Friday, April 30, 2004
Finally, A Technology Company With Some Balls
In the NyTimes today there is a good article about Google's IPO. Google intends to keep investors and board members at bay and not let quarterly earning drive cost cutting measures at the expense of long term investments in technology and strategey. This attitude was best summed up in the following comments:
"A management team distracted by a series of short-term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half-hour," Larry Page, one of Google's co-founders, wrote in a "Letter From the Founders." The letter, which appeared at the front of the statement, was signed by Mr. Page and his fellow founder, Sergey Brin.
Neil Barsky, a former analyst for Morgan Stanley who runs a hedge fund in New York, said Google's attitude was refreshing and candid
"There is a slavishness that companies feel that they have to play to Wall Street quarter in and quarter out, and that is not the way the real world works," Mr. Barsky said. "They're saying, 'Merely because we go public and because analysts will feel the need to comment on every quarter does not mean that we will manage our business for short-term pressures.' I agree to that 100 percent. That's the right way to run a business."
I think the short sightedness and focus on quarterl profits we have adopted from the market boon of the 90's is a bigger threat than outsourcing. The profiability of US companies has largely been the result of long term investments in technology. Just think where the US would be, if the government had not invested so much into developing an "internet"? But, the continued decrease in federal spending on research (as a % of GDP), lack of research spending by corporations and continued cost cutting measures by thes companies only serves the short term while undercutting the core competencies that make those companies so profitabel over the long-term. The increasing trend to outsource these activities to other coutnries and universities is scary. What happens to the industries in a country when all of the brain power is located elsewhere?
|
"A management team distracted by a series of short-term targets is as pointless as a dieter stepping on a scale every half-hour," Larry Page, one of Google's co-founders, wrote in a "Letter From the Founders." The letter, which appeared at the front of the statement, was signed by Mr. Page and his fellow founder, Sergey Brin.
Neil Barsky, a former analyst for Morgan Stanley who runs a hedge fund in New York, said Google's attitude was refreshing and candid
"There is a slavishness that companies feel that they have to play to Wall Street quarter in and quarter out, and that is not the way the real world works," Mr. Barsky said. "They're saying, 'Merely because we go public and because analysts will feel the need to comment on every quarter does not mean that we will manage our business for short-term pressures.' I agree to that 100 percent. That's the right way to run a business."
I think the short sightedness and focus on quarterl profits we have adopted from the market boon of the 90's is a bigger threat than outsourcing. The profiability of US companies has largely been the result of long term investments in technology. Just think where the US would be, if the government had not invested so much into developing an "internet"? But, the continued decrease in federal spending on research (as a % of GDP), lack of research spending by corporations and continued cost cutting measures by thes companies only serves the short term while undercutting the core competencies that make those companies so profitabel over the long-term. The increasing trend to outsource these activities to other coutnries and universities is scary. What happens to the industries in a country when all of the brain power is located elsewhere?
|
Rules of Engagement
I think there are certain rules that should be posted in public places. These are rules that everyone knows exists, call them social norms, but if they are violated noone has any authority to criticize the violatee. That's becuase the rules aren't posted anywere. I'll start with bathroom etiquette in public restrooms. I can only speak for the men's room, and ladies, this might be very foreign to you, becuase you probably don't understand the interworkings in the bathroom. I know I sure as hell have no idea of what goes on the ladies room; you all go in at the same time and I hear there are couches in there. The couch thing really throws me off. I think it is suppossed to. A couch in the men's room would reak of piss within days. We also post graffiti messages on the stalls of the shitter. It is sort of a crude form of blog, I guess. There are only a few varieties, but they all involve cursing. I've categorized them and provided examples.
1. So and so is slut, a whore, has good snatch etc.
Example: Jamie Bly is a big stinking whore.
2. For a good time
Example: For a good time, call Jame Bly (412 608 7883). By the way that's my number. My name isn't Jamie Bly, but I like to have a good time. However, it's not the same sort of good time I think Jamie Bly is offering, unless Uno and soda is your idea of a good time. It's mine!
3. I hate (insert racial slur here)
Example: Well you get the idea. It usually isn't about the Irish or the French (except in the Oval Office bathroom. I hear George Bush wrote, "Jacuqes Chirac is cheese-eating surrender monkey", before he visited Bush. Bush tried to pass it off on Powell.
4. So and so is a big fag, I hate fags
There is a lot of hatred of homesexual and other races in public bathrooms. I'm not sure if that is a reflection of what shitting can do to you or a reflection of me and the bathrooms I chose to frequent. Apparently, only the angry or sexually frustrated write in the stalls. It is becuse of these angry few that we can't have couches in the men's room. Bastards have to ruin it for the rest of us.
Anyway, I was going to review the rule sof engagement in the bathroom. This is important, becuase I think there are a lot of men out there who also don't understand the rules. Just remember, before going in the bathroom that we may be friends out here in the outside world. But, in there, we're all just casual aquaintences. So let's keep it on a professional level. Here are the rules I've come up with to facilitate this:
Rule 1: Keep eye contact to a minimum while at the urinal. Staring straight at the wall is preferred. I really like it when they post newspapers in restaurants. It really takes away the awkwardness, and I don't have to pretend like I'm clearing my throat or that I like to whistle.
Rule 2: If you must make eye contact, keep the eyes above the belt. (It's okay to look out of your periphery. We all do it, becuase we want to know how we rank. But, let's keep a "don't ask don't tell policy" abou this.)
Rule 3: If you must make conversation, keep it simple. No long stories that involve hand gestures and reanactment. Remember, we're pissing here. I don't want a lot of wild hand waving and bouncing up and down. You can tell me the story afterward.
Rule 4: Only pee in the toilet if no urinal is open, and only if it is an emergency. This is the most important rule, so I'll say it again. Don't piss in the toilet, unless it is the only possible alternative. The sink would even be preferable. I work with guys that will bypass all the empty urinals to piss in the toilet. That's bullshit and it needs to be addressed. I don't know what they are thinking, but I want to send out an office memo.
Rule 5: Masturbating. This is a tricky one. Okay, again, we'll stick with a don't ask don't tell policy. I empathize, and I know that sometimes it is a must. But, I think there should always be an abort mission policy anytime someone else comes into the room.
Rule 6: Glory holes. I'm not really sure the etiquette here. Any suggestions?
I think the grocery store is next.
|
1. So and so is slut, a whore, has good snatch etc.
Example: Jamie Bly is a big stinking whore.
2. For a good time
Example: For a good time, call Jame Bly (412 608 7883). By the way that's my number. My name isn't Jamie Bly, but I like to have a good time. However, it's not the same sort of good time I think Jamie Bly is offering, unless Uno and soda is your idea of a good time. It's mine!
3. I hate (insert racial slur here)
Example: Well you get the idea. It usually isn't about the Irish or the French (except in the Oval Office bathroom. I hear George Bush wrote, "Jacuqes Chirac is cheese-eating surrender monkey", before he visited Bush. Bush tried to pass it off on Powell.
4. So and so is a big fag, I hate fags
There is a lot of hatred of homesexual and other races in public bathrooms. I'm not sure if that is a reflection of what shitting can do to you or a reflection of me and the bathrooms I chose to frequent. Apparently, only the angry or sexually frustrated write in the stalls. It is becuse of these angry few that we can't have couches in the men's room. Bastards have to ruin it for the rest of us.
Anyway, I was going to review the rule sof engagement in the bathroom. This is important, becuase I think there are a lot of men out there who also don't understand the rules. Just remember, before going in the bathroom that we may be friends out here in the outside world. But, in there, we're all just casual aquaintences. So let's keep it on a professional level. Here are the rules I've come up with to facilitate this:
Rule 1: Keep eye contact to a minimum while at the urinal. Staring straight at the wall is preferred. I really like it when they post newspapers in restaurants. It really takes away the awkwardness, and I don't have to pretend like I'm clearing my throat or that I like to whistle.
Rule 2: If you must make eye contact, keep the eyes above the belt. (It's okay to look out of your periphery. We all do it, becuase we want to know how we rank. But, let's keep a "don't ask don't tell policy" abou this.)
Rule 3: If you must make conversation, keep it simple. No long stories that involve hand gestures and reanactment. Remember, we're pissing here. I don't want a lot of wild hand waving and bouncing up and down. You can tell me the story afterward.
Rule 4: Only pee in the toilet if no urinal is open, and only if it is an emergency. This is the most important rule, so I'll say it again. Don't piss in the toilet, unless it is the only possible alternative. The sink would even be preferable. I work with guys that will bypass all the empty urinals to piss in the toilet. That's bullshit and it needs to be addressed. I don't know what they are thinking, but I want to send out an office memo.
Rule 5: Masturbating. This is a tricky one. Okay, again, we'll stick with a don't ask don't tell policy. I empathize, and I know that sometimes it is a must. But, I think there should always be an abort mission policy anytime someone else comes into the room.
Rule 6: Glory holes. I'm not really sure the etiquette here. Any suggestions?
I think the grocery store is next.
|
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Iraq Gets New Flag & Team Mascot
The new Iraqi flag was suppossed to symbolize the start of a new beginning and new country. However, the flag, when introduced yesterday was recieved with mixed emotions. Some of the Iraqi peole did not like it, while others simply hated it. The previous Iraqi flag predated Saddam and, like the flags of almost every other Arab-dominated nation, had always featured variations on green, gold, black and red. The new Iraqi flag, however, is light blue, like Israel's, and not red green and black, like the other Arab countries.
"When I saw it in the newspaper, I felt very sad," said Muthana Khalil, 50, a supermarket owner in Saadoun, a commercial area in central Baghdad. "The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black. Why did they put in these colors that are the same as Israel? Why was the public opinion not consulted? I don't have any work, and this is what they are busy doing? Those worthless bastards. They will pay for this, they will pay."
To a large extent, however, public objections to the new flag seem to be intertwined with broader unhappiness with the 25-member Governing Council, which many Iraqis closely identify with U.S. interests.
In an effort to further alienate the Iraqi people and draw greater division, the Governing Council introduced the Iraqi people to the new mascot for the country, Petro. Petro as descirbed by Hamid Kifaie, spokesperson for the governing council, as "a Jew-loving oil derek". Petro, is a caricature of a smiling oil derek dressed with an uncle same blue suit, white goatee and red, white and blue tophat.
"We thought Petro would really capture the imagination and democratic spirit of the newly liberated Iraqi people." Added Kifaie, "He's so cute and when you squeeze or he gets excited, he shoots oil (straight into american owned oil trucks)."
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution commented, "Although, Saddam took some creative libery to change the Iraqi flag, the basic theme remained constant. There really was no need to change it, and most of the Iraqi people readily identified it with. It seemse like one of the only things they shouldn't have changed. Now with this mascot? I really don't know what the fuck the interim council was thinking. First the flag and now this. Jesus Christ. I'm not really sure what it is they even do?"
Increasing criticism and a belief that the council has "done nothing for the Iraqi people", has led a recent proposal by Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special representative to Iraq. The proposal calls for the council to be scrapped and replaced by what he described in an interview Friday as a government composed of technocrats who are "acceptable to the Iraqi people." He said the United Nations would insist on qualities of "credibility, honesty and expertise" but also seek a balance among major ethnic and religious groups.
|
"When I saw it in the newspaper, I felt very sad," said Muthana Khalil, 50, a supermarket owner in Saadoun, a commercial area in central Baghdad. "The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black. Why did they put in these colors that are the same as Israel? Why was the public opinion not consulted? I don't have any work, and this is what they are busy doing? Those worthless bastards. They will pay for this, they will pay."
To a large extent, however, public objections to the new flag seem to be intertwined with broader unhappiness with the 25-member Governing Council, which many Iraqis closely identify with U.S. interests.
In an effort to further alienate the Iraqi people and draw greater division, the Governing Council introduced the Iraqi people to the new mascot for the country, Petro. Petro as descirbed by Hamid Kifaie, spokesperson for the governing council, as "a Jew-loving oil derek". Petro, is a caricature of a smiling oil derek dressed with an uncle same blue suit, white goatee and red, white and blue tophat.
"We thought Petro would really capture the imagination and democratic spirit of the newly liberated Iraqi people." Added Kifaie, "He's so cute and when you squeeze or he gets excited, he shoots oil (straight into american owned oil trucks)."
Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution commented, "Although, Saddam took some creative libery to change the Iraqi flag, the basic theme remained constant. There really was no need to change it, and most of the Iraqi people readily identified it with. It seemse like one of the only things they shouldn't have changed. Now with this mascot? I really don't know what the fuck the interim council was thinking. First the flag and now this. Jesus Christ. I'm not really sure what it is they even do?"
Increasing criticism and a belief that the council has "done nothing for the Iraqi people", has led a recent proposal by Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N. special representative to Iraq. The proposal calls for the council to be scrapped and replaced by what he described in an interview Friday as a government composed of technocrats who are "acceptable to the Iraqi people." He said the United Nations would insist on qualities of "credibility, honesty and expertise" but also seek a balance among major ethnic and religious groups.
|
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Records Bring to Question Kerry's 3 Purple Hearts
In attempt to redirect attention from his lackluster military service, Bush has put his minions of smear into high gear by calling to question Kerry's war records. Everyone knows Bush was spending that time snorting coke off of the ass of a trailer park hooker named Deborah in Alabama, while Kerry was in Vietnam. This recent attack is questioning the extent of Kerry's wounds, claiming he possibly didn't deserve his purple hearts. Kerry's recently released military records disprove this, see the transcript below of the purple hear that has been called into question.
Kerry was in the shit in the Mekong delta face to face with Charley. They were both out of ammuntion and it resorted to hand to hand combat.
Kerry: Prepare to die Charley.
Charlie: (taken aback) What?
Kerry: You're not going to get across this bridge, die Charlie.
Charlie: I have no quarrel with you, good sir knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Kerry: THEN YOU SHALL DIE.
Charlie: I command you, to stand aside.
Kerry: I MOVE FOR NO MAN.
Charlie: So be it! (draws sword)
(A short battle ensues, where Charlie, relatively unencumbered by armor, easily dodges the slow and heavy strikes by the Kerry. Finally, Charlie dodges a strike, steps aside, and cuts the Kerry's left arm off with his sword. Blood spurts from the his open shoulder.)
Charlie: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Kerry: 'Tis but a scratch.
Charlie: A SCRATCH? Your arm's off!
Kerry: No it isn't!
Charlie: Well what's that then? (pointing to the arm lying on the ground)
Kerry: I've had worse.
Charlie: You LIAR!
Kerry: Come on, you pansy!
(There follows an even shorter foray, at the end of which Charlie easily cuts off the Kerry's right arm, causing it and the Kerry's sword to drop to the ground. Blood spatters freely from the stump.)
Charlie: Victory is mine! (kneeling, praying) We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy--
(He is kicked onto his side by the Kerry.)
Kerry: Come on, then! (kicks Charlie again)
Charlie: (on the ground) What?!?
Kerry: (kicking him again) Have at you!
Charlie: (getting up) You are indeed brave, sir knight, but the fight is mine!
Kerry: Ohhh, had enough, eh?
Charlie: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
Kerry: Yes I have!
Charlie: LOOK!!!
Kerry: Just a flesh wound! (kicking Charlie again)
Charlie: Look, STOP that!
Kerry: Chicken!! Chicken!!!
Charlie: Look, I'll have your leg!
(The Kerry continues his kicking)
Charlie: RIGHT! (He chops off the Kerry's leg with his sword)
Kerry: (hopping) Right! I'll do you for that!
Charlie: You'll WHAT?
Kerry: Come 'ere!
Charlie: (tiring of this) What're you going to do, bleed on me?
Kerry: I'm INVINCIBLE!!
Charlie: You're a looney...
Kerry: The Kerry ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!! (hopping around, trying to kick Charlie with his one remaining leg)
(Charlie shrugs his shoulders and, with a mighty swing, removes the Kerry's last limb. The Knight falls to the ground. He looks about, realizing he can't move.)
Kerry: Okay, we'll call it a draw.
Charlie: Come, Pasty! (they "ride" away)
Kerry: (calling after them) Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards!! Come back here and take what's coming to you!! I'll bite your legs off!
|
Kerry was in the shit in the Mekong delta face to face with Charley. They were both out of ammuntion and it resorted to hand to hand combat.
Kerry: Prepare to die Charley.
Charlie: (taken aback) What?
Kerry: You're not going to get across this bridge, die Charlie.
Charlie: I have no quarrel with you, good sir knight, but I must cross this bridge.
Kerry: THEN YOU SHALL DIE.
Charlie: I command you, to stand aside.
Kerry: I MOVE FOR NO MAN.
Charlie: So be it! (draws sword)
(A short battle ensues, where Charlie, relatively unencumbered by armor, easily dodges the slow and heavy strikes by the Kerry. Finally, Charlie dodges a strike, steps aside, and cuts the Kerry's left arm off with his sword. Blood spurts from the his open shoulder.)
Charlie: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Kerry: 'Tis but a scratch.
Charlie: A SCRATCH? Your arm's off!
Kerry: No it isn't!
Charlie: Well what's that then? (pointing to the arm lying on the ground)
Kerry: I've had worse.
Charlie: You LIAR!
Kerry: Come on, you pansy!
(There follows an even shorter foray, at the end of which Charlie easily cuts off the Kerry's right arm, causing it and the Kerry's sword to drop to the ground. Blood spatters freely from the stump.)
Charlie: Victory is mine! (kneeling, praying) We thank thee Lord, that in thy mercy--
(He is kicked onto his side by the Kerry.)
Kerry: Come on, then! (kicks Charlie again)
Charlie: (on the ground) What?!?
Kerry: (kicking him again) Have at you!
Charlie: (getting up) You are indeed brave, sir knight, but the fight is mine!
Kerry: Ohhh, had enough, eh?
Charlie: Look, you stupid bastard, you've got no arms left!
Kerry: Yes I have!
Charlie: LOOK!!!
Kerry: Just a flesh wound! (kicking Charlie again)
Charlie: Look, STOP that!
Kerry: Chicken!! Chicken!!!
Charlie: Look, I'll have your leg!
(The Kerry continues his kicking)
Charlie: RIGHT! (He chops off the Kerry's leg with his sword)
Kerry: (hopping) Right! I'll do you for that!
Charlie: You'll WHAT?
Kerry: Come 'ere!
Charlie: (tiring of this) What're you going to do, bleed on me?
Kerry: I'm INVINCIBLE!!
Charlie: You're a looney...
Kerry: The Kerry ALWAYS TRIUMPHS! Have at you!! (hopping around, trying to kick Charlie with his one remaining leg)
(Charlie shrugs his shoulders and, with a mighty swing, removes the Kerry's last limb. The Knight falls to the ground. He looks about, realizing he can't move.)
Kerry: Okay, we'll call it a draw.
Charlie: Come, Pasty! (they "ride" away)
Kerry: (calling after them) Oh! Had enough, eh? Come back and take what's coming to you, you yellow bastards!! Come back here and take what's coming to you!! I'll bite your legs off!
|
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Bush Supports Senate Incumbent Over Other More Conservative Candidate
In what was a very busy few days for Pittsburgh, President Bush visited Pittsburgh this week to give his support for Republican Arlen Specter in his bid to win reelection to the Pennsylvania state senate. Bush's visit capped off the national NRA convention this past weekend and a stop off by Kerry last Friday. Oddly, Bush is helping to defeat the conservative candidate in this race, Pat Toomey. Arlen Specter, although a Republican, is publicly criticized by the right for supporting abortion, cloning and not responding so favorably to school vouchers and tax cuts. These stances make Specter very popular in Pennsylvania, and there are many Bush Bashers donating to his campaign, as well. This apparently is a standard position for the Bush adminsitration, to support any Republican incumbent. But, this still makes for strange bedfellows, and it is also causing some unrest among the religious right. It will be interesting to see how Bush fare's in Pennsylvania. After his visit, he he currently has a slight lead over Kerry, but it is small (6 pts). This seems to be par for the other swing states over the last few days.
|
|
Monday, April 19, 2004
McDonald's Chairman and Chief Executive Dies
James R. Cantalupo, chairman and chief executive of the McDonald's Corporation, died this morning in Orlando, Fla., apparently of complications associated with a Big-Mac Attack the company said. He was 60.
Mr. Cantalupo died while attending a global meeting of McDonald's franchisees.
The sentiments and feeling shared by all of McDonalds 400,000 employees worldwide were best captured today by a man who had worked next to Mr. Cantalupo during all 28 years of his career. "Robble robble robble, robble, robble robble", Hamburgler said to all the board today after hearing the tragic news
"Our entire McDonald's system mourns this tragic loss," Mayor McCheese, presiding mayor of playland and a member of the board of directors, said in a statement. "Jim was a brilliant man who brought tremendous leadership, energy and passion to his job of pushing cheap and unhealthy food to people worldwide. His total disregard for the environment and public health set the standard for the industry."
A longtime McDonald's executive, Mr. Cantalupo retired as president and vice chairman at the world's largest restaurant chain in 2001, apparently ending a long and prosperous career. But in December 2002, McDonald's, which was under fire from disgruntled investors, franchisees and board members over declining earnings and erosion in its market share to rivals like Wendy's International, said that Jack M. Greenberg, who succeeded Mr. Cantalupo, would be retiring at the end of the year, and named Mr. Cantalupo to replace him.
This has lead many company insiders to believe that Mr. Cantalupo's death was not the result of a hamburger mishap, but instead a targeted assisination planned by some the company's rivals, most notably the bitch from Wendy's.
Commenting on this story, Mark Kalinowski, a restaurant industry analyst at Smith Barney, wrote in a note to clients this morning. "I wouldn't put it passed that red headed slut. First she bumped off her old man, and now this. She'll stop at nothing, nothing."
Mr. Cantalupo joined McDonald's in 1974 after working at Arthur Young & Company. He was named a vice president in 1975 and senior vice president in 1981. In 1987, he was appointed president of McDonald's International and president and chief executive of the corporation in 1991.
|
Mr. Cantalupo died while attending a global meeting of McDonald's franchisees.
The sentiments and feeling shared by all of McDonalds 400,000 employees worldwide were best captured today by a man who had worked next to Mr. Cantalupo during all 28 years of his career. "Robble robble robble, robble, robble robble", Hamburgler said to all the board today after hearing the tragic news
"Our entire McDonald's system mourns this tragic loss," Mayor McCheese, presiding mayor of playland and a member of the board of directors, said in a statement. "Jim was a brilliant man who brought tremendous leadership, energy and passion to his job of pushing cheap and unhealthy food to people worldwide. His total disregard for the environment and public health set the standard for the industry."
A longtime McDonald's executive, Mr. Cantalupo retired as president and vice chairman at the world's largest restaurant chain in 2001, apparently ending a long and prosperous career. But in December 2002, McDonald's, which was under fire from disgruntled investors, franchisees and board members over declining earnings and erosion in its market share to rivals like Wendy's International, said that Jack M. Greenberg, who succeeded Mr. Cantalupo, would be retiring at the end of the year, and named Mr. Cantalupo to replace him.
This has lead many company insiders to believe that Mr. Cantalupo's death was not the result of a hamburger mishap, but instead a targeted assisination planned by some the company's rivals, most notably the bitch from Wendy's.
Commenting on this story, Mark Kalinowski, a restaurant industry analyst at Smith Barney, wrote in a note to clients this morning. "I wouldn't put it passed that red headed slut. First she bumped off her old man, and now this. She'll stop at nothing, nothing."
Mr. Cantalupo joined McDonald's in 1974 after working at Arthur Young & Company. He was named a vice president in 1975 and senior vice president in 1981. In 1987, he was appointed president of McDonald's International and president and chief executive of the corporation in 1991.
|
Outsourcing, outsourcing outsourcing
If I had my druthers, I would outsource the whole lot of you for Mexican laborers, partly out of spite.- me talking to my children.
Outsourcing is a topic near and dear to my heart, becuase I know full well that my job will be outsourced to India, most likely, within 5 - 10 years. I also know the need for this. My father is expanding his manufacturing operations to China. I asked how he felt about that. He told me that no major bank would talk about loaning him millions of dollars for expanding his business without a plan for opening operations in Asia. His hands were tied; he would likely be fired if he didn't outsource to Asia. The next guy in his roost would certinaly move in that direction. There are also many good arguments for outsourcing, many of which boil down to a claim that in all reality more jobs would be created. Essentially, we would replace less desireable jobs with better paying jobs, and the ability to outsource allows for Americans to afford more, thereby improving the overall standard of living. There are also many social and moral arguments for not doing this, and there are also many good arguments to dispel many of those arguments. An article in the Atlantic Monthly (sorry no link or reference) last year showed that the areas of Asia that welcomed western investment now have better wages on average and the working conditions are better than those countries who turned their back. Yes, that's quite an assertion to make without hard proof, and I apologize again for missing the referece. Also, the fear that there will be a mass exodus of jobs from the US, particularly, in tech-heavy programming jobs seems to be somewhat overhyped. But article after article have shown that many more jobs are created by the savings that result. There was even the entrepneur who came up with the, "My job was outsourced to India" T-shirt and made millions. Here is the excerpt from the NY times:
Yamini Narayanan is an Indian-born 35-year-old with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma. After graduation, she worked for a U.S. computer company in Virginia and recently moved back to Bangalore with her husband to be closer to family. When I asked her how she felt about the outsourcing of jobs from her adopted country, America, to her native country, India, she responded with a revealing story:
"I just read about a guy in America who lost his job to India and he made a T-shirt that said, `I lost my job to India and all I got was this [lousy] T-shirt.' And he made all kinds of money." Only in America, she said, shaking her head, would someone figure out how to profit from his own unemployment. And that, she insisted, was the reason America need not fear outsourcing to India: America is so much more innovative a place than any other country.
All of these stories add up to the fact that
|
Outsourcing is a topic near and dear to my heart, becuase I know full well that my job will be outsourced to India, most likely, within 5 - 10 years. I also know the need for this. My father is expanding his manufacturing operations to China. I asked how he felt about that. He told me that no major bank would talk about loaning him millions of dollars for expanding his business without a plan for opening operations in Asia. His hands were tied; he would likely be fired if he didn't outsource to Asia. The next guy in his roost would certinaly move in that direction. There are also many good arguments for outsourcing, many of which boil down to a claim that in all reality more jobs would be created. Essentially, we would replace less desireable jobs with better paying jobs, and the ability to outsource allows for Americans to afford more, thereby improving the overall standard of living. There are also many social and moral arguments for not doing this, and there are also many good arguments to dispel many of those arguments. An article in the Atlantic Monthly (sorry no link or reference) last year showed that the areas of Asia that welcomed western investment now have better wages on average and the working conditions are better than those countries who turned their back. Yes, that's quite an assertion to make without hard proof, and I apologize again for missing the referece. Also, the fear that there will be a mass exodus of jobs from the US, particularly, in tech-heavy programming jobs seems to be somewhat overhyped. But article after article have shown that many more jobs are created by the savings that result. There was even the entrepneur who came up with the, "My job was outsourced to India" T-shirt and made millions. Here is the excerpt from the NY times:
Yamini Narayanan is an Indian-born 35-year-old with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Oklahoma. After graduation, she worked for a U.S. computer company in Virginia and recently moved back to Bangalore with her husband to be closer to family. When I asked her how she felt about the outsourcing of jobs from her adopted country, America, to her native country, India, she responded with a revealing story:
"I just read about a guy in America who lost his job to India and he made a T-shirt that said, `I lost my job to India and all I got was this [lousy] T-shirt.' And he made all kinds of money." Only in America, she said, shaking her head, would someone figure out how to profit from his own unemployment. And that, she insisted, was the reason America need not fear outsourcing to India: America is so much more innovative a place than any other country.
All of these stories add up to the fact that
|
Friday, April 16, 2004
White House Considering New Director of National Intelligence
The new post would give one person the responsibility for general management and monetary control for all intelligence agencies. This position would also provide a focal point for and SPA for all 15 (Yes that's right 15) national intelligence agencies. Let's play a game here, how many can you name: CIA, FBI um er NSA, ohh shoot it's on the tip of my tongue . . .um. Those other 12 are so elusive. Actually, the FBI isn't even an intelligence gathering agency, but more of a policing agency.
Okay, that's fine, but now I'm totally confused. What was the point of the Department of Homeland Security? The FBI is also considering creating a new position within the organization to oversee the gathering of all domestic intelligence. That makes sense, if that's what you want the FBI to do, but why not let the other 14 agencies worry about that, and let the FBI stick to policing. This really sounds like more window dressing to appease the American public in light of the recommendations that are likely to come from the 9/11 hearings. Those findings, basically point to the fact that there is no sharing of information and coordination of efforts. Well no shit. If you have 15 agencies all competing for the same piece of pie, there really is no incentive to share. That will simply put you out of a job. In my mind this is a bunch of actions to change perception with no meaning or value. But I could be wrong. It just seems to me that the best way to eliminate bureaucracy is not to create another level of bureaucracy.
|
Okay, that's fine, but now I'm totally confused. What was the point of the Department of Homeland Security? The FBI is also considering creating a new position within the organization to oversee the gathering of all domestic intelligence. That makes sense, if that's what you want the FBI to do, but why not let the other 14 agencies worry about that, and let the FBI stick to policing. This really sounds like more window dressing to appease the American public in light of the recommendations that are likely to come from the 9/11 hearings. Those findings, basically point to the fact that there is no sharing of information and coordination of efforts. Well no shit. If you have 15 agencies all competing for the same piece of pie, there really is no incentive to share. That will simply put you out of a job. In my mind this is a bunch of actions to change perception with no meaning or value. But I could be wrong. It just seems to me that the best way to eliminate bureaucracy is not to create another level of bureaucracy.
|
Thursday, April 15, 2004
The West vs. Muslims
I've been swamped with work, and I haven't had much time to follow news this week. But, I watched the press conference on Tuesday. I haven't ready any of the reviews, but my initial take was this. His canned speech was okay, he's become a respectable public speaker, but his answers to his questions were terrible. I could empathize, because that's how I sound when I'm giving a presentation about something I haven't put any or much thought into. In those situation, I know what I want the audience to think, but haven't put the forethought in to properly convey that message to them or to myself. However, on issues of national security and the future of our country, I would make sure I understand the arguments I'm putting forward. When this has happened to me, I was embarrassed and so should Bush.
Here is what I got from the question from the media:
News guy: "Mr. President Richard Clarke apologized for failing to stop Sep. 11, blah, blah do you fell you owe the American people an apology and are you willing to give them one?"
Bush: "Babies, liberty, war is tough, I like steak, liberty, freedom and hell no you are not going to get an apology" I was astounded.
News guy: "You painted a rosy picture of the war, the number of troops that would be required, the cost of the war and the threat posed by Iraq (e.g. no WMD's have been found). How do you account for this?"
Bush: Babies, Iraq is free, I love America, war is tough, Sadam was evil, did you see me through out the 1st pitch, freedom and I love babies"
Also, the announcement that came out yesterday about the West Bank and Gaza strip. I heard that last night at midnight. I haven't talked to anyone about it, but it scared the shit out of me. Maybe I was delirious from 14 hrs work, but I really imagined a terrible terrible war for the first time, and I got a cold chill. Also, if you noticed in the speech he said that the war basically came down to "them wanting to kill Jews and Christians". Conspicuously missing from that list were Muslims. I can only assume that "them" is terrorists or Muslim extremists, but the omission of Muslims from the first list kind of draws a dividing line. I know, I'm taking that quote out of context, but really that is the meaning I derived. I'm really scared that there is now an actual line being drawn between the western world and Muslims. I don't know if it is deliberate or that is how the administration really feels, but it really really scares me. I think Osame miscalculated the world's response to the attack on 9/11 and didn't expect the outpour of support for the US. September 11 put Osama and Muslim extremists on the defensive, but Bush's actions have now made him a hero again. Never could I have imagined the tables would have been turned like this. Bush squandered his opportunity, and now Osama's plan for a War of the West and Muslims might become a reality.
|
Here is what I got from the question from the media:
News guy: "Mr. President Richard Clarke apologized for failing to stop Sep. 11, blah, blah do you fell you owe the American people an apology and are you willing to give them one?"
Bush: "Babies, liberty, war is tough, I like steak, liberty, freedom and hell no you are not going to get an apology" I was astounded.
News guy: "You painted a rosy picture of the war, the number of troops that would be required, the cost of the war and the threat posed by Iraq (e.g. no WMD's have been found). How do you account for this?"
Bush: Babies, Iraq is free, I love America, war is tough, Sadam was evil, did you see me through out the 1st pitch, freedom and I love babies"
Also, the announcement that came out yesterday about the West Bank and Gaza strip. I heard that last night at midnight. I haven't talked to anyone about it, but it scared the shit out of me. Maybe I was delirious from 14 hrs work, but I really imagined a terrible terrible war for the first time, and I got a cold chill. Also, if you noticed in the speech he said that the war basically came down to "them wanting to kill Jews and Christians". Conspicuously missing from that list were Muslims. I can only assume that "them" is terrorists or Muslim extremists, but the omission of Muslims from the first list kind of draws a dividing line. I know, I'm taking that quote out of context, but really that is the meaning I derived. I'm really scared that there is now an actual line being drawn between the western world and Muslims. I don't know if it is deliberate or that is how the administration really feels, but it really really scares me. I think Osame miscalculated the world's response to the attack on 9/11 and didn't expect the outpour of support for the US. September 11 put Osama and Muslim extremists on the defensive, but Bush's actions have now made him a hero again. Never could I have imagined the tables would have been turned like this. Bush squandered his opportunity, and now Osama's plan for a War of the West and Muslims might become a reality.
|
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
From the Department of People Who Have Their Head up Their Asses
Bush is loosing his foothold a little, and is seen to be slipping in the polls. Although, head-to-head polls of candidates are considered unreliable this early in a campaign, even some Republicans noted that the Newsweek poll put Mr. Kerry ahead of Mr. Bush, 50 percent to 43 percent. Several pollsters suggested that Mr. Bush's early round of advertisements had encountered some unexpected competition in the form of external events.
"My own personal view is that paid media in a presidential campaign, especially early, is overrated," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "People look more to events and real-world happenings to form opinions than they do to paid media. I think it's people sticking their head out the door and saying, `How are things?' And things haven't been good for Bush." Mr. Kout continued, "I also think that people never really believed the government and media in the 30's and 40's when they claimed that smoking had no deleterious health effects. They were able to make up their minds for themselves, not what the government told them. Dido on the government's invovlement in Afghanistan and Iran in the 80's. The American people knew better."
|
"My own personal view is that paid media in a presidential campaign, especially early, is overrated," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "People look more to events and real-world happenings to form opinions than they do to paid media. I think it's people sticking their head out the door and saying, `How are things?' And things haven't been good for Bush." Mr. Kout continued, "I also think that people never really believed the government and media in the 30's and 40's when they claimed that smoking had no deleterious health effects. They were able to make up their minds for themselves, not what the government told them. Dido on the government's invovlement in Afghanistan and Iran in the 80's. The American people knew better."
|
Kerry is A Lucky Bastard
It looks like Kerry may actually win this election, although it is much to early to predict. But, if he does, he should get down and kiss Richard Clarke's ass. With all of the focus that Richard Clarke's testimony has brought to the 9/11 hearings, many of the missteps and errors prior to 9/11 have been magnified by the media. Although, it is not fair to put all of the blame on the Bush adminstration, and admittedly 9/11 would have been difficult to prevent. Nonetheless, the heightened scrutiny over 9/11 now has people questionioning our involvment in Iraq and many ofthe other Bush foreign policies. Certainly, some of this would have happened with time as more and more Americans die each day, but Richard Clarke deserves much of the credit for the paradoxical shift seen by the media and the American people. Long life American Bandstand.
|
|
Monday, April 12, 2004
Have You Watched TV Lately, Holy Shit.
If you watch any of the major news networks, listen to NPR or read any large newspaper there is constantly a battle back and fourth in the media between who controls the news media; the liberal or the Bushies. Each side claiming the other is controlling the media, blah, blah, blah. I've seen very good arguments for making either case. Yes, most news sources tend to be a little to the left or to the right. However, I think that they are all basically covering the same news and events with a slightly different slant. Sometimes there are aggregious oversimplifications of the truth and even grand distortions. But, for the most part they stick to the story. This, however, doesn't inlcude on-air peronalities with shows with names like The Ultimate Truth Seekers of God. They're all a bunch of lying cocksuckers, except Al Franken. He's too funny and cute to hate.
But, what I'm talking about here are news correspondents. If, you watch or listen to any major news source you have a pretty good idea of what's going on. You're also left with an unmistakeable impression that the world is fucked up, and it's all about sorting out who is at fault. Is it the right or the left?
Now I propose a little experiment. Only read newspapers, listen to news on the radio and watch only CNN, MSNBC and Fox for about 1 month. You can't even watch commercials, they're particularly bad. Better yet don't watch any TV at all. After 1 month turn on the TV and watch only primetime on the major networks, Oprah, E! and the WB. Whatever you do, don't follow any news stories. After 3 days, you'll forget about ol' whats-his-face who wants to eat your children and steal your money. It's really amazing. It's like living in a world of make believe, where gum drops fall from the sky, the roads are paved with chocolate and little faires fly around handing out money. By contrast, prime time TV tends to make all news look about the same, and it really makes watching the news quite a drag. Well, of courese, except for the C-span the original reality TV show.
In fact, recent finding are proving there to be a link between TV and political apathy. After only a few days of watching TV, the brain begins to function differently. A recent study conducted by the Institue of Media and Cognitive Behavior at Princeton proved this. A similar experiment to the one I propsed was run, and the findings were quite remarkeable. After only 24 hours of watching reruns of Malcom in the Middle, Dharma and Greg and the OP, 80% of the subjects in the study had trouble locating many of the most basic countries in the Middle East and Southeastern Asia. When asked about the president, commonly a response of "Ohh that buffoon, he's so full of hot air. Him and all his washington big wigs, I'm sick of them" or some variant there of. When asked to point out specific reasons for their beliefs, the subjects looked confused and irritated, citing "Well you know, I mean come on, have you seen the news lately". When asked about additonal topics ranging from the war in Iraq and pollution, the subjects often looked disengaged and only giving answers like, "I don't know, I mean it's complicated, becuase on the one hand you got, . . .hey Friends is on?"
Not only did extended exposure to prime time telivision effect the subjects' beahvior, but it was found to actually alter the chemical functions in and physiology of the brain. MRI scans of the brain showed a marked decrease in brain activity in the portion of the brain that controls crtical thinking and logic in most of the participants. Unexpectedly, the same MRI scans showed the region of the brain that controls lust, jealousy and the desire to eat fried foods actually grew in size.
The conclusions from this and many similar such studies found the lack of outrage towards the Bushies and their cavalier and blatant disregard for the judgement of the American public is not a result of crafty politics. But, morever it is due to the anesthetitizing effects of TV on the brain. The Bushies knew they could get away with it, and therefore no reason to provide anything but cursory justificaton for shady deals with Haliburton, tax cuts for the rich or the war in Iraq. So who gives a shit about Iraq, when there's Queer Eye. Sometimes we get what we deserve.
|
But, what I'm talking about here are news correspondents. If, you watch or listen to any major news source you have a pretty good idea of what's going on. You're also left with an unmistakeable impression that the world is fucked up, and it's all about sorting out who is at fault. Is it the right or the left?
Now I propose a little experiment. Only read newspapers, listen to news on the radio and watch only CNN, MSNBC and Fox for about 1 month. You can't even watch commercials, they're particularly bad. Better yet don't watch any TV at all. After 1 month turn on the TV and watch only primetime on the major networks, Oprah, E! and the WB. Whatever you do, don't follow any news stories. After 3 days, you'll forget about ol' whats-his-face who wants to eat your children and steal your money. It's really amazing. It's like living in a world of make believe, where gum drops fall from the sky, the roads are paved with chocolate and little faires fly around handing out money. By contrast, prime time TV tends to make all news look about the same, and it really makes watching the news quite a drag. Well, of courese, except for the C-span the original reality TV show.
In fact, recent finding are proving there to be a link between TV and political apathy. After only a few days of watching TV, the brain begins to function differently. A recent study conducted by the Institue of Media and Cognitive Behavior at Princeton proved this. A similar experiment to the one I propsed was run, and the findings were quite remarkeable. After only 24 hours of watching reruns of Malcom in the Middle, Dharma and Greg and the OP, 80% of the subjects in the study had trouble locating many of the most basic countries in the Middle East and Southeastern Asia. When asked about the president, commonly a response of "Ohh that buffoon, he's so full of hot air. Him and all his washington big wigs, I'm sick of them" or some variant there of. When asked to point out specific reasons for their beliefs, the subjects looked confused and irritated, citing "Well you know, I mean come on, have you seen the news lately". When asked about additonal topics ranging from the war in Iraq and pollution, the subjects often looked disengaged and only giving answers like, "I don't know, I mean it's complicated, becuase on the one hand you got, . . .hey Friends is on?"
Not only did extended exposure to prime time telivision effect the subjects' beahvior, but it was found to actually alter the chemical functions in and physiology of the brain. MRI scans of the brain showed a marked decrease in brain activity in the portion of the brain that controls crtical thinking and logic in most of the participants. Unexpectedly, the same MRI scans showed the region of the brain that controls lust, jealousy and the desire to eat fried foods actually grew in size.
The conclusions from this and many similar such studies found the lack of outrage towards the Bushies and their cavalier and blatant disregard for the judgement of the American public is not a result of crafty politics. But, morever it is due to the anesthetitizing effects of TV on the brain. The Bushies knew they could get away with it, and therefore no reason to provide anything but cursory justificaton for shady deals with Haliburton, tax cuts for the rich or the war in Iraq. So who gives a shit about Iraq, when there's Queer Eye. Sometimes we get what we deserve.
|
Rice CPU Crashes During 9/11 Panel Hearing
Ms. Rice's appearance before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 marked the most anticipated and highly publicized event during the hearings. Everyone in the coutnry was watching. Her voice echoed through hospital patients' rooms as doctors made their rounds and hotel rooms as maids made theirs, through coffee shops on college campuses and lounges in group homes.
Under often harsh questioning from Democratic members of the panel, Ms. Rice dismissed the importance of the still-classified August 2001 report that had been prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, describing it as "historical information based on old reporting — there was no new threat information." Her testiomony was also classifed by many, asrepetitive, particularly her frequent use of the terms like "structural problem" and "negatory" in her answers. At times it appeard that she had rehearsed her answers or was even reading a script. The most peculiar turn of events came about towards the end of questioning, when Senator Wade from Florida kept pushing her harder about the FBI memo released in May 2001. Eventually, Dr. Rice began nodding her repatitively in a robotic motion answering, "does not compute, does not compute, must self-destruct" while steam billowed from her ears until she laid motionless.
A senior white house staffter gave a fromal briefing to the pressing stating that "XJ487, I mean Dr. Rice experiencing a minor glitch in her retort program, I mean was under a lot of stress." He continued, "I'm sure she'll be fine tomorrow"
Some said she did little to rebut accusations by Richard A. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, who told the commission last month that Ms. Rice had largely ignored terrorist threats before 9/11.
|
Under often harsh questioning from Democratic members of the panel, Ms. Rice dismissed the importance of the still-classified August 2001 report that had been prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency, describing it as "historical information based on old reporting — there was no new threat information." Her testiomony was also classifed by many, asrepetitive, particularly her frequent use of the terms like "structural problem" and "negatory" in her answers. At times it appeard that she had rehearsed her answers or was even reading a script. The most peculiar turn of events came about towards the end of questioning, when Senator Wade from Florida kept pushing her harder about the FBI memo released in May 2001. Eventually, Dr. Rice began nodding her repatitively in a robotic motion answering, "does not compute, does not compute, must self-destruct" while steam billowed from her ears until she laid motionless.
A senior white house staffter gave a fromal briefing to the pressing stating that "XJ487, I mean Dr. Rice experiencing a minor glitch in her retort program, I mean was under a lot of stress." He continued, "I'm sure she'll be fine tomorrow"
Some said she did little to rebut accusations by Richard A. Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief, who told the commission last month that Ms. Rice had largely ignored terrorist threats before 9/11.
|
Bush Never Formally Warned (Invited) to 9/11 Attack
In response to the criticizism the Bush admistration has recieved since the Richard Clarke testimony, Presdient Bush has finally spoken on record. His remarks echoed those made by Condy Rice during her 9/11 panel hearings, not mention those made by every other cog in the Bush machine.
Bush went on record as saying, that "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America — at a time and a place, an attack," Mr. Bush said after attending Easter services in Fort Hood, Tex. He contiued, "In addition, there were never any formal invitations to attend or participate in an attack sent to me by Mr. Bid Laden. Not even a phone call, email or even an instant message with one of them cute upside-down smiley face thingies. Of course we knew that America was hated by Osama bin Laden. That was obvious. The question was, who was going to attack us, when and where, and with what. I had fifty it was going to be Professor Plum in the Library with a Candlestick. But, whoah, a bunch Arabs flying planes into the World Trade Center. Who'd a thunk it"
Dick Chaney said that Mr. Bush was fully aware that in the summer of 2001 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into domestic terrorist threats, but when pressed on the issue Mr. Bush replied "Yeah, that makes sense, to have some federal bureau to investigate these sort of things. If we would have had that, maybe we would have nabbed the little buggers. I mean if there had been some sort a report from a federal investigating agency maybe we would have known"
When asked about the Aug. 6 FBI report to Mr. Bush that was released Saturday evening, which was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", which cited evidence of active Qaeda cells in the United States, as well as reports that members of the terrorist organization had conducted recent surveillance of a federal building in Manhattan and could be preparing to stage hijackings. Presdent Bush replied, "The federal who of what. Ohhhh those guys, right. I mean, NY is one big sucker with all kinds of tall buildings., and lots of sites to attack. And they got the Yankees, and that A-rod, man we sure hated to see him leave Texas to go the Yankees, but the dude can flat out play."
Dick Chaney later commented that, "in the future, a formal warning from Al Queda would be really appreciated", because as it it turns out "the CIA is really really good at toppling rogue governments and propping up hapless dictators, but not so good at that whole intelligence gather thing".
|
Bush went on record as saying, that "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America — at a time and a place, an attack," Mr. Bush said after attending Easter services in Fort Hood, Tex. He contiued, "In addition, there were never any formal invitations to attend or participate in an attack sent to me by Mr. Bid Laden. Not even a phone call, email or even an instant message with one of them cute upside-down smiley face thingies. Of course we knew that America was hated by Osama bin Laden. That was obvious. The question was, who was going to attack us, when and where, and with what. I had fifty it was going to be Professor Plum in the Library with a Candlestick. But, whoah, a bunch Arabs flying planes into the World Trade Center. Who'd a thunk it"
Dick Chaney said that Mr. Bush was fully aware that in the summer of 2001 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was looking into domestic terrorist threats, but when pressed on the issue Mr. Bush replied "Yeah, that makes sense, to have some federal bureau to investigate these sort of things. If we would have had that, maybe we would have nabbed the little buggers. I mean if there had been some sort a report from a federal investigating agency maybe we would have known"
When asked about the Aug. 6 FBI report to Mr. Bush that was released Saturday evening, which was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.", which cited evidence of active Qaeda cells in the United States, as well as reports that members of the terrorist organization had conducted recent surveillance of a federal building in Manhattan and could be preparing to stage hijackings. Presdent Bush replied, "The federal who of what. Ohhhh those guys, right. I mean, NY is one big sucker with all kinds of tall buildings., and lots of sites to attack. And they got the Yankees, and that A-rod, man we sure hated to see him leave Texas to go the Yankees, but the dude can flat out play."
Dick Chaney later commented that, "in the future, a formal warning from Al Queda would be really appreciated", because as it it turns out "the CIA is really really good at toppling rogue governments and propping up hapless dictators, but not so good at that whole intelligence gather thing".
|
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Why Everyone Hates Duke and George Bush
There are obvious reasons to hate George Bush: he lies, arguably he is incompetent, he comes from a privileged background, and he directs policies to increase his privileged-ness-itude. He is also very arrogant, which is too complex to fully characterize here. But, to simplify let's just say he has a general smugness about him when he gives a public address that makes you want to smack him. We won't even consider the fact that he takes only his preconceived ideas into consideration when forming policies, thereby dismissing any suggestions anyone or any other country or body of countries might have as unpatriotic. Please remember, these are not my opinions, I am simply expressing the opinions of those who do not like George Bush (people like me, but not necessarily me). Additionally, any comparisons or parallels you might make between the Bushies and the Dukies are purely coincidental. I am just trying illustrate a point, and I certainly don't want this to be a political argument. I'm trying to stay out of the fray.
Now let's look at the reasons to hate Duke and Coach K-shashevski. I took these from the NJ Star Ledger in an article written by Steve Polti March 31. I won't go through the whole article, just the hightlights:
1. They're Smug
An MSNBC article claims that Duke carries themselves in a "We don't talk trash" kind of manner. Imagine if a president carried himself like that. You might want to smack him. I know I would. Just imagine a president that labeled entire countries and cultures as "evil-one's" or something similar, and justified these conclusions with biblical intonations. That president would then likely say that he and his country would take the high road and do what is right. That would be very Duke-esque, and I bet it would likely upset a lot of people.
2. They are perceived to be a bunch of "Choir Boys"
But, certainly they are not a bunch of choir boys. I won't bring up the Laettner incident, okay I will. Just look at the Laettner incident. This sort of hypocrisy would be like, well imagine for a minute that you disagreed with the policies of your country. You felt that they pursued their policies through subversion and were finding every loophole imaginable to circumvent the democratic process. You disagreed with this and you called bullshit. For doing that, your government labeled you as unpatriotic. That sort of thing could happen, theoretically. You might have your favorite example you would like to add.
3. Coach K whines and gets favorable calls
I would equate that to an administration that stacked the courts, the cabinet and appointed undersecretaries that were cronies and friends to achieve predetermined positions and objectives. Then if the disered outcome wasn't achieved (or their motives brought into question), they would likely try to ruin that person with a smear campaign. There is no way that could happen, so we'll move on.
4. Cameron Crazies
They're labeled as a bunch kids that act like jack-asses, because they can get away with it. I'm drawing a blank here for some parallels. Maybe some help.
5. Too much success
Everyone hates a winner. Maybe that's why everyone (other countries) are turning their noses up at us right now.
By the way, is it illegal to inimate that you would smack the president?
|
Now let's look at the reasons to hate Duke and Coach K-shashevski. I took these from the NJ Star Ledger in an article written by Steve Polti March 31. I won't go through the whole article, just the hightlights:
1. They're Smug
An MSNBC article claims that Duke carries themselves in a "We don't talk trash" kind of manner. Imagine if a president carried himself like that. You might want to smack him. I know I would. Just imagine a president that labeled entire countries and cultures as "evil-one's" or something similar, and justified these conclusions with biblical intonations. That president would then likely say that he and his country would take the high road and do what is right. That would be very Duke-esque, and I bet it would likely upset a lot of people.
2. They are perceived to be a bunch of "Choir Boys"
But, certainly they are not a bunch of choir boys. I won't bring up the Laettner incident, okay I will. Just look at the Laettner incident. This sort of hypocrisy would be like, well imagine for a minute that you disagreed with the policies of your country. You felt that they pursued their policies through subversion and were finding every loophole imaginable to circumvent the democratic process. You disagreed with this and you called bullshit. For doing that, your government labeled you as unpatriotic. That sort of thing could happen, theoretically. You might have your favorite example you would like to add.
3. Coach K whines and gets favorable calls
I would equate that to an administration that stacked the courts, the cabinet and appointed undersecretaries that were cronies and friends to achieve predetermined positions and objectives. Then if the disered outcome wasn't achieved (or their motives brought into question), they would likely try to ruin that person with a smear campaign. There is no way that could happen, so we'll move on.
4. Cameron Crazies
They're labeled as a bunch kids that act like jack-asses, because they can get away with it. I'm drawing a blank here for some parallels. Maybe some help.
5. Too much success
Everyone hates a winner. Maybe that's why everyone (other countries) are turning their noses up at us right now.
By the way, is it illegal to inimate that you would smack the president?
|
Everyone Hates Duke and Geroge Bush Part II
As expected, it was a very uneventful national championship. I tried to gather the participants of our office NCAA pool to go watch the game last night, but no one wanted to go. Watching the final game together had become an annual tradition since '98, but alas U Conn and Georgia Tech was just not an intriguing matchup. However, two people told me that if Duke were playing they would have come watch the game, solely to cheer for their demise. One worker said, "I would have gone just to scream and yell at Duke every time they scored or Coach K whined for a call." But Duke wasn't there, so that didn't happen and I did my taxes last night.
As I said previously, Kerry and U Conn are in a similar position right now. Everyone is rallying behind Kerry, becuase it is believed that he has the best shot at beating Bush. However, if Kerry wins the election, but he can't get anyone to watch the game with him on Monday he could be in trouble. U Conn doesn't care if anyone cheers for them now, they just won the national championship and there are no more games. NCAA basketball has no worries, becuase there will be a brand new season next year with all new participants. But Kerry on the other hand, if he wins the election, his season is just starting. He still needs fans to come support him and his policies. So for the sake of all that is wholly, I hope that the same people who are bolstering Kerry now will still be there after the election if he wins. If not, the Democratic party will be guilty of propping up an unispiring candidate, simply to beat the Bushies, which might hurt the Democrats over the long haul. A bad Democratic candidate might be discredit the party and give further strength to the Republican machine. Thereby, making it even easier for Jeb Bush to win in 2008.
This, I believe, is the problem with cheering for someone to lose, as oppossed to genuinely cheering for that person's opponent to win. Your heart is never really in it, and it is difficult to sustain. As a rule, I don't think this is very good for politics or sportsmanship alike, but admittedly I also am guilty of this. I just hope we don't go looking for Howard Dean three months after the election. Remember, we thought he was a lose cannon, so we let him get beat by UAB in the second round.
|
As I said previously, Kerry and U Conn are in a similar position right now. Everyone is rallying behind Kerry, becuase it is believed that he has the best shot at beating Bush. However, if Kerry wins the election, but he can't get anyone to watch the game with him on Monday he could be in trouble. U Conn doesn't care if anyone cheers for them now, they just won the national championship and there are no more games. NCAA basketball has no worries, becuase there will be a brand new season next year with all new participants. But Kerry on the other hand, if he wins the election, his season is just starting. He still needs fans to come support him and his policies. So for the sake of all that is wholly, I hope that the same people who are bolstering Kerry now will still be there after the election if he wins. If not, the Democratic party will be guilty of propping up an unispiring candidate, simply to beat the Bushies, which might hurt the Democrats over the long haul. A bad Democratic candidate might be discredit the party and give further strength to the Republican machine. Thereby, making it even easier for Jeb Bush to win in 2008.
This, I believe, is the problem with cheering for someone to lose, as oppossed to genuinely cheering for that person's opponent to win. Your heart is never really in it, and it is difficult to sustain. As a rule, I don't think this is very good for politics or sportsmanship alike, but admittedly I also am guilty of this. I just hope we don't go looking for Howard Dean three months after the election. Remember, we thought he was a lose cannon, so we let him get beat by UAB in the second round.
|
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Everyone Hates Duke & George Bush
Watching the Men's NCAA Final Four basketball games, I was a little surprised by how much people really really hate Duke and Coach Krzyzewski. Everyone watching the game was so happy when Duke lost. You have to remember that we are talking about University of Kentucky basketball fans here, and they take their college basketball very seriously. And although it was 12 years ago, the last second Christian Laettner shot against Kentucky in 1992 is still a fresh wound. Even still, the extent of the hatred was a bit surprising to me. Eddie Sutton, the former university of Kentucky basketball coach that was fired for recruiting violations that ultimately lead to NCAA sanctions against UK, received less ire than Coach K. But this isn't just a KY thing. Type in "I hate Duke" into a search engine, you'll be surprised. There is even a "Duke-Sucks.com" web page. Duke hating is universal, well that is except for Duke fans. But there doesn't seem to be a middle ground on this topic.
After Duke lost everyone was even high-fiving each other as though it were a KY win. I think there should be a name for this; cheering for one team, because you hate the other team so much. I think it is similar to fantasizing that the next time you see your ex, he or she is fat and hopeless and you are with a hottie. The driving force is basically hate-based, and it's very different than rooting for the underdog. When you cheer for the underdog, there is a sincere and genuine hope that the underdog plays well, and you adopt that team, even if temporarily. It seems to be a positive driving force.
I think most everyone does it, and I often catch myself watching game just to root against a team. I have it particularly bad for the Lakers. However, I've noticed that this sort of a victory is ethereal and not very satisfying afterward. There is nothing to sustain your excitement afterward, because you don't really give a shit about the winner, your just happy Duke lost. I have the same fear for Kerry in the upcoming election. The same people that were cheering for U Conn on Saturday, also hate Bush (even more than they hate Duke). The hatred for Bush has solidified the Democratic party, and everyone is rallying around Kerry just to see Bush lose. But, just as no one really cares how Calhoun and Okafor are gong to make out on Monday night, the same could happen for Kerry if he wins. Rallying behind a candidate, just to see the other lose has some pitfalls, which I'll cover tomorrow.
|
After Duke lost everyone was even high-fiving each other as though it were a KY win. I think there should be a name for this; cheering for one team, because you hate the other team so much. I think it is similar to fantasizing that the next time you see your ex, he or she is fat and hopeless and you are with a hottie. The driving force is basically hate-based, and it's very different than rooting for the underdog. When you cheer for the underdog, there is a sincere and genuine hope that the underdog plays well, and you adopt that team, even if temporarily. It seems to be a positive driving force.
I think most everyone does it, and I often catch myself watching game just to root against a team. I have it particularly bad for the Lakers. However, I've noticed that this sort of a victory is ethereal and not very satisfying afterward. There is nothing to sustain your excitement afterward, because you don't really give a shit about the winner, your just happy Duke lost. I have the same fear for Kerry in the upcoming election. The same people that were cheering for U Conn on Saturday, also hate Bush (even more than they hate Duke). The hatred for Bush has solidified the Democratic party, and everyone is rallying around Kerry just to see Bush lose. But, just as no one really cares how Calhoun and Okafor are gong to make out on Monday night, the same could happen for Kerry if he wins. Rallying behind a candidate, just to see the other lose has some pitfalls, which I'll cover tomorrow.
|
