supporting anti-Israeli militants. Iran says its nuclear program is designed only to generate electricity.
The Iranian offer comes at a time when Iran is facing a barrage of criticism over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks, first that Israel should be wiped off the map and later that Israel should be moved to Europe.
On Sunday, Israel denied a British report that it has plans to attack Iran in March, but officials said they would not rule out a military strike if Iran makes advances in building nuclear weapons.
Amos Gilad, a senior Defence Ministry official, said attention was now focused on an international solution over the Iranian program but added, "it isn't correct to say that a country that is threatened should deny that it will ever consider a different option."
Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israeli would never accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
"Israel can't live in a situation in which Iran has the atomic bomb," he said.
Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Tehran's offer was genuine in part but also politically motivated.
"Iran made the offer seriously to show the United States that it won't produce a bomb and ease its concern," Leilaz said. "And partly, Iran made the offer because it's almost sure the United States won't accept it."
Iran flexed its military muscle Sunday by commissioning a new submarine at the end of three-day military manoeuvres in southern Iran.
The submarine, named Ghadir, was Iran's second domestically made submarine and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, state-run radio reported.
Iran has been involved in stalled talks with European negotiators over its contentious nuclear program aimed at making Tehran permanently freeze nuclear enrichment.
Enrichment can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity.
The United States backs the Iran-Europe talks, which broke off in August but will resume Dec. 21 in Vienna, Austria. Tehran has since restarted uranium conversion, a precursor to enrichment.
"The (Vienna) meeting will be a serious one," Asefi said. "Everything is dependent on the meeting and the talks. Everything will be decided there. We will make a decision based on its results in the future." Asefi refused to speculate on the result of the talks, saying only that "if Europe works based on the non-proliferation treaty, safeguards and international measures, then there will be no room for concern."
He said again that the agenda would focus on Iran's right to enrich uranium and that the talks would be held on a senior level.
Germany, France and Britain have suggested shifting Iran's enrichment activities to Russia, where nuclear material would be enriched only to fuel levels and not to weapons grade.
But Iran said it would enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel domestically despite international efforts to curb its atomic program.
On Friday Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, said the international community was losing patience with Iran over its nuclear program.
Iran is standing its ground amid international pressure to cut back on its nuclear activities, particularly uranium enrichment, which can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity.
Here's the story:
Iran opened the door Sunday for U.S. help in building a nuclear power plant - a move designed to ease American suspicions that Tehran is using its nuclear program as a cover to build atomic weapons.
The offer, which did not seem likely to win acceptance in Washington, was issued as Israel said it had not ruled out a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
"America can take part in international bidding for the construction of Iran's nuclear power plant if they observe the basic standards and quality," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said in a news conference.
Asefi was apparently talking about a 360-megawatt light water nuclear power plant that the head of the country's atomic organization said on Saturday would be constructed in southwestern Iran.
Iran also wants to produce 2,000 megawatts of electricity by building nuclear power plants with foreign help in southern Iran.
While it was unclear how the Americans would react to the Iranian proposal, relations between Tehran and Washington, which were severed after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution, have seldom been worse. The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran, preventing U.S. companies from doing business in Iran.
In Washington, neither the State Department nor the White House issued any comment on the proposal.
The United States also has ratcheted up pressure against Iran, accusing it of pursuing a nuclear weapons program and supporting anti-Israeli militants. Iran says its nuclear program is designed only to generate electricity.
The Iranian offer comes at a time when Iran is facing a barrage of criticism over President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent remarks, first that Israel should be wiped off the map and later that Israel should be moved to Europe.
On Sunday, Israel denied a British report that it has plans to attack Iran in March, but officials said they would not rule out a military strike if Iran makes advances in building nuclear weapons.
Amos Gilad, a senior Defence Ministry official, said attention was now focused on an international solution over the Iranian program but added, "it isn't correct to say that a country that is threatened should deny that it will ever consider a different option."
Israel Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israeli would never accept a nuclear-armed Iran.
"Israel can't live in a situation in which Iran has the atomic bomb," he said.
Iranian political analyst Saeed Leilaz said Tehran's offer was genuine in part but also politically motivated.
"Iran made the offer seriously to show the United States that it won't produce a bomb and ease its concern," Leilaz said. "And partly, Iran made the offer because it's almost sure the United States won't accept it."
Iran flexed its military muscle Sunday by commissioning a new submarine at the end of three-day military manoeuvres in southern Iran.
The submarine, named Ghadir, was Iran's second domestically made submarine and can fire missiles and torpedoes simultaneously, state-run radio reported.
Iran has been involved in stalled talks with European negotiators over its contentious nuclear program aimed at making Tehran permanently freeze nuclear enrichment.
Enrichment can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity.
The United States backs the Iran-Europe talks, which broke off in August but will resume Dec. 21 in Vienna, Austria. Tehran has since restarted uranium conversion, a precursor to enrichment.
"The (Vienna) meeting will be a serious one," Asefi said. "Everything is dependent on the meeting and the talks. Everything will be decided there. We will make a decision based on its results in the future." Asefi refused to speculate on the result of the talks, saying only that "if Europe works based on the non-proliferation treaty, safeguards and international measures, then there will be no room for concern."
He said again that the agenda would focus on Iran's right to enrich uranium and that the talks would be held on a senior level.
Germany, France and Britain have suggested shifting Iran's enrichment activities to Russia, where nuclear material would be enriched only to fuel levels and not to weapons grade.
But Iran said it would enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel domestically despite international efforts to curb its atomic program.
On Friday Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, said the international community was losing patience with Iran over its nuclear program.
Iran is standing its ground amid international pressure to cut back on its nuclear activities, particularly uranium enrichment, which can produce material for use in warheads or fuel for nuclear plants to generate electricity.
Friday, December 09, 2005
New Review: The FairTax Book
The following is a brief excerpt from a review posted on PopandPolitics.com:Have you ever had this conversation?
Person A: Hey, how much did you make this week from your job?
Person B: How much did I make, or how much did I take home?
You see, right there is the problem. As a law-abiding, tax-paying, hard-working society we seem to have contracted battered-wife syndrome when it comes to taxes. In what other series of circumstances would anyone put up with essentially being mugged on a weekly (or bi-weekly) basis? When it comes to income tax we shrug and just hand over our money amidst a wave of resignation.
We should be angry about this (and many of us are), but what action can we take to change our regressive tax system?
Alas, there is salvation in the form of syndicated talk show host Neil Boortz's and Congressman John Linder’s co-authored work, “The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS (Not the mention the Social Security tax, the Medicare tax, corporate income taxes, the death tax, the self-employment tax, the alternative minimum tax, the gift tax, capital gains taxes, tax audits, and some major headaches every April 15.)”
Basically the FairTax would be a consumption tax at a rate of 23% in lieu of all the above-mentioned federal taxes. The worker/investor would receive all of his or her earned income in their paycheck without any funds removed for any taxes. Under this system, if you bank every paycheck and never spend a dime of it, then you’ll never have to pay a federal tax. However, other than basic necessities such as food and clothing, most people do not manage to go through life not spending their hard-earned dough. As a result, all Americans would pay federal taxes through new consumer purchases that would carry a 23% sales tax, which would then be used to feed the federal coffers including Social Security and Medicare. (More)
Thursday, December 08, 2005
World Bank Aims to Wipe Out Nations' Debt
This is certainly good news. I applaud Paul Wolfowitz and the World Bank for this audacious gesture on behalf of ending absolute poverty in the Third World. Though I do have some degree of skepticism. A few months back when Wolfowitz took the job as World Bank president many pundits as well as myself assumed that there was some nefarious purpose in naming him in that role. I, for one, assumed that his position there would put him in a position to secure funds in a war effort against Iran. Now lord only knows if Wolfowitz will ever actually be able to take advantage of his power at the World Bank with respect to Iran. If we end up not going to war in Iran, my question is, can or will Wolfowitz be a worthy or effective World Bank administrator? This debt forgiveness plan certainly makes it seem like his heart is in the right place but again, who knows.
Here's the story:
The World Bank's board is expected to consider a plan next week for wiping out poor countries' debt, the lending institution's' president, Paul Wolfowitz, said Wednesday.
"It will be in their hands to decide early next week," he told reporters.
The plan would forgive nearly $40 billion worth of debt for 18 poor countries, most of them in Africa, over a 40-year period, he said.
Wolfowitz believed the World Bank would be able to start providing debt forgiveness to countries by the middle of next year.
The expected approval by the World Bank board would mostly be a formality. Financial leaders nailed down the landmark debt-foregiveness plan at meetings in late September of the 184-nation World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
A general framework for the deal was endorsed by leaders of the world's eight major industrial powers at an economic meeting in July in Scotland. The details of putting the deal in place were left largely to the World Bank and the IMF to settle.
By canceling debts owed to the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Bank, poor countries could use the money for education or drugs to fight HIV/AIDS or malaria, supporters of debt forgiveness say.
A major breakthrough on the debt cancellation deal came in late September when finance officials from the world's richest countries agreed to put up all the money to cover the loan repayments lost when the debt are written off. Those commitments allayed concerns that the lending institutions would be financially impaired.
Here's the story:
The World Bank's board is expected to consider a plan next week for wiping out poor countries' debt, the lending institution's' president, Paul Wolfowitz, said Wednesday.
"It will be in their hands to decide early next week," he told reporters.
The plan would forgive nearly $40 billion worth of debt for 18 poor countries, most of them in Africa, over a 40-year period, he said.
Wolfowitz believed the World Bank would be able to start providing debt forgiveness to countries by the middle of next year.
The expected approval by the World Bank board would mostly be a formality. Financial leaders nailed down the landmark debt-foregiveness plan at meetings in late September of the 184-nation World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
A general framework for the deal was endorsed by leaders of the world's eight major industrial powers at an economic meeting in July in Scotland. The details of putting the deal in place were left largely to the World Bank and the IMF to settle.
By canceling debts owed to the World Bank, the IMF and the African Development Bank, poor countries could use the money for education or drugs to fight HIV/AIDS or malaria, supporters of debt forgiveness say.
A major breakthrough on the debt cancellation deal came in late September when finance officials from the world's richest countries agreed to put up all the money to cover the loan repayments lost when the debt are written off. Those commitments allayed concerns that the lending institutions would be financially impaired.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Monsoon Money
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
China may be getting all the press when the pundits talk about how the Third World is a rising economic powerhouse but India is quickly becoming a first rate superpower itself. First, if having nuclear weapons makes a nation a force to not only be reckoned with but a major factor in international affairs, then India’s own arsenal makes it an imposing figure on the world stage. For example, this past week I wrote about how India is backing Russia’s plan to have Iran partially enrich uranium outside of their country. However, as the next three articles will clearly show, India’s global influence, military might, and economic potential go far beyond finding a niche issue to assert itself in, like Iran’s alleged quest for WMD’s, but rather they show that India is in fact a major player.
Speaking of global supremacy, the first article states that:
Microsoft plans to invest $1 bln in India
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world's largest software maker, plans to invest more than $1 billion in India, a source close to the firm told Reuters on Wednesday, joining other multinationals expanding operations in the fast-growing economy.
Microsoft relies heavily on India's booming $17.2 billion software services industry to source quality skills at costs far below average Western salaries.
"The investment is more than one billion dollars and spread over several years," the source said.
Microsoft's investment plans follow chip-maker Intel's (INTC) announcement on Monday to pour $1.1 billion in the medium term in its Indian operations, including setting up a venture fund to take stakes in local start-ups.
In October, Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) said it plans to invest $1.1 billion in India over the next three years and triple its staff in the country.
Trade protectionist and isolationists beware, more jobs in IT as well other avenues of the computer industry will be migrating to India (as well as the rest of Asia) for a very long time going forward. I’ve said many times that so long as multi-national companies have investments in foreign lands, there will be no violence (on a grand scale) to speak of. You can expect that this level of investment will also result in outside influences (said companies) attempting, and probably succeeding, in keeping Pakistan in line and furthermore, continuing the peace process in Kashmir. Money may be the root of all evil but because of our ever-expanding global economy, it serves as a pacifier for nations who have a true desire to increase their GDP.
And speaking of ways to make lots of dough:
India, Russia sign pact on joint production of military hardware
Marking the Manmohan-Putin summit, India and Russia on Tuesday signed in Moscow three agreements realting joint production of military hardware, protection of intellectual property rights to regulate joint defence work and cooperation in civilian nuclear energy and space sectors.
Both leaders agreed to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The two countries will use space-based Global Navigational Satellite System to provide for joint development of new generation navigational satellites.
Addressing a televised joint press conference with Russian leader, Manmohan Singh said, "the two countries share share the perspective to move towards collaborative defence projects, designs, develop and market next generation military products," Dr Singh said at the joint conference with Putin.
Putin cited Kudankulam nuclear power project, which is coming up near Madras with Russian assistance as an example of successful cooperation in nuclear energy.
Observing, "We consider India our strategic partner. We would work to ensure that India could cope with the tasks and goals it has set in the peaceful use of nuclear energy", Russian President said, "We see India taking necessary steps to build relations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group."
He noted that India was separating military and civilian nuclear programmes and has adopted the necessary legislations, apart from actively working with NSG countries.
Answering a question, Manmohan Singh said, the two countries have identified the Medium-Range Transport Aircraft and the Fifth Generation Aircraft as collaborative projects and discussion at the expert level would be held on them.
India, Russia and China make a huge axis of regional influence across the Asian Continent. Those are the three largest nations in the East and together comprise a good chunk of the world’s total population. Traditionally it has been the West (US, Israel and Europe) whom supplied the world with enough weapons to make Rambo blush. Russia was relegated to supplying it’s satellite nations with weapons and not too much else. However, this new partnership to jointly develop military hardware is a keen example of life in the Third World Order. No longer can the West rest comfortably on their monopolistic laurels as nations such as the above Axis seeks to grab a piece of much coveted markets like weapons themselves.
And speaking of Weapons of Mass Destruction:
US studios planning to enter India
The changes in the Hindi film industry have opened up possibilities not only for alternative themes but also for filmmakers of all genres. The metamorphosis of this industry could also see the entry of US studios into India.
"The door is opening to all kind of filmmakers. Previously, connections determined the success of your film. Today, most films made efficiently, manage to recover their costs," Vinta Nanda, filmmaker, said.
"The power structure has shifted to new people," Amit Khanna, President, Film & Television Producers Guild, said. He is also the Chairman of Reliance Entertainment Pvt Ltd. In June, Reliance Capital had acquired a 51 per cent equity stake in Adlabs Films Ltd for Rs 360 crore. Adlabs later signed on director Ram Gopal Varma to anchor a series of films totally costing Rs 80 crore. Sahara One announced its participation in producing a Hollywood film. The principal photography of `Marigold,' a co-production between Adlabs and US-based Hyperion Pictures has been completed. And of great interest to all was Sony Pictures' deal with director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. "It could eventually signal the entry of US studios into India,'' Sunir Kheterpal, Head (Media & Entertainment Banking), Yes Bank, said. More
My uncle always says that the key to world peace is to give everyone rock-n-roll and blue jeans. President Bush says that we’re in a War on Terror because the terrorists hate our freedoms and our culture. While both statements are overly simplistic, they to point to an undeniable truth, the power of American entertainment. If studios begin to heavily invest in India, as they have with Bollywood, you may well see India setting the pace of global as America does now, sometime in the 20 years or so.
Brace for it folks, the monsoon from India’s economy is coming.
China may be getting all the press when the pundits talk about how the Third World is a rising economic powerhouse but India is quickly becoming a first rate superpower itself. First, if having nuclear weapons makes a nation a force to not only be reckoned with but a major factor in international affairs, then India’s own arsenal makes it an imposing figure on the world stage. For example, this past week I wrote about how India is backing Russia’s plan to have Iran partially enrich uranium outside of their country. However, as the next three articles will clearly show, India’s global influence, military might, and economic potential go far beyond finding a niche issue to assert itself in, like Iran’s alleged quest for WMD’s, but rather they show that India is in fact a major player.
Speaking of global supremacy, the first article states that:
Microsoft plans to invest $1 bln in India
Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world's largest software maker, plans to invest more than $1 billion in India, a source close to the firm told Reuters on Wednesday, joining other multinationals expanding operations in the fast-growing economy.
Microsoft relies heavily on India's booming $17.2 billion software services industry to source quality skills at costs far below average Western salaries.
"The investment is more than one billion dollars and spread over several years," the source said.
Microsoft's investment plans follow chip-maker Intel's (INTC) announcement on Monday to pour $1.1 billion in the medium term in its Indian operations, including setting up a venture fund to take stakes in local start-ups.
In October, Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO) said it plans to invest $1.1 billion in India over the next three years and triple its staff in the country.
Trade protectionist and isolationists beware, more jobs in IT as well other avenues of the computer industry will be migrating to India (as well as the rest of Asia) for a very long time going forward. I’ve said many times that so long as multi-national companies have investments in foreign lands, there will be no violence (on a grand scale) to speak of. You can expect that this level of investment will also result in outside influences (said companies) attempting, and probably succeeding, in keeping Pakistan in line and furthermore, continuing the peace process in Kashmir. Money may be the root of all evil but because of our ever-expanding global economy, it serves as a pacifier for nations who have a true desire to increase their GDP.
And speaking of ways to make lots of dough:
India, Russia sign pact on joint production of military hardware
Marking the Manmohan-Putin summit, India and Russia on Tuesday signed in Moscow three agreements realting joint production of military hardware, protection of intellectual property rights to regulate joint defence work and cooperation in civilian nuclear energy and space sectors.
Both leaders agreed to strengthen bilateral cooperation in the fight against terrorism. The two countries will use space-based Global Navigational Satellite System to provide for joint development of new generation navigational satellites.
Addressing a televised joint press conference with Russian leader, Manmohan Singh said, "the two countries share share the perspective to move towards collaborative defence projects, designs, develop and market next generation military products," Dr Singh said at the joint conference with Putin.
Putin cited Kudankulam nuclear power project, which is coming up near Madras with Russian assistance as an example of successful cooperation in nuclear energy.
Observing, "We consider India our strategic partner. We would work to ensure that India could cope with the tasks and goals it has set in the peaceful use of nuclear energy", Russian President said, "We see India taking necessary steps to build relations with the Nuclear Suppliers Group."
He noted that India was separating military and civilian nuclear programmes and has adopted the necessary legislations, apart from actively working with NSG countries.
Answering a question, Manmohan Singh said, the two countries have identified the Medium-Range Transport Aircraft and the Fifth Generation Aircraft as collaborative projects and discussion at the expert level would be held on them.
India, Russia and China make a huge axis of regional influence across the Asian Continent. Those are the three largest nations in the East and together comprise a good chunk of the world’s total population. Traditionally it has been the West (US, Israel and Europe) whom supplied the world with enough weapons to make Rambo blush. Russia was relegated to supplying it’s satellite nations with weapons and not too much else. However, this new partnership to jointly develop military hardware is a keen example of life in the Third World Order. No longer can the West rest comfortably on their monopolistic laurels as nations such as the above Axis seeks to grab a piece of much coveted markets like weapons themselves.
And speaking of Weapons of Mass Destruction:
US studios planning to enter India
The changes in the Hindi film industry have opened up possibilities not only for alternative themes but also for filmmakers of all genres. The metamorphosis of this industry could also see the entry of US studios into India.
"The door is opening to all kind of filmmakers. Previously, connections determined the success of your film. Today, most films made efficiently, manage to recover their costs," Vinta Nanda, filmmaker, said.
"The power structure has shifted to new people," Amit Khanna, President, Film & Television Producers Guild, said. He is also the Chairman of Reliance Entertainment Pvt Ltd. In June, Reliance Capital had acquired a 51 per cent equity stake in Adlabs Films Ltd for Rs 360 crore. Adlabs later signed on director Ram Gopal Varma to anchor a series of films totally costing Rs 80 crore. Sahara One announced its participation in producing a Hollywood film. The principal photography of `Marigold,' a co-production between Adlabs and US-based Hyperion Pictures has been completed. And of great interest to all was Sony Pictures' deal with director Sanjay Leela Bhansali. "It could eventually signal the entry of US studios into India,'' Sunir Kheterpal, Head (Media & Entertainment Banking), Yes Bank, said. More
My uncle always says that the key to world peace is to give everyone rock-n-roll and blue jeans. President Bush says that we’re in a War on Terror because the terrorists hate our freedoms and our culture. While both statements are overly simplistic, they to point to an undeniable truth, the power of American entertainment. If studios begin to heavily invest in India, as they have with Bollywood, you may well see India setting the pace of global as America does now, sometime in the 20 years or so.
Brace for it folks, the monsoon from India’s economy is coming.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Verizon to End Traditional Pensions For Managers
First to my friends and family who may be affected by this, I am truly sorry. It's hard enough to make a living and support a family as it is in today's changing global economy without this constant feeling that one will have to work until they drop dead because all social safety nets are going the way of the dodo. Good luck and God bless to all whom were counting on their pensions from Verizon.
My thoughts on this are different from what they'd normally be. Usually I side with the corporations (perish the thought) and their prime directive of making the most profit from the least expenditure. This is why I'm always touting global trade and a Basic Income Guarantee. One has to be realisting about the world we live in today. As it is the boardroom culture dictates a sort of cutthroat mentality where the gospel of short-term gain and long-term pain drives the decisions of the CEO and the rest of the many boards across the land. Before we even know how we're being screwed, these folks have already thought of and plotted out new strategies for getting us to seperate from our money and are moving on to bigger and better things. My mentality when it comes to this sort of thing is that if you can't beat'em, at least learn to adapt.
But the cutting of traditional pensions particularly irks me. It really is a sign that the American business environment, culture and mentality have irrevocably changed for the worse. The business leadership of our country cannot have made themselves any clearer, nobody and nothing is sacred. You can be replaced on the job for pennies on the dime by a worker in the burgeoning Thirld World and then you as the consumer can be replaced with 10 to 100 consumer in that same Third World market. Having said that, what could possibly hold American business to any sort of loyalty toward their fellow man? The answer in reality is nothing for now. So long as a business can make more money elsewhere the age of worker rights and privilege is quickly coming to an end.
I'm not necessarily angry about this, just very sad. Here's the story:
Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, said yesterday that it will phase out defined-benefit pension plans for about 50,000 management employees to save money.
New York-based Verizon, the dominant local phone company in the Washington area, said it would take a $97 million fourth-quarter pretax charge as a result but expected to save about $3 billion over the next decade because of the changes.
Verizon is the latest in a long line of U.S. companies that have phased out defined-benefit plans, which can be expensive to maintain but typically guarantee workers a set monthly payment in their retirement based on length of service and final years of salary. Many companies instead make contributions to 401(k)-style savings plans, which have no guaranteed payout amount; rather, the size of an employee's retirement nest egg is based on the success of the worker's investment decisions.
In addition to saving money, Verizon officials said they were trying to harmonize benefits among employees, including those at Verizon Wireless and at Ashburn-based MCI Inc., which the company is acquiring.
Neither MCI nor Verizon Wireless managers have defined-benefit pension plans.
"This restructuring reflects the realities of our changing world. Companies today, including many we compete with, are not adopting defined benefit pension plans or subsidized retiree medical benefits," Ivan G. Seidenberg, Verizon's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. Continued
My thoughts on this are different from what they'd normally be. Usually I side with the corporations (perish the thought) and their prime directive of making the most profit from the least expenditure. This is why I'm always touting global trade and a Basic Income Guarantee. One has to be realisting about the world we live in today. As it is the boardroom culture dictates a sort of cutthroat mentality where the gospel of short-term gain and long-term pain drives the decisions of the CEO and the rest of the many boards across the land. Before we even know how we're being screwed, these folks have already thought of and plotted out new strategies for getting us to seperate from our money and are moving on to bigger and better things. My mentality when it comes to this sort of thing is that if you can't beat'em, at least learn to adapt.
But the cutting of traditional pensions particularly irks me. It really is a sign that the American business environment, culture and mentality have irrevocably changed for the worse. The business leadership of our country cannot have made themselves any clearer, nobody and nothing is sacred. You can be replaced on the job for pennies on the dime by a worker in the burgeoning Thirld World and then you as the consumer can be replaced with 10 to 100 consumer in that same Third World market. Having said that, what could possibly hold American business to any sort of loyalty toward their fellow man? The answer in reality is nothing for now. So long as a business can make more money elsewhere the age of worker rights and privilege is quickly coming to an end.
I'm not necessarily angry about this, just very sad. Here's the story:
Verizon Communications Inc., the second-largest U.S. phone company, said yesterday that it will phase out defined-benefit pension plans for about 50,000 management employees to save money.
New York-based Verizon, the dominant local phone company in the Washington area, said it would take a $97 million fourth-quarter pretax charge as a result but expected to save about $3 billion over the next decade because of the changes.
Verizon is the latest in a long line of U.S. companies that have phased out defined-benefit plans, which can be expensive to maintain but typically guarantee workers a set monthly payment in their retirement based on length of service and final years of salary. Many companies instead make contributions to 401(k)-style savings plans, which have no guaranteed payout amount; rather, the size of an employee's retirement nest egg is based on the success of the worker's investment decisions.
In addition to saving money, Verizon officials said they were trying to harmonize benefits among employees, including those at Verizon Wireless and at Ashburn-based MCI Inc., which the company is acquiring.
Neither MCI nor Verizon Wireless managers have defined-benefit pension plans.
"This restructuring reflects the realities of our changing world. Companies today, including many we compete with, are not adopting defined benefit pension plans or subsidized retiree medical benefits," Ivan G. Seidenberg, Verizon's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. Continued
Monday, December 05, 2005
The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Friend…Even the Iranians
This Post is also available at The Blogger News Network
What puzzles me about the last election cycle was how Bush’s team depended on the “flip flopper” label to undermine John Kerry’s candidacy. All of a sudden it became the worst thing ever to change ones mind in light of new facts. Well, in a true Bush Administration Moment, it looks as if they are indeed changing their minds and opting for a new strategy regarding the war in Iraq. In what can only be described as, “Thank God the average American citizen doesn’t pay attention to the news or has chronic Attention Deficit Disorder", the US is now looking to Iran of all countries, to help stabilize Iraq in order for US forces to withdraw from that country sometime within the next few years. Now ain’t that a kick in the head?
According to Newsweek, President Bush gave US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, explicit permission to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran in order to help secure Iraq after US troops’ pullout in phases. Mr. Khalilzad stated in the press that, “I’ve been authorized by the president to engage Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly.”
Ambassador Khalilzad has worked with the Iranian’s before. Khalilzad has in the past made deals with Teheran in Afghanistan, most notably at the Bonn summit of Afghan factions, which shaped the nature of Kabul's government after its liberation from the tyranny of the Taliban in 2001. It appears the Mr. Bush is looking at Khalilzad to rekindle that old magic again with our friends in Iran.
As I’ve stated previously, at this point there are so many reasons against going to war with Iran, nukes or no nukes, that dialogue and co-existence actually seem like a bold and rational strategy. Iran, as we all know by now, is indelibly tied to Russia, China, Venezuela, and as of late, India.
In fact, there are now reports that India’s view of Iran’s nuclear policy is not only nearly exactly the same as the Russians but there strategy to solve the nuclear dilemma and not refer Iran to the UN Security Council appears to be bearing fruit.
According to the Hindustan Times, “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday that India's strategy to resolve the Iran nuclear issue within the IAEA jurisdiction and not allow it to go to UN Security Council seems to be working.
"Our concern has been to find a solution of the problem and not allow it go to the UN Security Council and resolve it within IAEA. I am glad to say that our strategy as of now seems to be working", he told reporters accompanying him on a three-day visit to Moscow.
He said India has been talking to various players including European Union, Russia and China to find a solution to the problem.”
Having said that, it is quite clear that the US really has no viable or sane recourse but to engage the Iranian’s and hope that the aforementioned countries can get the mullahs to see reason, even if their rhetoric regarding “Zionists” never changes.
Unfortunately, as of this writing, the mullahs are pulling their usual shenanigans, not committing to a dialogue with the US. It seems that the collective personality of the Iranian government is like a jilted girlfriend. They have something the desire of you but won’t exactly tell you what it is and you have guess. When you guess wrong, they get all pissy. But they don’t want to break up per se, they just want to throw a good tantrum and make you sweat.
Anywho, according to, The Financial Times, “Iranian officials have given a mixed response to Washington's recent decision to authorise Zalmay Khalilzad, its envoy in Baghdad, to speak to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad.
Hamid-Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday Tehran saw "no need" to discuss Iraq with the US, and Ali Larijani, the top security official, on Saturday dismissed the idea as "propaganda".
But Mohammad-Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister, said that while "the general instructions are not to talk to Americans", Tehran could consider the US initiative.
"We'll think about it," he said, after giving a speech to the Gulf Dialogue, a conference in Bahrain organised by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
In his address to an audience including US civilian and military officials, Mr Bagheri said Iran had been bitterly disappointed by its inclusion in President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" despite its active co-operation with Washington in Afghanistan over the toppling of the Taliban regime.
He said Tehran was nonetheless willing to help stabilise Iraq - without specifying how - and that it expected a "sincere" reaction to its role.”
The fact of the matter is that Iran has as much to lose in Iraq descending into full on civil war as the rest of the world does if not more. First and most obviously there is the proximity Iraq to Iran. No nation wants to see its neighbors in total chaos. This insurgency serves Iran well so long as it drives the US out of the Middle East and then promptly ends. Russia wouldn’t mind the absence of US troops from Central Asia either. However, if the insurgency were to mutate into an Iraqi civil war, it would eventually blow smack dab into Tehran. Chaos is funny that way.
The bottom line for Iran as well as all of the countries in the region from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to India, Pakistan, Russia and China, is that hot wars in this new global economy are actually bad for business. All of the above countries and many more are looking for massive financial investments and trade opportunities. With technology being what it is and the terrorist organizations being wildly unpredictable, a nation allowed to collapse is a recipe for knocking over the rest of the dominoes in the region. In short, where Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East and Central Asia.
The current Iraqi government (not the people, the government) simply will not allow their country to descend into madness. The simplest reason being that if it does they’ll all lose the tenuous grip on power they already have. Now we all know just how easily people like to give up power…that is to say not at all. There’s money and power to be had so long as at least the ruling class doesn’t faction off from each other. Same with Iran and the gang, there’s money and power to be had in the Middle East/Central Asia so long as they can keep the street violence down to a dull roar and nobody detonates a nuke.
Though the mullahs fostered a great deal of the violence against US troops, their intent was to drive their enemy out of what they consider their region. I believe that they had no intention to see that country split into 3 smaller countries or God only knows. Contrary to popular belief, I am of the opinion that people have learned from the societal collapses of the Congo, Haiti and Rwanda and realize that the damage those places suffered engulfs the surrounding nations as well. It is to be avoided for the benefit all and that is what makes a long-term insurgency the enemy of the mullahs. That in turn, for now, barring any unseen calamity, makes the Iranian’s our friends.
What puzzles me about the last election cycle was how Bush’s team depended on the “flip flopper” label to undermine John Kerry’s candidacy. All of a sudden it became the worst thing ever to change ones mind in light of new facts. Well, in a true Bush Administration Moment, it looks as if they are indeed changing their minds and opting for a new strategy regarding the war in Iraq. In what can only be described as, “Thank God the average American citizen doesn’t pay attention to the news or has chronic Attention Deficit Disorder", the US is now looking to Iran of all countries, to help stabilize Iraq in order for US forces to withdraw from that country sometime within the next few years. Now ain’t that a kick in the head?
According to Newsweek, President Bush gave US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, explicit permission to begin a diplomatic dialogue with Iran in order to help secure Iraq after US troops’ pullout in phases. Mr. Khalilzad stated in the press that, “I’ve been authorized by the president to engage Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly.”
Ambassador Khalilzad has worked with the Iranian’s before. Khalilzad has in the past made deals with Teheran in Afghanistan, most notably at the Bonn summit of Afghan factions, which shaped the nature of Kabul's government after its liberation from the tyranny of the Taliban in 2001. It appears the Mr. Bush is looking at Khalilzad to rekindle that old magic again with our friends in Iran.
As I’ve stated previously, at this point there are so many reasons against going to war with Iran, nukes or no nukes, that dialogue and co-existence actually seem like a bold and rational strategy. Iran, as we all know by now, is indelibly tied to Russia, China, Venezuela, and as of late, India.
In fact, there are now reports that India’s view of Iran’s nuclear policy is not only nearly exactly the same as the Russians but there strategy to solve the nuclear dilemma and not refer Iran to the UN Security Council appears to be bearing fruit.
According to the Hindustan Times, “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Sunday that India's strategy to resolve the Iran nuclear issue within the IAEA jurisdiction and not allow it to go to UN Security Council seems to be working.
"Our concern has been to find a solution of the problem and not allow it go to the UN Security Council and resolve it within IAEA. I am glad to say that our strategy as of now seems to be working", he told reporters accompanying him on a three-day visit to Moscow.
He said India has been talking to various players including European Union, Russia and China to find a solution to the problem.”
Having said that, it is quite clear that the US really has no viable or sane recourse but to engage the Iranian’s and hope that the aforementioned countries can get the mullahs to see reason, even if their rhetoric regarding “Zionists” never changes.
Unfortunately, as of this writing, the mullahs are pulling their usual shenanigans, not committing to a dialogue with the US. It seems that the collective personality of the Iranian government is like a jilted girlfriend. They have something the desire of you but won’t exactly tell you what it is and you have guess. When you guess wrong, they get all pissy. But they don’t want to break up per se, they just want to throw a good tantrum and make you sweat.
Anywho, according to, The Financial Times, “Iranian officials have given a mixed response to Washington's recent decision to authorise Zalmay Khalilzad, its envoy in Baghdad, to speak to the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad.
Hamid-Reza Asefi, the foreign ministry spokesman, said yesterday Tehran saw "no need" to discuss Iraq with the US, and Ali Larijani, the top security official, on Saturday dismissed the idea as "propaganda".
But Mohammad-Reza Bagheri, deputy foreign minister, said that while "the general instructions are not to talk to Americans", Tehran could consider the US initiative.
"We'll think about it," he said, after giving a speech to the Gulf Dialogue, a conference in Bahrain organised by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.
In his address to an audience including US civilian and military officials, Mr Bagheri said Iran had been bitterly disappointed by its inclusion in President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" despite its active co-operation with Washington in Afghanistan over the toppling of the Taliban regime.
He said Tehran was nonetheless willing to help stabilise Iraq - without specifying how - and that it expected a "sincere" reaction to its role.”
The fact of the matter is that Iran has as much to lose in Iraq descending into full on civil war as the rest of the world does if not more. First and most obviously there is the proximity Iraq to Iran. No nation wants to see its neighbors in total chaos. This insurgency serves Iran well so long as it drives the US out of the Middle East and then promptly ends. Russia wouldn’t mind the absence of US troops from Central Asia either. However, if the insurgency were to mutate into an Iraqi civil war, it would eventually blow smack dab into Tehran. Chaos is funny that way.
The bottom line for Iran as well as all of the countries in the region from Egypt and Saudi Arabia to India, Pakistan, Russia and China, is that hot wars in this new global economy are actually bad for business. All of the above countries and many more are looking for massive financial investments and trade opportunities. With technology being what it is and the terrorist organizations being wildly unpredictable, a nation allowed to collapse is a recipe for knocking over the rest of the dominoes in the region. In short, where Iraq goes, so goes the Middle East and Central Asia.
The current Iraqi government (not the people, the government) simply will not allow their country to descend into madness. The simplest reason being that if it does they’ll all lose the tenuous grip on power they already have. Now we all know just how easily people like to give up power…that is to say not at all. There’s money and power to be had so long as at least the ruling class doesn’t faction off from each other. Same with Iran and the gang, there’s money and power to be had in the Middle East/Central Asia so long as they can keep the street violence down to a dull roar and nobody detonates a nuke.
Though the mullahs fostered a great deal of the violence against US troops, their intent was to drive their enemy out of what they consider their region. I believe that they had no intention to see that country split into 3 smaller countries or God only knows. Contrary to popular belief, I am of the opinion that people have learned from the societal collapses of the Congo, Haiti and Rwanda and realize that the damage those places suffered engulfs the surrounding nations as well. It is to be avoided for the benefit all and that is what makes a long-term insurgency the enemy of the mullahs. That in turn, for now, barring any unseen calamity, makes the Iranian’s our friends.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Michael Moore Denies He Owned Halliburton
Assuming this is true (the sources are Newsmax and author Peter Schweizer) then it would be really funny if it weren't so sad. Look, I don't begrudge Michael Moore his living. If he wants to portray himself as this everyman advocate for the working class while actually being a rich and allegedly pompous film maker, then I say God bless him. Vince McMahon can promote himself as one character while actually being another so why can't Michael Moore? Frankly, it's up to the audience to decide whether Moore's message is worth listening to. It's not his responsibility to be anything but entertaining to those who pay for his services.
So what exactly is my problem?
My problem is his apparent need to lie about himself. The evidence showing he owned Halliburton stock is an IRS statement for Pete's sake. At some point you need to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Going back to the Vince McMahon comparison, when they (as much as they could) gave the audience a wink and more or less admitted that "pro-wrestling" was a show with pre-determined winners rather than "real" competition, then it became the audiences responsibility to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy Vince's product. And what happened next? The WWE did the best business it had ever done to date with characters that ranged from the living dead (The Undertaker) to a character that once showed up to a show driving a beer truck and proceeded to douse his boss, his bosses son and the current champion (Vince and Shane McMahon, and The Rock). Contrary to popular belief, trusting the audience did not bring an end to the business, it only made it stronger.
This thesis would also work for Moore. There's no reason to protect his gimmick when you really think about it. Angry kids need a spokes person. I saw his latest propaganda piece in a NY theater with young and old alike on opening day last year, trust me - those people would not have cared if Michael Moore were Dick Cheney's illegitamate son. They like his message, even when what he's saying is so far from the realm of belief it actually resembles Monday Night Raw. These people accept Michael Moore warts and all because they want somebody to speak for them. Raise their issues. Be their standard bearer. Frankly, do the work for them.
Moores fans all know he is a rich person. They all know he's not this working class character he's portrayed on TV. So what? The audience also knows that the Undertaker isn't really the living dead but that doesn't stop them from rooting for him whenever he has a match. I think that if Moore has a message that is worth promoting, he shouldn't have to lie about himself, in the face of apparent federal evidence stating the opposite of what he is claiming. He should embrace it. Tell people he's a radical socialist and that corporations are bad. I believe he actually did this in the documentary, "The Corporation," when he uttered something about being sponsored by the corporations he was fighting against.
Great! So what's the problem here? Admit you own the stake and then say you do it to use the "Corporations" own money against them. That's even better gimmick than a wrestling white rapper! Maybe I'm old fashioned but wouldn't it only serve Moore's interest if the man showed even a modicum of integrity?
Anyway, here's the story from NewsMax.com:
Bush-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore is denying he ever owned stock in Halliburton Energy Services Company, the oil equipment giant once run by Vice President Dick Cheney that has become anathma to left-wingers.
Speaking last week at the first annual Paul Wellstone Memorial Dinner in Washington, D.C., Moore claimed that the Halliburton allegation in Peter Schweizer's blockbuster new book "Do As I Say, [Not As I Do]," is "crazy."
"Michael Moore own Halliburton stock?" the anti-corporate lefty asked the crowd. "See, that's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true - I mean, I've never owned a share of stock in my life."
Moore protested: "Anybody who knows me knows that, you know - who's gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it - crazy people who tune-in to the Fox News Channel."
And maybe crazy people who can read with their own eyes the tax return for Mr. Moore's very own foundation - as reprinted in Schweizer's book.
The bestselling author reports:
"Publicly, Moore claims that he doesn't invest in the stock market out of moral principle. Privately, he tells the IRS something completely different."
Schweizer explains how the widely acclaimed anti-corporatist set up a private foundation after his first major film, "Roger & Me," started making serious money.
In 1999, "the year Moore claimed in 'Stupid White Men' that he didn't own any stock, he reported to the IRS that his foundation had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and close to $100,000 in corporate bonds."
"And in perhaps the ultimate irony," notes Schweizer, "he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric" and other allegedly evil corporations.
Moore is currently working on a documentary attacking big pharmaceuticals.
But Schweizer discovered that Moore's foundation holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific."
Schweizer continues:
"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'
"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."
Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?
Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."
Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.
He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."
In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."
But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.
On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.
His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.
And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:
"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"
Michael Moore, that's not "crazy" -- that's hypocrisy with a capital H!
So what exactly is my problem?
My problem is his apparent need to lie about himself. The evidence showing he owned Halliburton stock is an IRS statement for Pete's sake. At some point you need to acknowledge the elephant in the room. Going back to the Vince McMahon comparison, when they (as much as they could) gave the audience a wink and more or less admitted that "pro-wrestling" was a show with pre-determined winners rather than "real" competition, then it became the audiences responsibility to suspend disbelief long enough to enjoy Vince's product. And what happened next? The WWE did the best business it had ever done to date with characters that ranged from the living dead (The Undertaker) to a character that once showed up to a show driving a beer truck and proceeded to douse his boss, his bosses son and the current champion (Vince and Shane McMahon, and The Rock). Contrary to popular belief, trusting the audience did not bring an end to the business, it only made it stronger.
This thesis would also work for Moore. There's no reason to protect his gimmick when you really think about it. Angry kids need a spokes person. I saw his latest propaganda piece in a NY theater with young and old alike on opening day last year, trust me - those people would not have cared if Michael Moore were Dick Cheney's illegitamate son. They like his message, even when what he's saying is so far from the realm of belief it actually resembles Monday Night Raw. These people accept Michael Moore warts and all because they want somebody to speak for them. Raise their issues. Be their standard bearer. Frankly, do the work for them.
Moores fans all know he is a rich person. They all know he's not this working class character he's portrayed on TV. So what? The audience also knows that the Undertaker isn't really the living dead but that doesn't stop them from rooting for him whenever he has a match. I think that if Moore has a message that is worth promoting, he shouldn't have to lie about himself, in the face of apparent federal evidence stating the opposite of what he is claiming. He should embrace it. Tell people he's a radical socialist and that corporations are bad. I believe he actually did this in the documentary, "The Corporation," when he uttered something about being sponsored by the corporations he was fighting against.
Great! So what's the problem here? Admit you own the stake and then say you do it to use the "Corporations" own money against them. That's even better gimmick than a wrestling white rapper! Maybe I'm old fashioned but wouldn't it only serve Moore's interest if the man showed even a modicum of integrity?
Anyway, here's the story from NewsMax.com:
Bush-bashing filmmaker Michael Moore is denying he ever owned stock in Halliburton Energy Services Company, the oil equipment giant once run by Vice President Dick Cheney that has become anathma to left-wingers.
Speaking last week at the first annual Paul Wellstone Memorial Dinner in Washington, D.C., Moore claimed that the Halliburton allegation in Peter Schweizer's blockbuster new book "Do As I Say, [Not As I Do]," is "crazy."
"Michael Moore own Halliburton stock?" the anti-corporate lefty asked the crowd. "See, that's like a great comedy line. I know it's not true - I mean, I've never owned a share of stock in my life."
Moore protested: "Anybody who knows me knows that, you know - who's gonna believe that? Just crazy people are going to believe it - crazy people who tune-in to the Fox News Channel."
And maybe crazy people who can read with their own eyes the tax return for Mr. Moore's very own foundation - as reprinted in Schweizer's book.
The bestselling author reports:
"Publicly, Moore claims that he doesn't invest in the stock market out of moral principle. Privately, he tells the IRS something completely different."
Schweizer explains how the widely acclaimed anti-corporatist set up a private foundation after his first major film, "Roger & Me," started making serious money.
In 1999, "the year Moore claimed in 'Stupid White Men' that he didn't own any stock, he reported to the IRS that his foundation had more than $280,000 in corporate stock and close to $100,000 in corporate bonds."
"And in perhaps the ultimate irony," notes Schweizer, "he also has owned shares in Halliburton. According to IRS filings, Moore sold Halliburton for a 15 percent profit and bought shares in Noble, Ford, General Electric" and other allegedly evil corporations.
Moore is currently working on a documentary attacking big pharmaceuticals.
But Schweizer discovered that Moore's foundation holdings have "included such evil pharmaceutical and medical companies as Pfizer, Merck, Genzyme, Elan PLC, Eli Lilly, Becton Dickinson and Boston Scientific."
Schweizer continues:
"Moore's supposedly nonexistent portfolio also includes big bad energy giants like Sunoco, Noble Energy, Schlumberger, Williams Companies, Transocean Sedco Forex and Anadarko, all firms that 'deplete irreplaceable fossil fuels in the name of profit' as he put it in ‘Dude, Where's My Country?'
"Also on Moore's investment menu: defense contractors Honeywell, Boeing and Loral."
Does Moore share the stock proceeds of his "foundation" with charitable causes, you might ask?
Schweizer found that "for a man who by 2002 had a net worth in eight figures, he gave away a modest $36,000 through the foundation, much of it to his friends in the film business or tony cultural organizations that later provided him with venues to promote his books and film."
Moore's hypocrisy doesn't end with his financial holdings.
He has criticized the journalism industry and Hollywood for their lack of African-Americans in prominent positions, and in 1998 he said he personally wanted to hire minorities "who come from the working class."
In "Stupid White Men," he proclaimed his plans to "hire only black people."
But when Schweizer checked the senior credits for Moore's latest film "Fahrenheit 911," he found that of the movie's 14 producers, three editors, production manager and production coordinator, all 19 were white. So were all three cameramen and the two people who did the original music.
On "Bowling for Columbine," 13 of the 14 producers were white, as were the two executives in charge of production, the cameramen, the film editor and the music composer.
His show "TV Nation" had 13 producers, four film editors and 10 writers – but not a single African-American among them.
And as for Moore's insistence on portraying himself as "working class" and an "average Joe," Schweizer recounts this anecdote:
"When Moore flew to London to visit people at the BBC or promote a film, he took the Concorde and stayed at the Ritz. But he also allegedly booked a room at a cheap hotel down the street where he could meet with journalists and pose as a ‘man of humble circumstances.'"
Michael Moore, that's not "crazy" -- that's hypocrisy with a capital H!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)