Kathleen Parker Talks Turkey (In Kawasaki Glasses)
Parker on Palin in the National Review. And I'm with Parker on the problem and the solution:
As we've seen and heard more from John McCain's running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn't know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion....Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.
No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.
Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there's not much content there. Here's but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: "Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we're talking about today. And that's something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this."
When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama's numbers, Palin blustered wordily: "I'm not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who's more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who's actually done it?"
If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.
...Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.
In the IHT, David Brooks explains what's missing:
In the current Weekly Standard, Steven Hayward argues that the nation's founders wanted uncertified citizens to hold the highest offices in the land. They did not believe in a separate class of professional executives. They wanted rough and rooted people like Palin.I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn't just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.
And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.
What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events - the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.
How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't.
Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word "experience" 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.
Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.
Was It My Smut, Or My Complaint To The Comptroller Of The Currency?
First, Bank of America fired me as a customer after I complained a little too bitterly that they failed in their fiduciary duty to me when their TELLERS, on SEVEN separate occasions, gave out a total of $12,000 of my money to women who presented a fake driver's license in my name. (No bankcard, no signature verification, no PIN required -- just the little old fake DL that you could go get in half an hour down at L.A.'s MacArthur Park for $150.)
Now, it appears they've also blocked their employees' access to my website. Apparently, I'm a smut peddler. (Amazing, isn't it, how I manage to get my "smut" into a few rather conservative papers across the country, yet it's too dirrrrrty for Bank of America.)
Or...hmmm...could it actually be the complaint I posted? The one to the FBI, the Comptroller of the Currency, the House Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, detailing my experience with what they call their "multiple layers of security," and what I found in my subsequent investigation? Here's an e-mail I got today:
Amy -- Don't know if you realized this, but your web site has been declared off limits on all Bank of America computers. I tried to access your blog over the bank's network today, and got this error message (duplicated verbatim):"Access denied to http://www.advicegoddess.com/ ...I find this highly amusing, that one of the business behemoths of this country is afraid to expose its associates and customers to your blog and its views. We both, of course, know why this has been done.
The URL you entered is categorized as Erotica and Sex and has been blocked to maintain the business interests of the bank, ensure regulatory compliance and/or protect the safety and security of associates and customers.
Exceptions will only be granted for URLs in limited categories and require Band I executive approval. If you need access to this web site for business purposes, click here to request an exception."
The pen is indeed apparently mightier than the sword. Congratulations for causing this giant bank to turn to jelly before the power of your pen.
If you forward or reprint this, please make no identifying reference to me, as it would certainly cost me my job, and probably blacklist me for good, as we live in a place where BofA is a dominant presence.
I thoroughly enjoy your blog, and am in general agreement with you on many topics, most notably the foolishness and corruption of religious belief, and in particular the radical Muslim threat. I admire your bravery in keeping the drumbeat on this topic going, when apparently so many others refuse to engage the issue forthrightly for one reason or another.
Best regards, Anonymous
I have maintained this drumbeat because I think customers and potential customers have a right to know the reality of BofA's "multiple layers of security." Had I known that they would, seven times, give my money out, totally off-pattern for me (thousands of dollars, from teller windows instead of the ATM, in place I have never been when I almost always withdrew the same amount from the same two or three branches) to thieves with the most easily faked piece of ID...I never would've banked there.
And to all you B of A enablers lofty enough to have "Band I executive approval," a question or two: How do you sleep nights? Why fire me and ban my site from employee eyes? Cheaper than fixing the problems?
Bye-Bye, Europe!
The Netherlands' Geert Wilders, in a speech in New York, said he sees America as the last man standing against Islamization. An excerpt:
Many European cities are already one-quarter Muslim: just take Amsterdam, Marseille and Malmo in Sweden. In many cities the majority of the under-18 population is Muslim. Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighbourhoods. Mohammed is the most popular name among boys in many cities. In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear "whore, whore". Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin. In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England sharia courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II. French is now commonly spoken on the streets of Tel Aviv and Netanya, Israel. I could go on forever with stories like this. Stories about Islamization.A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.
Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate. But there are few signs of that. The Pew Research Center reported that half of French Muslims see their loyalty to Islam as greater than their loyalty to France. One-third of French Muslims do not object to suicide attacks. The British Centre for Social Cohesion reported that one-third of British Muslim students are in favour of a worldwide caliphate. A Dutch study reported that half of Dutch Muslims admit they "understand" the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims demand what they call 'respect'. And this is how we give them respect. Our elites are willing to give in. To give up. In my own country we have gone from calls by one cabinet member to turn Muslim holidays into official state holidays, to statements by another cabinet member, that Islam is part of Dutch culture, to an affirmation by the Christian-Democratic attorney general that he is willing to accept sharia in the Netherlands if there is a Muslim majority. We have cabinet members with passports from Morocco and Turkey.
Muslim demands are supported by unlawful behaviour, ranging from petty crimes and random violence, for example against ambulance workers and bus drivers, to small-scale riots. Paris has seen its uprising in the low-income suburbs, the banlieus. Some prefer to see these as isolated incidents, but I call it a Muslim intifada. I call the perpetrators "settlers". Because that is what they are. They do not come to integrate into our societies, they come to integrate our society into their Dar-al-Islam. Therefore, they are settlers.
Much of this street violence I mentioned is directed exclusively against non-Muslims, forcing many native people to leave their neighbourhoods, their cities, their countries.
Politicians shy away from taking a stand against this creeping sharia. They believe in the equality of all cultures. Moreover, on a mundane level, Muslims are now a swing vote not to be ignored.
Our many problems with Islam cannot be explained by poverty, repression or the European colonial past, as the Left claims. Nor does it have anything to do with Palestinians or American troops in Iraq. The problem is Islam itself.
Allow me to give you a brief Islam 101. The first thing you need to know about Islam is the importance of the book of the Quran. The Quran is Allah's personal word, revealed by an angel to Mohammed, the prophet. This is where the trouble starts. Every word in the Quran is Allah's word and therefore not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such a thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims. But a moderate Islam is non-existent.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world - by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages - at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza. He advised on matters of slavery, but never advised to liberate slaves. Islam has no other morality than the advancement of Islam. If it is good for Islam, it is good. If it is bad for Islam, it is bad. There is no gray area or other side.
Quran as Allah's own word and Mohammed as the perfect man are the two most important facets of Islam. Let no one fool you about Islam being a religion. Sure, it has a god, and a here-after, and 72 virgins. But in its essence Islam is a political ideology. It is a system that lays down detailed rules for society and the life of every person. Islam wants to dictate every aspect of life. Islam means 'submission'. Islam is not compatible with freedom and democracy, because what it strives for is sharia. If you want to compare Islam to anything, compare it to communism or national-socialism, these are all totalitarian ideologies.
This is what you need to know about Islam, in order to understand what is going on in Europe. For millions of Muslims the Quran and the live of Mohammed are not 14 centuries old, but are an everyday reality, an ideal, that guide every aspect of their lives. Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam "the most retrograde force in the world", and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran.
Wilders' film, Fitna, is here:
Horrible images, brought to you by Islam. (That's my old neighborhood by the World Trade Center in New York City.) I believe, that in my lifetime, the Mona Lisa will be painted over and France, and other European countries will become totalitarian Islamic states. Sounds crazy, huh? And that's part of the problem. But, it's not so crazy, and that's the sort of thing McCain overlooked in picking Palin, and the thing the Democrats only pay lip service to. Frankly, Wilders' film is what's missing from the debates.
Oh, and somebody e-mailed me about an Atheists Alliance conference. I've been invited before. Lately, I've been writing my book day and night to make my new post-identity theft deadline, so I'm not really going anywhere. But guess who else apparently didn't get to go? Surprise guest Ayaan Hirsi Ali, because they had some problem getting them to allow her on The Queen Mary where the conference was held, because too many Muslims want to murder her.
Paris photo by Gregg Sutter
Paulson, Get Lost!
From ABCNews Blogs, Newt tells Paulson off:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., on Sunday described Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for billions of dollars to buy debt from struggling Wall Street financial firms as "un-American" and said the secretary should have stepped down.Gingrich even expressed concern with Paulson's connections to Wall Street. The treasury secretary served as the chairman of a major global investment banking and securities firm before joining the Bush administration.
"You have the former Chairman of Goldman Sachs asking for 700 billion dollars, and in his initial request, asking for it in such an un-American way that I think he should have resigned," said Gingrich. "I think Paulson has terminally misunderstood the nature of the American system. Not just no review, no judicial review, no congressional accountability. Give me 700 billion dollars, 700 BILLION dollars! 'I'll be glad to spend it for you.' That's a centralization of power that is totally un-American."
If Gingrich were running for president, he'd have my vote. I don't like his Christian country stuff, but he's the best qualified candidate for the demands of the office I can think of; but, unfortunately, not one who's running. McCain alone is bad enough (I've read Matt Welch's book on him), but I'm extremely disturbed by the choice of the extremely unqualified right-wing pinup girl Palin for Vice-President. Palin's Couric interviews are here and here.
Donation Station
Unfortunately, that's not a stop on the way to Conjunction Junction. Track the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac contributions to lawmakers here.
You Know What They Say...
"Big feet -- big shoes." The view from my local Starbucks, as I worked on my book.
Right Woman Or Right Time?
Sometimes, it's not so much as the who as the when -- for both women and men. I think people underestimate how big a part readiness for a relationship plays in whether somebody can have a successful one. Judith Sills talks about this in a surprisingly insightful self-help book, A Fine Romance. Tad Safran gets into it in the Times of London:
"What the hell is wrong with you?" a girl recently asked me, her face screwed up with concern and incomprehension. What prompted this question was my admission that I was still unmarried. Sadly, I'm now at the age where I need to have a ready excuse for not having settled down. The excuse that works best with women, I've learnt, is to shrug my shoulders and lament that I just haven't met the right girl yet.The truth is probably simpler than that and best summed up by the "New York taxi driver" theory. According to this idea, men -- like New York taxi drivers -- cruise around all day, picking up fares. They carry some for a long time, some for just a short while, without giving it all that much thought. But at a certain point, when they're tired, maybe bored and have had their fill, the taxi driver decides it's time to turn off his light and go home. Whoever is in the back of his metaphorical relationship taxi at that point is the one he marries.
...With the benefit of hindsight, I'd say there have been five women in my past who would have made great wives/mothers and who also indicated they were interested in the position. Probably more than I deserve. So, how is it that I'm still single? I guess the timing wasn't right -- that, or they pushed me for an answer and, like many men, my default response when under pressure is a cautious "no".
The good news, according to the theory, is that at least men are like New York taxi drivers. If they were like London taxi drivers, they would just stop, roll down their window, find out where you wanted to go, decide it's out of their way and drive off. Or if they were like Paris taxi drivers, they would pick you up, but not know how to get to your destination and you would have to hold your breath for the duration. Or if they were like Rome taxi drivers, they would get you where you wanted to go, but scare the hell out of you along the way by driving like Lewis Hamilton on crack.
There is that silly idea of "the one" that people like to cling to. For some of us weirdos, there actually aren't all that many people who are compatible with us. But, for a lot of people, I think it has to be one of many pretty much, generally speaking, right people at the actually right time, and they'll fall into a relationship with that person.
By the way, I think we should acknowledge the 20s as "The Fuck Years," at least for a lot of people. I used to tell myself I wanted a relationship back in my 20s when I really just wanted to fool around while I figured out the stuff of who I was and what I would do to keep from starving, and all that. Nothing wrong with that. It just ends up being a lot harder -- on you and other people -- if you are in your Fuck Years and you don't admit it.
How The Swedes Stopped The Bleeding
Carter Dougherty writes in The New York Times of the way Sweden stopped their financial crisis:
A banking system in crisis after the collapse of a housing bubble. An economy hemorrhaging jobs. A market-oriented government struggling to stem the panic. Sound familiar?It does to Sweden. The country was so far in the hole in 1992 -- after years of imprudent regulation, short-sighted economic policy and the end of its property boom -- that its banking system was, for all practical purposes, insolvent.
But Sweden took a different course than the one now being proposed by the United States Treasury. And Swedish officials say there are lessons from their own nightmare that Washington may be missing.
Sweden did not just bail out its financial institutions by having the government take over the bad debts. It extracted pounds of flesh from bank shareholders before writing checks. Banks had to write down losses and issue warrants to the government.
That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.
"If I go into a bank," said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's deputy minister of finance at the time, "I'd rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer."
...A few American commentators have proposed that the United States government extract equity from banks as a price for their rescue. But it does not seem to be under serious consideration yet in the Bush administration or Congress.
Wait...are the Swedes the socialists and are we the capitalists? I'm a little confused.
A Bank Of America Credit Card Customer Speaks
A blogger named Harsha writes:
I opened a 0% APR American Express card with Bank of America less than a year ago and transferred a large loan balance to it and have been paying it off $1000 a month. The statement closes every 22nd and the minimum is due by the following 11th. I've always made this payment well in advance of the 11th deadline. This time, I ended up making it even before the 22nd statement close so basically my payment got tagged to the previous month.When I called to clarify this, I was rudely informed by the representative that it is my fault for 'paying late' and that I will lose the promotional 0% APR. Then I asked her to check with her supervisor and she came back a little while later saying that they have decided to reinstate the 0% APR as a courtesy. I was delighted and thanked her and realized after I hung up that I had not asked about the $39 late fee. To me, it makes sense to roll it back because they 'forgave' the 'late payment' by reinstating my 0% APR, so why should I pay the late fee? Mind you, I absolutely agree and understand a late fee for late payments - no argument there.
When I called back, I said that if the Bank has rolled back the 0% APR because I am forgiven for the 'late' payment, then why would I pay a late fee? The representative talking to me couldn't for the life of her understand my logic. So we started arguing back and forth and she said the same thing repeatedly and so did I - classic stalemate situation. So I asked her to connect me to her supervisor. What she did next was appalling - she actually threw me off the line and I ended up at the beginning of the call where you give the machine your card details to find the best route for the call. You'd think I would have given up, but I did not.
When the next representative came on the line (now I'm angry and my voice is louder) I told him about the way in which I got bumped off the previous call and said that I realize none of this is his fault but, come on! getting kicked out is just unacceptable! Since I was angry, after hearing why I called, he offered to cut my fee down to half but no more because representatives are not authorized to do so. In fact, he said that he was not even supposed to offer me half off on the fee, but was doing it because I was upset. I was unable to wrap my head around the fact that half of the fee was being refunded as a 'courtesy' but the other half wouldn't be. So I asked him if he was being half courteous and half rude. Of course, such rhetorical questions only incite the flames of anger, and it did. We started arguing and I said that if he could roll back half my fee while not technically supposed to, then why not roll back the entire fee? Why partially commit the crime? And so on and on we went... Finally I said to him that half off was not acceptable and asked him to connect me to his supervisor. Thankfully he did. I left a message, in a super angry mode, hoping to evoke a response, but I have none so far.
My issue is NOT with the $39 fee. My issue is with the LOGIC of this whole situation. First of all, I did not make a 'late' payment. I ended up making two payments in the same month, a day early. In this tough economic environment, I am making multi-thousand dollar payments on-time (except this once), have a checking and savings account with Bank of America and am poised to buy a home next year. Despite all this and the threat of me switching to Discover (which is flooding my mailbox with offers), I am unable to fathom why the fee and worse still, why half the fee? If there was ANY logic to this, and I was indeed a payment too late, then for sure, I will not argue if the Bank starts charging me a high APR and fine me $39.
But when they have reinstated the 0% as a courtesy, why should they charge me $39 or even half of that? A pissed off customer with options is the worst kind of customer. Or am I too small for a large Bank like Bank of America to give a rats ass about? To add insult to injury, they are yet to respond to me.
Check out Bank of America Sucks. I am not that mad at the Bank - all I want is my fee refunded because it is illogical to charge it in the first place. Will someone from the Bank PLEASE respond?
In Harsha's comments, a guy who calls himself JohnnyPolo responds:
I worked not too long ago as a Bank of American Customer Service Rep for over two years. Your situation seems very familiar, one that over the course of an eight hour day I would get multiple times. The computer misread your payment, that happens. BOA has changed a lot of their rules about refund policies. As long as nothing has changed within the last six months, this is how it is...When I first started there, you had the ability to refund any and all fees. Obviously they told us not to, but we are reps never got punished for them. We had monthly evaluation peroids where they looked at the stats from our calls, listened to two of our calls at random a month and it determined whether or not we got a pay raise or bonus. Initally we just had to score a 90 out of a 100 or above on our two recorded calls and they listened for keys things. If you said the customers name, said the banks name at least twice, and were pleasent. It wasn't hard to get above a 90. Then, they looked at about 40 different averaged stats we had ranging from our transfering calls rate to to amount of money refunded per call. But the only stat that was calculated into our pay? It was how quickly we got you off the phone. Our call average had to be less than three and a half minutes or we didn't get a raise. So my procedure, along with many other coworkers, was just refund whatever was asked by the customer because it didn't affect me. Sure, once a month my boss will say I'm refunding too much, but that was the worst of it.
Before I left, they changed their refund policy. We, the reps, were no longer allowed to make any decisions about refunds. They used a new software where we put the amount of late payments you've had and previous refunds you've received to pull a number out of nowhere and tell you how much you can refund. I remember having to tell many people, "well, I can't refund the full $39, but I can offer you $4 as a courtesy". I know a friend that still works there, and says nothing has changed. Obviously, more people get upset because we can't just refund their money back to them for these awful bank charges causing the reps calls to be longer because of arguing, therefore very few people were getting pay raises or bonuses, and many people were doing so poorly with their call times that they were receiving pay cuts.
I think I've typed too much, but I thought I'd just share what I know with you. I hope you get your money back, but if you don't, make a complaint about their "refund tool software", because with you the person you are talking with no longer even has the ability to give you your money back. It's forbidden for to to tell you software is deciding how much money to give you, so if the rep hears the words refund tool, they won't know what to do. Good luck.
I had a similar experience with reps at B of A who were mere functionaries, apparently unable to think for themselves and get around "procedure" to quickly give me the letter stating I'd been a victim of fraud. I was told by the LAPD that I needed that letter to make a police report about my identity theft. You need to make a police report to have any hope of having the thief pursued by the police. And you need to go after a thief fast to have some hope of catching the person.
Anyway, I spent two days of my life on the phone, fighting with reps at B of A, begging to get the letter. No dice -- despite my speaking to the associate manager herself in Dixon City, who'd seen the thief, who she described as a fat African American woman missing her front teeth. There are quite a few photos of me on the Internet, in papers, and on my syndicator's website. Clearly, I'm not a black woman with dental issues.
Here's a version of my complaint to the Comptroller of the Currency, the House Finance Committee, the Senate Banking Committee, California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office, and the FBI, about my shocking discovery about what passes for "multiple layers of security" at Bank of America.
Deposit My Money At Bank Of America? I'd Sooner Store My Life Savings In A Shoebox Under The Bed
Of course, it's kind of a moot point, since they fired me as a customer after I complained that they'd failed their fiduciary duty to me when their TELLERS gave out a total of $12,000 of my money, on SEVEN separate occasions, to thieves who essentially presented used Kleenex with my picture on it.
Just after midnight, when I was looking for blog items for Friday, I was infuriated to read an op-ed, "Main Street Needs the Treasury Plan," in The Wall Street Journal by Bank of America chief Kenneth D. Lewis. This past summer, I'd actually been faxing and e-mailing Lewis (thank you, Consumerist) the details of my experience with the spectacular negligence that passes for security in his bank.
I couldn't hold back any longer. I posted, in the WSJ's comments section, a copy of one of the complaint letters I've sent about Bank of America to various watchdogs, starting in early September. I started out my WSJ comment with this quote from Lewis' piece:
Mr. Lewis says they are "gaining market share in deposits and loans." That's actually a pity, and I feel sorry for the people who are placing their trust in this bank.After months of investigation, I have filed a complaint with the Comptroller of the Currency, the House Finance Committee, and the Senate Banking Committee, and California Attorney General Jerry Brown's office. I have lost almost all of my faith in government as a watchdog, hence my spreading the complaint around. This is the version I sent to the FBI:
My letter follows:
Greetings,I'm a syndicated columnist with Creators, and a journalist.
I believe I've discovered substantial wrongdoing on the part of Bank of America. I started an investigation in the wake of having Bank of America's tellers, on seven separate occasions, give out a total of $12,000 of my money to thieves who presented only a fake driver's license in my name, with the wrong expiration date. No bankcard was required, no PIN was demanded, no signature was checked. SEVEN TIMES.
Odd, huh -- for a major bank to be so repeatedly negligent? And not just to me. My experience is far from unique. NAME REDACTED, JOB DESCRIPTION REDACTED, had $70,000 stolen from his B of A account with a similar lack of verification. And there are many, many, many, many others.
Through my investigation, and through tests a number of people have run for me at B of A branches, I've discovered that Bank of America seems to be putting every one of their California consumer banking customers at substantial risk for identity theft. (see following blog item)
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/07/28/investigating_b.html
Also based on my investigation, I believe it's possible, even probable, that every consumer banking customer of Bank of America in this country is also at substantial risk for identity theft -- as they brag in the press about their "multiple levels of security."This seems to be false advertising; perhaps criminally so. I never would have banked with them had I known the reality of their security.
Bank of America has merged with and bought numerous banks, and it seems they have failed to connect them all by a single computer system. I don't know why, but I can speculate -- because this is tremendously expensive and it's cheaper to pay back identity theft victims than connect the systems of numerous banks. As it stands, tellers at one bank cannot look at the account of somebody who banks in a different state, and maybe even somebody who banks in a different metropolitan area, or maybe, sometimes, even within the same metropolitan area, to verify identity. As I say in the blog item I attached, basically, it seems they just HOPE it's you.
Surely, the word has gotten out from tellers to thieves, making B of A customers prime targets for identity theft.
I've done a considerable amount of legwork on this -- for months -- and there's more than you see in this blog item. Additionally, I reported my findings, in writing, to the office of California Attorney General Jerry Brown, and to the House and Senate Banking committees, and to the Comptroller of the Currency.
However, I'm reporting this to you because I feel, in an election year, and with the major financial crises we have, it's unlikely this issue will be considered in Congress or the Senate, and I was told that the Comptroller used to be the head of the banking lobby. I don't know that this affects his judgement in any way, but I am not comfortable with the former fox now being in charge of guarding the henhouse.
I have great respect for the FBI, and I am reporting this to you because perhaps you, of all these agencies, will finally investigate this and bring some action against BofA if you feel it is warranted.
If I am right, and I suspect I am, their spectacular negligence affects every ordinary person who banks with them -- all us average Joes being laid open to the horrible crime of identity theft.
I will be discussing this further on Mari Frank's (KUCI) radio show on September 24, 2008, set to air October 15.
Please feel free to call me and I can fill you in with more information that I have not published. Further published information can be found on my site, advicegoddess.com, by clicking up my blog and searching Bank of America.
All the best (and keep up the great work), -Amy Alkon
A Midwestern Broad Talks Turkey
Give it back, ya Wall Street scumbags, right down to the tires on your Mercedes!
via Celeste Fremon
The Candidates Are Confused
I about threw up when McCain suggested he and Obama stop campaigning and work together to solve the financial crisis in our country. First of all, despite the fact that they're the only real choices for president, I find neither one particularly qualified to do that job -- or to solve the financial crisis. The Wall Street Journal writes about their ridiculous suggestion in an op-ed:
Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?
Mr. McCain's decision follows an equally odd suggestion from Mr. Obama yesterday morning that the two candidates issue a joint statement of principles and conditions for the financial rescue package. As a purely political matter, we understand why Mr. Obama would just as soon say "present" on a tricky Senate vote. He probably figures the current economic mess plays into his argument for "change," so why not minimize any differences with Mr. McCain on the Paulson plan as he heads to Election Day?
We also understand Mr. McCain's desire to further dress his campaign in "Country First" gilding, as if patriotism and consensus are one and the same, or that getting something done is more important than getting it right.
Whatever the motive, this is not what the country expects from its Presidential candidates. The Administration and the Congress have a responsibility to negotiate legislation, and we can only hope it isn't carbuncled to a point that makes it impossible for Treasury to hold a decent mortgage-backed securities auction, or allow markets to clear. As Senators, Messrs. Obama and McCain also have a responsibility to give us their up-or-down verdict on the bill as it emerges. If they have specific differences or suggestions, they certainly have a large megaphone to broadcast them.
One thing it seems they can agree on, in the words at the end of the piece -- that it's good to run for "political cover."
Christians In Iraq Aren't Faring So Well
What's almost as bad as being an Iraqi Jew? Being an Iraqi Christian. Here's an excerpt from an interview with William J. Murray, the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition on Frontpage.com:
FP: Why are Muslims in Iraq engaging in violence against Christians?Murray: The only truly safe place for Christians, Jews or any other religious minorities in the Middle East is a strictly enforced secular system. Mullahs preach hatred from the pulpit in all officially Islamic nations. Their calls for violence are also heard in semi-secular nations such as Lebanon, Turkey and Egypt. With a "holy book" that gives Muslim men the authority to seize the property and even wives of non-Muslim men, the message of the Mullahs is eagerly received, particularly in times of turmoil. In Iraq tens of thousands of Christian homes have been seized by Muslims with the approval of the Mullahs.
FP: Why were Christian militias the only ones disarmed immediately after the American invasion of Iraq?
Murray: Those of us who have questioned the State Department on the disarming of the Christian militias have received mixed answers. However, the favorite answer seems to be that allowing Christians to bear arms in Iraq would give the impression that the United States was leading a "Christian crusade," and thus it was better for our image to allow the slaughter of Christians.
FP: Why is the American position that Iraqi Christian refugees are not an American problem?
Murray: Our government, that is the Bush Administration, does not want the financial and moral obligations that come with the actual declaration of refugee status. As a result none of the refugees, Christian or otherwise, are considered refugees officially by our government. There has been a special effort to make sure that Christians who have fled Iraq are not given any priority treatment despite the fact that they represented a far larger percentage of those who fled compared to their actual percentage of the population.
FP: Why does the State Department under Condi Rice deny that persecution exists?
Murray: Condi Rice values good relations with Islamic dictatorships who are the worst offenders of human rights in the world. Recognizing that Christians are persecuted in the Middle East would offend the corrupt royalty of Saudi Arabia and make our relations with other dictatorships we rely on for oil more difficult. In other words the lives of the Christians in the Middle East are of less value to Condi Rice than the flow of capital to the markets in the US.
...FP: What can be done?
Murray: The Iraqi war is our war, we own it and the refugees are our responsibility, not that of the United Nations. The State Department should stop playing down numbers and start living up to responsibility.
FP: And what does living up to responsibility entail?
Murray: A lot of money being spent to undo the damage would be the solution. Since our government borrows huge amounts from the Chinese and Saudis, this becomes awkward, particularly in the current financial environment. Within the past few weeks the Bush Administration has risked tens of billions of tax payer dollars to bail out foreign debt holders. Yes ... you read that right; the bail out of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paid off the foreign debt holders while leaving American stock holders with nothing. Our treasury secretary actually called the Japanese, Chinese and Saudi investors to personally tell them their investments in our banking system would be protected.
Please note that I don't agree with this coalition's platform -- anti-gay marriage and anti-choice for abortion -- but I sure can't get behind letting a bunch of Christians be slaughtered in Iraq, and neither can they.
More on Iraqi Christians here.
Include Bob Barr In The Debate
Got this press release from the Libertarian Party, subject-lined "Barack Obama Can Debate Bob Barr":
McCain Moves to Dictate Debate Timing, Agenda Should Be RejectedAtlanta, GA - With the recent proposal of Senator John McCain to postpone the first presidential debate, it is clear that the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has no authority.
"For the past several elections, candidates have used the CPD as an official buffer to keep competition out of the two-party presidential contest," says Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr. "McCain publicly proved with his announcement what we've been saying all along: The candidates call the shots as to when to debate, where to debate and who to debate."
Barr continued, "Given Senator McCain's political stunt to avoid the debate, I ask that Friday's debate moves forward without him, as I am more than willing to step in to participate."
In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan chose to debate John Anderson, one-on-one, without Jimmy Carter.
In the 1992 election, George H.W. Bush demanded the inclusion of H. Ross Perot in all three presidential debates.
"It's time that at least one of the two leading presidential candidates show leadership and provide the American public an opportunity to witness an open and fair debate, based upon substance and issues rather than sound bites and rhetoric," concluded Barr.
First of all, I know a lot of people are disillusioned with both parties, and while I don't think Barr is electable, a viable third party in this country would be a very healthy thing. Giving the Libertarian Party a chance to show its stuff at a time when the American people are probably more ready for it, thanks to the fiscal wild west that our country has become, is the right thing to do. Also, I think Barr's inclusion will help cut through some of the mountains of bullshit of both candidates. The guy should be brought in to the debate.
"But I Really Want To Direct!"
I turned on CNN and there he was -- the vile, besuited barbarian Ahmadinejad being given a platform on Larry King, like he's just yet another other celeb or dignitary.
Who is Ahmadinejad? Well, president of Iran, of course. But, Jihadwatch sums the rest of him up pretty well:
▪ He literally believes in the imminent emergence of the Mahdi - the Shiites' promised one who is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world.▪ He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him.
▪ His main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi's coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it.
▪ As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi.
▪ He allocated generous sums for extensive road improvement to a mosque at Jamkaaraan near the city of Qum where it is believed the promised Mahdi is hiding in a well since the age of four, over 1100 years ago.
▪ He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them.
▪ He has said in private that it was he who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon.
▪ He sees the Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad's own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews "people of the book," and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them.
▪ He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other revisionist fanatics.
▪ He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe.
▪ In his speech at the UN general assembly, he implored the Mahdi to come and save the world. He claimed that during his speech of some twenty odd minutes, a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed, unable to move their eyes.
▪ He believes that the earth is Allah's and all people must either become believers of his brand of Islam or must perish as infidels najis (unclean) who by their very presence defile Allah's earth.
▪ He believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills an infidel, he goes to Allah's paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah's paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful.
... He is simply a fanatic who is wedded to an extremely dangerous exclusionary system of belief. Humanity must learn that dismissing him as a lunatic will result in great suffering, as it did with Hitler.
Tragically, Ahmadinejad is the embodiment of several million people who are hinged exactly like him and who are willing to give their lives, and take with them as many lives as required in the service of their belief. In this age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollars can serve as the catalyst of total annihilation.
Prudence would err on the side of being an alarmist than a complacent dismissive.
Ahmadinejad and his ilk are not interested in any negotiation, any compromise or any live-and-let-live final solution. They are determined to be the soldiers of Mahdi come-what-may. They have no problem with the total destruction of the world. They are headed for a life of eternal bliss in Allah's paradise. They hardly care, even rejoice, if the rest of humanity is subjected to a tragic death in the nuclear, biological and chemical wasteland of planet earth.
Humanity cannot afford and must not ignore the emergence of the final threat to its very existence on this planet.
Joey Loose Lips
First, Biden spouts off that somebody else was probably more qualified for the V.P. spot, and now he's rejiggering U.S. presidential history. From the LA Times' Top of the Ticket blog:
Declared Biden: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"What's wrong with that, some might ask?
Well, for starters Republican Herbert Hoover was president when the stock market crashed in October 1929. Second, Roosevelt didn't take office until four years later. And, not to be picky, but there were also no televisions in use at the time. Radio was Roosevelt's favored medium.
(This was in the days before Roosevelt started blogging.)
Gregg just reminded me that Ford famously said in a debate with Carter that Poland was not a communist country. From a fun list of presidential gaffes on Wikipedia:
On October 6, 1976, during a televised Presidential debate in the 1976 Presidential election with rival Jimmy Carter, President Ford became confused and stated that Poland and Eastern Europe were not under the domination of the Soviet Union. When challenged over his comments, he repeated "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration."[2] In the words of Professor Alan Schroeder, author of Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High Risk TV: "That was a gaffe that took him some time to recover from--mostly because he did not back away from the statement".[3]
Eat And Be Run Out
Interesting story in the LA Times, by John M. Glionna, about a store called the Berkeley Bowl? There, the management shows the entitled that they can't have it their way and still shop there, too:
BERKELEY -- As most veteran customers know, it takes a pretty thick skin to successfully navigate the Berkeley Bowl, this strident city's most popular grocery store.Outside, petitioners seeking signatures for ballot measures have come to blows with opinionated residents. In the tiny parking lot, nicknamed the Berkeley Brawl, frustrated motorists have been known to ram one another's cars. At the checkout, people have thrown punches and unripened avocados at suspected line-cutters.
When one shopper was told she couldn't return a bag of granola, she showily dumped its contents on the floor. Culyon Garrison, who works at the customer-service desk, recently had a loaf of bread thrown at him.
The produce emporium -- one of the nation's most renowned retailers of exotic fruits and vegetables -- creates its own bad behavior. Kamikaze shoppers crash down crowded aisles without eye contact or apology for fender-benders. So many customers weren't waiting to pay before digging in that management imposed the ultimate deterrent: Those caught sampling without buying will be banned for life -- no reprieves, no excuses. (Not even "I forgot to take my medication.")
Raphael Breines, who was ejected last year for eating on the premises, said he couldn't decide between two types of apricots, so he sampled both. Security stopped him in the parking lot.
"They treated me like a thief," said the 37-year-old park planner, who was photographed and required to sign a no-trespass agreement. "Technically I was stealing, but I wasn't trying to hide anything. I was just deciding which type of apricot to buy."
Breines, a longtime customer, sent an apology letter, asking to be reinstated. His request was denied.
Store manager Larry Evans says the policy is a fair response to doctors, lawyers and college professors who help themselves to bags of cookies, nuts and vitamins, stick their fingers in pies and guzzle from bottles of sake, assuming the rules don't apply to them.
"There's a sense of entitlement to this town," Evans said. "People think, 'If I want to do it, I'll do it, just try and stop me.' "
Ha! And I just love that they do. Tragic, isn't it, the thought of The Me! Me! Me! Generation going without their imported organic bean sprouts?
Your Dad Robs A Bank, You Get A New Car!
We don't normally reward people who commit crimes, nor do we reward their children. Well, except in one case -- those who illegally cross our borders. Their children get taxpayer-funded education -- and have been getting taxpayer funded college education, too: coveted in-state rates at California schools.
Oh, did you want to know why I didn't end up transferring to UCLA for my last year of college? I would've been coming from University of Michigan/Ann Arbor, which would've meant I would have to pay pricey out-of-state tuition -- or move to California three years before finishing school. Or...I could've had myself adopted by a family of illegal immigrants.
The LA Times has a pretty cracked editorial complaining that we taxpayers, who are already paying for the Iraq war, our own heathcare and living expenses, and are about to be on the hook for Wall Street bazillionaires' mistakes, should pay for the schooling, all the way through college (not to mention health care and more), for the children of people who are here illegally.
For the last seven years, illegal immigrants attending California's public university and community college systems have been eligible for in-state tuition rates. The thinking behind this practice was that, regardless of their parents' actions, children had no choice in crossing the border illegally; academically gifted immigrant students shouldn't be condemned to a permanent underclass.Last week, however, a state appellate court ruled that California was violating Congress' intention of barring illegal immigrants from a benefit reserved for legal residents. The decision sends a class-action lawsuit -- brought by out-of-state students who contend that they have been required to pay higher, nonresident fees while illegal immigrants pay in-state tuition -- back to Yolo County Superior Court. It also presages the end of higher-education opportunities for thousands of motivated students.
Congress' intent does seem clear. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 reads, "An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a state (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit."
California sought to skirt this law by granting in-state tuition to all students who graduated from and attended a California high school for at least three years.
Foes of illegal immigration, who argue that generous benefits encourage lawbreakers to come to California, will rejoice at the decision. And we acknowledge the inherent contradiction of providing a public benefit to students whose parents presumably don't pay any income tax to help pay for it.
Nonetheless, we believe that California's law is in the state's best interest. By law, states must provide K-12 education to illegal immigrants, and it's counterproductive to then erect roadblocks to further advancement for our best and brightest. Studies show that investing in education for immigrants pays off. Assuming they remain in California, their economic contributions more than make up for the cost of subsidized college tuition within a few years. Forcing them to wallow in permanent poverty, by contrast, is a drain on taxpayers -- as well as being flat-out immoral.
Oh, please. What bunch of drama queens came up with this thing? "Forcing them to wallow in permanent poverty"? I just don't want to pay for illegals' children's education -- which isn't to say I'm against schooling for them. They should feel free to apply for legal status here, and then appeal to the fine, magnanimous people on the LATimes' editorial board to pay for their education out of their salaries.
Oh, and would the LAT's drama queens deem my ancestors "forced to wallow in permanent poverty"? After all, no taxpayers gave my grandfather, the son of a legal immigrant, a free education. Instead, his father, my great-grandfather, picked up trash on the streets of Detroit and paid for my grandfather's undergraduate education by selling what was probably the Grand Tetons of scrap metal...and sent him all the way through Wayne State University med school.
And quite frankly, if you're going to judge college tuition based on the student's potential economic contribution to the state of California, I work here, pay taxes here, buy office and other supplies here, and have two part-time employees -- and my newspaper column runs in papers up and down the state. Oh yeah, and next year, the book I'm writing now will be sold here, and across the country, too. Hey, UCLA...you fucked up, huh?
UCLA cost these days? Including tuition, mandatory fees, room and board, and estimated expenses for books, costs for attending one year at UCLA are $20,969 in-state and 40,037 out-of-state. (2008)
Gingrich Calls On The Conservatives
Yoohoo, anybody home? From NRO Online:
...Because this gigantic power shift to Washington and this avalanche of taxpayer money is being proposed by a Republican administration, the normal conservative voices have been silent or confused.It's time to end the silence and clear up the confusion.
Congress has an obligation to protect the taxpayer.
Congress has an obligation to limit the executive branch to the rule of law.
Congress has an obligation to perform oversight.
Congress was designed by the Founding Fathers to move slowly, precisely to avoid the sudden panic of a one-week solution that becomes a 20-year mess.
There are four major questions that have to be answered before Congress adopts a new $700 billion burden for the American taxpayer. On each of these questions, I believe Congress's answer will be "no" if it slows down long enough to examine the facts.
Question One: Is the current financial crisis the only crisis affecting the economy?
Question Two: Is a big bureaucracy solution the only answer?
Question Three: Will the Paulson plan be implemented with transparency and oversight?
Question Four: In two months we will have an election and then there will be a new administration. Is this plan something we want to trust to a post-Paulson Treasury?
As he says, the answer is no to each, but he explains in greater detail at the link.
Oh, and yoohoo, Congress, it's called Congressional oversight, not overlook. Newt gets into what's been keeping Congress busy here. A few of points:
•In the name of economic security the Congress passed a Sarbanes-Oxley law which is driving companies from public scrutiny into private ownership, driving new companies out of New York and into London for financing and slowing down dramatically the development of new companies. Let me be very clear, Sarbanes Oxley has failed. It failed to warn about Fannie Mae. It failed to warn about Freddie Mac. It failed to warn about Bear Stearns. It failed to warn about Lehman Brothers. It failed to warn about AIG. And yet, while being a total failure in every big case, it adds $3 million dollars a year to the cost of a startup company having to hire accountants and take care of paperwork when they actually should be focused on growing, hiring people, and being productive. The result has been in the second quarter of this year, we had zero new public offerings by new companies, and in the third quarter we had one. We used to have thirty or forty every quarter. That's how bad Sarbanes Oxley is weakening this economy.•In the name of national security Congress adopted a visa law which cripples America's ability to attract successful people, crippled our international tourism business, and weakened our ability to attract first class students in math and science.
•Congress insists on education policies which prop up failed bureaucracies, trap children in institutions which destroy their future -- and in some neighborhoods making prison much more likely than college. These failed policies guarantee the continuing decay of America in both economic and national security competition with China and India.
•Americans still put up with a failing healthcare system. They still pay too much for too little quality, too little choice, and too little convenience. Congress has thus far failed to improve safety by investing in electronic health records, failed to crack down on fraud, and failed to find a way through tax credits to make sure everyone can have health insurance.
•In the name of limiting legal immigration while ignoring the millions of illegal immigrants in America, the Congress refuses to adopt policies to increase the number of smart, educated and successful people who can come to America to work. This refusal leads to high value jobs being exported to, India, China, Canada, and elsewhere while low paying illegal jobs grow in the United States.
•For too long, Congress has failed to stop the practice of using surplus Social Security funds for other purposes, including pork barrel spending. This continued raid on Social Security makes it more and more difficult to achieve real reform for Social Security.
Congress compounds our long term weakness in economic competition by sustaining the world's second highest corporate tax rate (three times higher than Ireland's), sustaining a legal system which is the most economically destructive on the planet, and taxing capital gains. All this while the world's best competitors encourage savings and investment with low corporate tax rates and zero taxes on capital gains.
Try The Mirror Instead Of The Finger
Yesterday, I debated a guy I started talking to in Starbucks about the big problem in the black community. He said it was poverty and unequal schools. I said it was daddylessness. I also think there's a huge problem with victimhood.
I brought up the case of an ex-assistant of mine who was Korean and a first-generation American, who grew up poor and went to Santa Monica college to save money and earned a scholarship to Northwestern. She didn't grow up privileged: She grew up Asian, with all the ensuing familial and cultural push to excel, and she also grew up in an intact home (complete with her Korean granny who spoke no English and who'd hang up on anybody who didn't speak Korean on the phone).
John Stossel writes about Shelby Steele's appearance on 20/20, on which he says similar things and is, of course, knocked for saying them (can't criticize the black community if you're merely "biracial"!):
A white campus lecturer, Tim Wise, gets tremendous applause from students by saying things like, "[W]hite supremacy and privilege continue to skew opportunities hundreds of years after they were set in place" and in America, "meritocracy is as close to a lie as you can come."His message is in demand -- he is invited to more than 80 speaking engagements a year.
But a black writer, Shelby Steele, argues that whites do blacks no favors wringing their hands about white privilege.
"I grew up in segregation," Mr. Steele told me. "So I really know what racism is. I went to [a] segregated school. I bow to no one in my knowledge of racism, which is one of the reasons why I say white privilege is not a problem."
Mr. Steele claims, "the real problem is black irresponsibility. ... Racism is about 18th on a list of problems that black America faces."
Whites' preoccupation with guilt and compensation such as affirmative action is actually a subtle form of racism, writes Mr. Steele in his book, "White Guilt." "One of the things that is clear about white privilege, and so many of the arguments for diversity that pretend to be compensatory, is that they advantage whites. They make the argument that whites can solve [black people's] problems. ... The problem with that is ... you reinforce white supremacy. ... And black dependency.
"White privilege is a disingenuous idea," he adds. In fact, now there is "minority privilege."
"If I'm a black high school student today, there are white American institutions, universities, hovering over me to offer me opportunities. Almost every institution has a diversity committee. Every country club now has a diversity committee. I've been asked to join so many clubs, I can't tell you ... I don't have to even look for opportunities in many cases, they come right to me."
Mr. Steele's comments weren't well received by some "20/20" viewers:
"The majority of black people in America live in poverty and hopelessness ... ." "[T]he only difference is the hatred blacks experience by a significant percentage of Americans including other African Americans, such as Shelby Steele ... ." "Steele is racist. He is not black but biracial passing himself off as black. ... " "If John Stossel is going to invite a racist point of view, he should be clearer by using David Duke."
What I don't understand is why people who criticize people like Steele (and me) for not being black enough to criticize black people don't see how race-separatist and victim-centric that is. I mean, would anybody think to criticize black people, or any color of people, for criticizing white people or some problem they see among whites while not being white?
Also, I think people should think a little before tossing around the word "racist," which is defined like so:
rac·ism /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ -noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Before making that accusation, consider whether it's reasonable to think a person making a criticism can really be thought to hate a group of people due to skin color or some other characteristic. Or...does the person making the criticism merely have antipathy toward a problem that seems somewhat common to a number of people who look a certain way or have something in common? I know, it's easiest to just dub everybody who disagrees with you a hater and be on your way.
And finally, why should we be "tolerant" of women who intentionally, or lackadaisically, raise children without daddies? Here's an example, via Glenn Sacks, of how well it works out for the kiddies:
I grew up without my dad and it was entirely due to my mom's anger and vindictiveness. ... It was so devastating and really inhibited my growth. There were so many lessons I never got taught that I had to learn the hard way ... I love my mother dearly, but on this one subject, I will never forget she did this. Steven (Alaska)
And here's an example I've blogged about before of a single mother who learned her lesson:
When I made the decision to divorce my children's father and move to Portland when our twins were age 2, I thought I was the only parent my sons, Alex and Zavier, would ever need. I was mistaken.No matter how much love I poured into my children's hearts, my sons were starving with "father hunger" for the man named Lee, who named them and held them when they were just a few seconds old.
So, about a year ago, I had an epiphany. I decided to let go of what went wrong in the marriage and I shipped my boys off to Detroit, where they were born, to experience puberty through their father's eyes.
I owed them the chance to discover all of their father's charms as well as his failings and be shaped by Lee's modern day initiation rites, where a father teaches his sons secrets that only men know.
When they returned to me for the summer, my now-taller and hairier sons took awhile to get readjusted. They too-often repeated the warnings their father drilled into their heads: Don't be a burden. Offer to clean up. Be respectful.
And finally, don't forget this kid, looking everywhere for his daddy (and his mother is to be commended, as it seems he was the neglected child of drug addicts, and she didn't just adopted him; she rescued him):
Dear Amy:
About two years ago I adopted a little boy as a single woman. He is now 3 years old and at the age where he notices other kids (usually boys) with their fathers. Recently, he has started asking me about his "daddy". I am not sure how to answer this question. I was told that it is unhealthy to tell him that he does not have a father. I tried to explain to him that he is very special because I chose him so he knows that he is wanted but this has not stopped the question about his "daddy". Sometimes when we pass a house he likes he asks if his daddy lives there. If he sees a child on television with his father, he asks about the whereabouts of his daddy. If he sees a father and son at the park he wants to know if his daddy is coming to the park. I am at a loss as to what to say to him that will satisfy his need for a father. I already have male family members who spend time with him. He started calling one of them daddy and we corrected him. After several times, he started say, "he is not my daddy" and started asking for his daddy again. I think it hurts him not to have a daddy of his own.What can I do to help my little boy who is missing not having a "daddy"?
- LOVING BUT WORRIED SINGLE MOM
Finally, there's an art teacher, himself a father, I talked to, who takes classes of inner city kids out to the woods to Pasadena for some kind of art and nature lessons. I think it was he who used the word or maybe he told me it was one of the teachers who comes along: Children, especially boys, are simply "ruined" by third grade for lack of daddies. It's very apparent, he said, and terribly sad.
Tank All The Way To The Bank
I'm such an idiot. Here I am writing a book -- like a greased madwoman, in fact -- when the way to really make out is to fail to write a book, never turn the thing in. Then again, maybe that's just how it works for the very, very, very rich. They fuck up in some super-substantial way...and they take home $2.5 million as their...uh...punishment.
John Waples and Danny Fortson write for the Times of London about how the Lehman screwups are faring:
STAFF at Lehman's New York office who helped to cause the world's biggest corporate bankruptcy are to share in a $2.5 billion bonanza.The bonus, which has been described by London staff as a "scandal" has been pledged by Barclays Capital, the British-based bank that last week acquired Lehman's American operation and took on 10,000 staff.
The $2.5 billion (£1.4 billion) pot, which has been ring-fenced as part of the acquisition, has caused huge resentment among the 5,000 staff in the firm's European and Middle Eastern operations who are not guaranteed to be paid after this month. There are, however, hopes that half the jobs in Lehman's Canary Wharf office could be saved today by either Barclays or Nomura. Bids are being submitted for its UK equities and investment-banking business.
A Chapter 11 bankruptcy document filed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc says that Barclays has identified eight individuals out of the New York staff of 10,000 who are vital to make the deal succeed and a further 200 who are identified as "key". It is thought that these eight directors will be locked into two-year contracts worth between $10m and $25m a year.
The $2.5 billion had been accrued as part of the contribution to Lehman's group profits for the first nine months of the year. Barclays said there is no obligation to pay it out but analysts say the competitive pressure to keep key staff means he will have to. Bob Diamond, president of Barclays Capital, said: "You can expect us to manage this with the same discipline and performance terms that we have at BarCap".
The biggest bonuses are likely to be for Michael Gelband, the bank's global head of capital markets, and Eric Felder and Hyung Soon Lee, global co-heads of fixed income.
You know, rumor had it, when the stock market collapsed way back when, men were throwing themselves out of buildings out of shame when their companies failed. What are they doing now, throwing themselves off their new yachts? "Hey, darling, the Caribbean is lovely this time of year!"
He's Karl Rove Not Roger Ebert
Now maybe a rose is a rose is a rose, or maybe something's up. I forgot to blog this when I saw it -- Karl Rove popping up out of nowhere to offer his critique of one of John McCain's commercial's. Via CNN:
Former Bush adviser Karl Rove said Sunday that Sen. John McCain had gone "one step too far" in some of his recent ads attacking Sen. Barack Obama.Rove has leveled similar criticism against Obama.
"McCain has gone in some of his ads -- similarly gone one step too far," he told Fox News, "and sort of attributing to Obama things that are, you know, beyond the '100 percent truth' test."
The Obama campaign immediately leaped on the quote.
I'm betting something's up. Or will be up. Karl Rove is not one to be popping up in Katie Couric interviews every other week. So...why crawl out of the woodwork to review McCain's TV spot in the international press, instead of placing a discreet phone call to McCain or somebody on his staff?
Your guess? And your guess as to what, if anything, else will be up before the election?
Eat Your Own Bad Loans
Welcome to socialism. Have an expensive day. Sebastian Mallaby writes for The Washington Post about the "solutions" being stuck on us:
With truly extraordinary speed, opinion has swung behind the radical idea that the government should commit hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to purchasing dud loans from banks that aren't actually insolvent. As recently as a week ago, no public official had even mentioned this option. Now the Treasury, the Fed and congressional leaders are promising its enactment within days. The scheme has gone from invisibility to inevitability in the blink of an eye. This is extremely dangerous.The plan is being marketed under false pretenses. Supporters have invoked the shining success of the Resolution Trust Corporation as justification and precedent. But the RTC, which was created in 1989 to clean up the wreckage of the savings-and-loan crisis, bears little resemblance to what is being contemplated now. The RTC collected and eventually sold off loans made by thrifts that had gone bust. The administration proposes to buy up bad loans before the lenders go bust. This difference raises several questions.
The first is whether the bailout is necessary. In 1989, there was no choice. The federal government insured the thrifts, so when they failed, the feds were left holding their loans; the RTC's job was simply to get rid of them. But in buying bad loans before banks fail, the Bush administration would be signing up for a financial war of choice. It would spend billions of dollars on the theory that preemption will avert the mass destruction of banks. There are cheaper ways to stabilize the system.
Cheaper ones and less taxpayer-paid ones, thanks. Read the whole thing, as Instapundit, who I got the link from, would say.
And this commenter, d-35, under Mallaby's piece, gets the nut of my feelings pretty well:
I'm sick of footing the bill for irresponsible, incompetent people. By incompetent, irresponsible people I mean:- Investment firms who packaged bad loans to investors and wanted a bail out
- Mortgage firms who offered and pushed these bad loans and wanted a bail out
- Insurers who underwrote bad investments and wanted a bail out
- The American people who overextended themselves, bought houses they couldn't afford on bad loans and wanted a bail-out
- Congressional figures such as Barney Frank for pushing Fannie Mae and home ownership for people who couldn't afford it and now our forced to bail them out
- Clinton and Gramm for being the main forces behind Glass-Steagall being repealed
- Clinton for wanting to push home ownership to 75% thus giving people who couldn't afford mortgages the chance to default
- The Bush Administration for bringing our debt to unbelievable numbers and then forcing me to pay another bill for people who never should have gotten loans in the first by people who should have never been handing them out.The only people who are really getting taken advantage of in this situation are the responsible Americans who go to work, pay their mortgages, pay their taxes and aren't looking for a hand-out.
Everybody else is just a drain on the system and the business men/women who perpetuated this scam should be made to repay every dime of every bonus they ever got. And for the REAL root of the problem, the average American who took out the bad loan, they should be forced to eat it.
It's called accountability..."man up" and admit that you deserve what you got and quit looking to me to bail you out.
Private profits, socialized bailouts? No thanks. And that's no thanks to the Democrats, and no thanks to the biggest Big Democrats we've had in office in years, the Republicans.
How much debt will the average taxpayer have to assume before they consider voting for a third party?
Meanwhile, (via Volokh) the powers that be will get even more power to hand over our money without oversight.
Don't Blame Capitalism
Kenn Jacobine at blogcritics.org points out that the economy of the USA is not a pure capitalist system, but a "mixed system" combining elements of a market economy with elements of a "planned economy":
It is because of this mixed economic approach that Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke determined that it was within their authority to nationalize Freddie, Fannie, and AIG in the name of stabilizing the financial markets. In a purely capitalist system, these bailouts would have been impossible. Quite frankly, the crisis that caused those bailouts to happen in the first place would not have happened if we were a pure capitalist country....McCain, Obama, members of Congress, and the Administration will babble on about how the greed and unbridled actions of others are the culprits for the subprime crisis. They will talk tough about how they are going to go after the bad guys and bring them to justice. They will propose new regulations to prevent this from ever happening again. In short, they will attempt to socialize us to believe that only a capitalist system with the ruling elite (themselves) in charge is good for the country. They are all liars and are hereby permanently banned from the shrine of Free Market Economics.
...In the meantime, Congress revised the Community Reinvestment Act, which cajoled community banks to make loans to bad risk borrowers. With an implicit guarantee from Uncle Sam, Fannie and Freddie took on more and more mortgage loans. With more money in the pipeline, laws forcing banks to make at least some bad loans, and moral hazard, the federal government had tied and given the noose to the financial community to hang itself.
Again, as in the 80s and the 90s, the cause of the crisis, according to the ruling elite, is with those greedy bankers. Again they are being disingenuous. In the 1980s, Congress instituted the Resolution Trust Corporation to liquidate the bad assets of the insolvent savings and loans. In the end, that cost the taxpayers $150 billion. Today, Congress is considering a similar approach to liquidate the bad assets of the insolvent financial institutions. This time the costs will be in the trillions.
The capitalist system is not perfect, but it is eons better than the bastardized economic system Washington has given us. History has proven that the price of money is better determined by the market than a central bank. History has also proven that a commodity backed currency, not the political whims of politicians and financial bureaucrats, is the best way to rein in the size of government, protect purchasing power and asset value and in the end avoid catastrophes like the one we are about to encounter.
For criticism of the planned economy, read Hayek's edition. I'll go find my copy (actually, the Milton Friedman 50th anniversary The Road to Serfdom Fiftieth Anniversary Edition
Okay, in Hayek's words, it's when "the entrepreneur working for profit is replaced by a central planning body." (It's the stuff of misplaced faith in government.)
Planning sounds good, Hayek writes, in that "everybody who is not a complete fatalist is a planner," but leads to totalitarianism in the name of "equality."
Here's more, from a book review by Fitz E. Barringer at Carolina Review:
Socialism, says Hayek, exchanges society's supreme ideal of freedom for the vague concept of "fairness." But by focusing on fairness, society slowly abandons its respect for the rule of law. What is "fair" is determined by judges and the state and may very well conflict with an individual's right to property, prosperity, or political freedom. In other words, once a state can control competition, redistribute wealth, or plan aspects of the economy, it becomes the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.Hayek also points out that a democratic government cannot salvage freedom in a socialist system, despite the passionate arguments to the contrary on the left. Instead, notes Hayek, democracy must ultimately succumb to absolute planners because the legislative branch of democracy is simply unable to plan -- or decide what is fair for all of society -- on a massive scale. Even defenders of socialism, notes Hayek, acknowledge that an economic plan needs a unitary concept to be effective. "Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the most effective instrument of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible."
Even if a socialist government were able to maintain democracy, however, Hayek points out that the system would not necessarily preserve freedom. Unlike liberty, says Hayek, democracy is not the highest political end. In Hayek's words democracy merely is a "utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain."
20-20 Hindparenting
From The Week, Britney Spears' mother Lynn said it probably wasn't such a good idea to turn her into an international sex symbol at age 15. D'ya think?
"Do YOUUUUU Have Children?!"
Certain "parents" are quick to ask that question -- very often, those actively engaged in underparenting, like the undergroomed late-40s-looking mother of a 4-year-old who was jumping like a little monkey on the chair at a café I go to. He'd been doing it since before she'd gotten there, as he seemed to have been brought there with another child by his nanny, who sat with them, also never thinking to suggest the child sit down and behave.
After the woman arrived, her devilspawn continued to sit kicking the steel leg of the chair and staring directly at me from about two feet away, uninterrupted, for about 10 minutes straight. Oh yeah, and the persistent jumping on the chair seat he did with his sneakers on. Sneakers I could see dirty bottoms on when he occasionally kneeled on the chair seat. Momma just sat there as he bounced and kicked and stared, never saying a word.
I finally looked straight at the kid and said "Stop staring" -- as the lumpy older woman who gave birth to him wasn't about to, and probably hadn't even noticed, as she was talking to another woman, who also appeared to be about 50, also at the table. The woman laughed a bitter laugh, and remarked to her friend, "She's talking to a 4-year-old!" As opposed to actually parenting her little savage. No, it never occurred to her to make even the slightest suggestion that he should stop, 1., staring, 2., making noise kicking the chair, and 3., putting his sneakered feet all over the chair seat where somebody might sit down with a pair of light-colored pants.
Laughing knowingly, both women demanded to to know whether I had children -- as if that made any difference. I didn't answer. Trick question, I knew. I asked whether they could tell if somebody was driving a bus dangerously even if they weren't a bus driver. I mentioned that I am writing a chapter called 'The Underparented Child.'" They sniffed smugly and turned back to the subject of aging mothers and breastpumping, or whatever was holding them so wrapt that it kept the woman from parenting.
Of course, an hour later, I thought of the answer to their sneer,"Do YOUUUUU Have Children?!" My response: "No, because I really, really get what the job entails." And quite frankly, squeezing a child out of your coochie doesn't qualify you as a parent; it merely suggests you are fertile enough to let some dude's sperm take root. As far as what I know about parenting goes, I have about five of the top parenting experts in my address book -- whose findings I'm pretty informed of. Who do these women have, their nanny, their backup nanny, their chef, their backup chef, and Toys R Us?
As they were leaving, I reached over and wiped off the chair -- both because I'm sort of a snot and wanted to make a point and because I had a pair of white pants ruined at another café where I sat down on what appeared to be dirty child sneaker cleat marks on the seat. And lo and behold, about an hour after they left, Erin, who used to work at the place, came over to talk to me about what she was up to, and sat down on the chair...in a cream-colored dress. Advice Goddess Janitorial to the rescue!
Mecca II
That would be Britain, where the nitwits just agreed to let British Muslims subvert British laws with "voluntary" (tell that to the women) application of Sharia law. In Chronicles Magazine, Srdja Trifkovic lays out exactly how nuts that is:
Particularly alarming is the fact that Islamic rulings are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously such rulings could not be enforced by the British state.Shari'a courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network's headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. A visibly pleased Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, explains that he had taken advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996, which classifies sharia courts as "arbitration tribunals" whose rulings are binding in law once both parties in a dispute agree to accept its authority. It goes without saying that battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will "freely choose" the authority of shari'a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the "community's" rules and preferences.
What this means in practice was evident from a recent inheritance dispute in the Midlands, when the Nuneaton shari'a court divided the estate of a Muslim father between three daughters and two sons. The "judges" gave the sons twice as much as the daughters--perfectly in accordance with sharia, of course, but contrary to any regular British court, which would have given the daughters equal shares. In six cases of domestic violence quoted by Siddiqi, the "judges" ordered the husbands to take "anger management" classes and "mentoring from community elders" (such as imams and shari'a judges). In each case, the battered women subsequently withdrew the complaints and the police stopped their investigations. It should be noted that under normal British law those six cases could have been prosecuted as criminal, rather than "family" cases.
UNDERSTANDING SHARI'A--Muslim activists point out that allegedly simiral Jewish family courts (Bet Din) and Catholic marriage tribunals have existed in Britain for many years, but there is a major difference: such courts explicitly claim jurisdiction only over their believers, whereas according to orthodox Islamic teaching shari'a is the only legitimate law in the world, with universal jurisdiction over Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To a devout Muslim the incorporation of shari'a into British law is by no means the end of the affair. It is merely a major milestone on the road that cannot stop short of subjecting all Britons, regardless of faith, to the stricutres of Allah's commandment and Muhammad's example.
Oh...By The Way, Senator...
From a New York Times article by David M. Herszenhorn:
As Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, put it Friday morning on the ABC program "Good Morning America," the congressional leaders were told "that we're literally maybe days away from a complete meltdown of our financial system, with all the implications here at home and globally."
Hmmm, maybe it'll take them a while to get to the detailed complaint I sent them, the House Finance Committee and the Comptroller of The Currency about a week ago about my several-month investigation of Bank of America. The information I've uncovered about B of A's spectacularly lax security at teller windows has led me to believe that every consumer customer of the bank, certainly in California, but possibly in the nation, has been put in substantial danger of identity theft.
You didn't think I'd forgotten about B of A, now did you?
Thanks, Norm!
So, What Happened?
To Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman, and A.I.G.? Freakonomics' Steven D. Levitt hit up to his finance professor colleagues Doug Diamond and Anil Kashyap, and here's an excerpt from The New York Times from what they wrote:
The common denominator in all three cases was the ability of the firms to secure financing. The reasons, though, differed in each case.The Fannie and Freddie situation was a result of their unique roles in the economy. They had been set up to support the housing market. They helped guarantee mortgages (provided they met certain standards), and were able to fund these guarantees by issuing their own debt, which was in turn tacitly backed by the government. The government guarantees allowed Fannie and Freddie to take on far more debt than a normal company. In principle, they were also supposed to use the government guarantee to reduce the mortgage cost to the homeowners, but the Fed and others have argued that this hardly occurred. Instead, they appear to have used the funding advantage to rack up huge profits and squeeze the private sector out of the "conforming" mortgage market. Regardless, many firms and foreign governments considered the debt of Fannie and Freddie as a substitute for U.S. Treasury securities and snapped it up eagerly.
Fannie and Freddie were weakly supervised and strayed from the core mission. They began using their subsidized financing to buy mortgage-backed securities which were backed by pools of mortgages that did not meet their usual standards. Over the last year, it became clear that their thin capital was not enough to cover the losses on these subprime mortgages. The massive amount of diffusely held debt would have caused collapses everywhere if it was defaulted upon; so the Treasury announced that it would explicitly guarantee the debt.
But once the debt was guaranteed to be secure (and the government would wipe out shareholders if it carried through with the guarantee), no self-interested investor was willing to supply more equity to help buffer the losses. Hence, the Treasury ended up taking them over.
Lehman's demise came when it could not even keep borrowing. Lehman was rolling over at least $100 billion a month to finance its investments in real estate, bonds, stocks, and financial assets. When it is hard for lenders to monitor their investments and borrowers can rapidly change the risk on their balance sheets, lenders opt for short-term lending. Compared to legal or other channels, their threat to refuse to roll over funding is the most effective option to keep the borrower in line.
This was especially relevant for Lehman, because as an investment bank, it could transform its risk characteristics very easily by using derivatives and by churning its trading portfolio. So for Lehman (and all investment banks), the short-term financing is not an accident; it is inevitable.
Why did the financing dry up? For months, short-sellers were convinced that Lehman's real-estate losses were bigger than it had acknowledged. As more bad news about the real estate market emerged, including the losses at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, this view spread.
Lehman's costs of borrowing rose and its share price fell. With an impending downgrade to its credit rating looming, legal restrictions were going to prevent certain firms from continuing to lend to Lehman. Other counterparties that might have been able to lend, even if Lehman's credit rating was impaired, simply decided that the chance of default in the near future was too high, partly because they feared that future credit conditions would get even tighter and force Lehman and others to default at that time.
A.I.G. had to raise money because it had written $57 billion of insurance contracts whose payouts depended on the losses incurred on subprime real-estate related investments. While its core insurance businesses and other subsidiaries (such as its large aircraft-leasing operation) were doing fine, these contracts, called credit default swaps (C.D.S.'s), were hemorrhaging.
Furthermore, the possibility of further losses loomed if the housing market continued to deteriorate. The credit-rating agencies looking at the potential losses downgraded A.I.G.'s debt on Monday. With its lower credit ratings, A.I.G.'s insurance contracts required A.I.G. to demonstrate that it had collateral to service the contracts; estimates suggested that it needed roughly $15 billion in immediate collateral.
A second problem A.I.G. faced is that if it failed to post the collateral, it would be considered to have defaulted on the C.D.S.'s. Were A.I.G. to default on C.D.S.'s, some other A.I.G. contracts (tied to losses on other financial securities) contain clauses saying that its other contractual partners could insist on prepayment of their claims. These cross-default clauses are present so that resources from one part of the business do not get diverted to plug a hole in another part. A.I.G. had another $380 billion of these other insurance contracts outstanding. No private investors were willing to step into this situation and loan A.I.G. the money it needed to post the collateral.
In the scramble to make good on the C.D.S.'s, A.I.G.'s ability to service its own debt would come into question. A.I.G. had $160 billion in bonds that were held all over the world: nowhere near as widely as the Fannie and Freddie bonds, but still dispersed widely.
In addition, other large financial firms -- including Pacific Investment Management Company (Pimco), the largest bond-investment fund in the world -- had guaranteed A.I.G.'s bonds by writing C.D.S. contracts.
Given the huge size of the contracts and the number of parties intertwined, the Federal Reserve decided that a default by A.I.G. would wreak havoc on the financial system and cause contagious failures. There was an immediate need to get A.I.G. the collateral to honor its contracts, so the Fed loaned A.I.G. $85 billion.
Much more at the link, including why Bear Stearns was rescued and why Lehman was not, what it means for the Fed and Treasury, and what it means for markets in the future.
Hearts And Minds
There's a very interesting development over there in the primitive republic of Saudi Arabia: America's very own Oprah Winfrey. Months after her show first aired there in 2004, it became the highest-rated English-language program among women 25 and younger --an age group that's one-third of Saudi Arabia's population. Katherine Zoepf writes for The New York Times:
In a country where the sexes are rigorously separated, where topics like sex and race are rarely discussed openly and where a strict code of public morality is enforced by religious police called hai'a, Ms. Winfrey provides many young Saudi women with new ways of thinking about the way local taboos affect their lives -- as well as about a variety of issues including childhood sexual abuse and coping with marital strife -- without striking them, or Saudi Arabia's ruling authorities, as subversive.Some women here say Ms. Winfrey's assurances to her viewers -- that no matter how restricted or even abusive their circumstances may be, they can take control in small ways and create lives of value -- help them find meaning in their cramped, veiled existence.
"Oprah dresses conservatively," explained Princess Reema bint Bandar al-Saud, a co-owner of a women's spa in Riyadh called Yibreen and a daughter of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States. "She struggles with her weight. She overcame depression. She rose from poverty and from abuse. On all these levels she appeals to a Saudi woman. People really idolize her here."
...The particulars of Ms. Winfrey's personal story have resonated with a broad audience of Saudi women in a way that few other Western imports have, explained Mazen Hayek, a spokesman for the MBC Group.
Saudi Arabia was an impoverished desert country before it was transformed by oil money and, in just a couple of generations, into a wealthy consumer society. Saudi women readily identify with "this glamorous woman from very modest beginnings," Mr. Hayek said, in a phone interview from Dubai.
Maha al-Faleh, 23, of Riyadh, said, "Oprah talks about issues that haven't really been spoken about here openly before.
"She talks about racism, for example," she said. "This is something that Saudis are very concerned about, because many of us feel that we're judged for the way we veil or for our skin color. I have a friend whose driver touched her in an inappropriate way. She was very young at the time, but she felt very guilty about it -- and Oprah helped her to speak about this abuse with her mother."
I've always felt the carrots offered by globalization are the best shot we have in putting the breaks on the death cult that is Islam. Maybe this is a start?
At What Point Do You Get To Resign From Parenting?
The AP writes that two boys, 11 and 15, were left in Omaha area hospitals under a new state "safe-haven" law.
A 44-year-old woman dropped off her teenage nephew at Lincoln's BryanLGH Medical Center West on Saturday, saying the boy had behavioral problems that she couldn't handle anymore, Lincoln Police Chief Tom Casady said. The woman is the boy's legal guardian.The exchange occurred without incident, said Casady, who has turned the case over to the state Department of Health and Human Services. The boy was placed in temporary protective custody.
Hospital spokeswoman Peg Aschwege, citing a need to protect confidentiality, would confirm only that it was the first case the hospital has handled since the law went into effect and that established procedures were followed. She declined to discuss any details.
The other boy was left at Immanuel Medical Center in Omaha on Saturday, said Alegent Health spokeswoman Kelly Grinnell.
HHS identified that child only as an 11-year-old boy. A parent dropped the child off, saying she believed she could no longer care for him, said Todd Landry, director of HHS' division of Children and Family Services.
Now, I understand and support these laws that allow parents of newborns they can't or won't take care of to bring them to a hospital or fire station lest they leave them in a trash can or a dumpster or a basket on a park bench. But, abandoning 11-year-old and a 15-year-old? They know they're being abandoned, and that can't be good for them or for society. And while we don't want kids who are being abused to remain in the parental home, when kids are 11 and 15...maybe the law for parents should be "you made the mess, you stick around and clean it up."
Are We More Secure?
Not really, not according to a bipartisan group of former U.S. officials. Spencer S. Hsu writes in The Washington Post:
Seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the federal government has made only limited progress toward preventing a catastrophic nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil and combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction abroad, according to a report card to be issued tomorrow by 22 former U.S. officials.The bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America gave the United States an overall grade of C. The government received in total three D's, eight C's and seven B's in areas such as sustaining support of foreign scientists and governments, integrating programs to prevent nuclear terrorism and strengthening multilateral law enforcement efforts.
The group urged the next president to appoint a cabinet-level White House coordinator with the authority to direct counterproliferation plans, programs and funding "from day one." The panel was co-chaired by Lee H. Hamilton (D), former congressman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, and Warren Rudman (R), former senator and co-chairman of a 2001 blue-ribbon commission on terrorism.
"The threat of a new major terrorist attack on the United States is still very real," Hamilton, Rudman and former New Jersey governor Thomas H. Kean (R), chairman of the 9/11 Commission, wrote in the report's introduction. A nuclear, chemical or biological weapon in the hands of terrorists was "the single greatest threat to our nation," they said, and concluded, "We are still dangerously vulnerable."
ad_iconThe report marks the latest effort by former leaders of the commission and other national security experts to re-focus efforts to counter weapons-of-mass-destruction threats after years of bureaucratic drift. In a similar report card issued in 2005, the Sept. 11 panel's successor gave U.S. counterproliferation efforts a D.
Hey, but if you're a little old lady in a nun suit, you can get felt up at the airport!
Forget Stepping Up Security
The real problem, wrote Barack Obama a few years back, is that terrorists lack empathy! And then, yawn, he blames that lack on poverty. Um, except, there have been numerous debunkings showing that many terrorists are upper middle class and foreign university educated. Robert Spencer chokes Obama's psychobabble over at HumanEvents:
...Obama declares that "the essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others." This lack of empathy isn't, he says, "unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity." Rather, it grows "out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair."In other words, poverty causes Islamic jihad. Obama reiterated this point last July during a CNN interview, when he related the rise of jihadist sentiment in Indonesia to poverty: "And now in Indonesia, you see some of those extremist elements. And what's interesting is, you can see some correlation between the economic crash during the Asian financial crisis, where about a third of Indonesia's GDP was wiped out, and the acceleration of these Islamic extremist forces."
...If poverty causes terrorism, why is Pakistan aiding the Taliban, and edging ever closer to implementing the strictest possible version of Islamic law, so many billions of dollars later?
In fact, the poverty-terror connection has been debunked many times. Fortune magazine, for example, reported in March 2007 that "of the 50 poorest countries in the world...only Afghanistan (and perhaps Bangladesh and Yemen) has much experience in terrorism, global or domestic." The 9/11 hijackers were "middle-class sons of Saudi Arabia and many were well-educated. And Osama bin Laden himself is from one of the richest families in the Middle East."
Fortune noted that a 2003 study of Palestinian terrorism found "higher-status respondents (merchant, farmer or professional)" were significantly more likely than "those lower down the ladder (laborer, craftsman or employee)" to agree that there were "circumstances under which you would justify the use of terrorism to achieve political goals." And Harvard professor Albert Abadie studied 1,776 terrorist incidents, only to find no connection between poverty and terrorism: "When you look at the data" to find such a connection, he said, "it's not there."
If Barack Obama is elected president, will he continue to operate according to these failed paradigms, or will he face hard realities and adjust his policies accordingly? The lack of even the smallest shift in his views on poverty and terrorism between 2001 and 2008 do not bode well for the answer to this question.
Are You With Goldberg?
It's all about the terrorists. Via The Week, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg writes in The New York Times:
THE next president must do one thing, and one thing only, if he is to be judged a success: He must prevent Al Qaeda, or a Qaeda imitator, from gaining control of a nuclear device and detonating it in America....Many proliferation experts I have spoken to judge the chance of such a detonation to be as high as 50 percent in the next 10 years.
...Only technical complications prevent Al Qaeda from executing a nuclear attack today.
...The nuclear destruction of Lower Manhattan, or downtown Washington, would cause the deaths of thousands, or hundreds of thousands; a catastrophic depression; the reversal of globalization; a permanent climate of fear in the West; and the comprehensive repudiation of America's culture of civil liberties.
Read on. He lays out the problems with each candidate.
Must Be Those Swedish Grandmothers Again
Paul McCartney is going to sing in Israel in the face of death threats from...guess who! And yes, just kidding about the old Swedish ladies. A few might want to jump the guy, sure, but probably not because they're looking to stab him several times, then slit his throat, nearly decapitating him, like some Islamist nut did to poor Theo Van Gogh. Sean Michaels writes for The Guardian:
Despite several threats by extremists, Paul McCartney has refused to cancel an upcoming concert in Israel. He will go ahead with a gig in honour of the country's 60th anniversary."I do what I think and I have many friends who support Israel," McCartney told Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth this weekend.
His comments come in response to a Sunday Express interview with the militant Islamic activist Omar Bakri Muhammad. "If he values his life Mr McCartney must not come to Israel," said Bakri, who has been barred from returning to the UK. "He will not be safe there. The sacrifice operatives will be waiting for him."
Barbarians. He "will not be safe"? I mean, the guy's a Beatle for god's sake. On the other hand, he has more experience than the average person with the barbarian set, having been married to one.
Thanks, Robert W!
Yoohoo, Image-Search Experts...
I'm looking for the creator of an image that appears on the blog TakeBackTheIsland.com, "started by a Manhattanite and Brooklynite who want to preserve their rights to fun, freedom, and the pursuit of child-free happiness." (Hear, hear.)
I need to find the creator of the photo so I can ask for permission from him or her, plus photo rights for the kid, so I can use the photo in my book.
This is a time-sensitive issue, since the book is due at the publisher in a few weeks, and image rights must be in order by then.
Here's the link. Any advice or help tracking it down would be most gratefully accepted. I'm good at tracking people, but I don't have much experience photo-tracking.
P.S. I've Google image-searched it, and found it in a few places with the search string -- kid airplane jpg -- but no point of origin yet.
Oh, and the shot is also on AltaVista as "superkid," which may be a better search word.
Like A Hooker
I understand the hard-wired reasons for valuing virginity and apparent chasteness in a woman, although I personally don't value it. In fact, an inexperienced sex partner doesn't sound like a whole lot of fun to me.
But, this 22-year-old Sac State girl had the idea to auction off her virginity to the highest bidder -- and if news reports are correct, has somebody willing to pay an awful lot to have sex with her for the first time (assuming she's telling the truth, and assuming they don't consider blow jobs sex -- never understood that distinction myself).
From TheImproper.com, complete with pictures, the girl who calls herself "Natalie Dylan" was up to a bid of $250,000 when the article was written:
Dylan hopes to net up to $1 million from the auction, which is taking place in Nevada at the infamous Moonlight Bunny Ranch, a legalized brothel (eBay turned her down). The auction will be conducted online at bunnyranch.com, and the deal will be consummated at the Bunny Ranch, where Dylan's sister already works. "I think it's a tremendous idea," says Ranch owner Dennis Hof. "Why lose it to some guy in the backseat of a Toyota when you can pay for your education?"Dylan says she has no moral issues with auctioning off her virginity. "I don't have a moral dilemma with it," she says. "We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity? I understand some people may condemn me, but this is empowering. I'm using what I have to better myself."
Natalie says she got the idea of selling her virginity at auction after hearing about a Peruvian woman who was trying to pay for her mother's medical bills. A Canadian man made a $1.5 million bid, but the woman decided not to go through with the sex.
Dylan's mom, a conservative fourth-grade teacher, initially didn't approve of the auction, but now supports the idea. "I understand some people may condemn me, but, I think this is empowering," says Natalie. "I'm using what I have to better myself."
I think prostitution should be legal -- it's your body, sell it if you want to. This, however, is different from thinking it's a really super idea -- especially for a girl just getting started in the world, who supposedly wants to be a Marriage & Family Therapist, to forever be known as The Girl Who Spread For Grad School.
I Pay Taxes On My Health Care Dollars. Why Shouldn't You?
More and more people are self-employed, and we get screwed in myriad ways come tax time. Yet, Bob Herbert from The New York Times is just aghast at the McCain health care policy:
...The McCain health plan would treat employer-paid health benefits as income that employees would have to pay taxes on."It means your employer is going to have to make an estimate on how much the employer is paying for health insurance on your behalf, and you are going to have to pay taxes on that money," said Sherry Glied, an economist who chairs the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.
Well, boohoo. About time.
Ms. Glied is one of the four scholars who have just completed an independent joint study of the plan. Their findings are being published on the Web site of the policy journal, Health Affairs....Under the McCain plan (now the McCain-Palin plan) employees who continue to receive employer-paid health benefits would look at their pay stubs each week or each month and find that additional money had been withheld to cover the taxes on the value of their benefits.
While there might be less money in the paycheck, that would not be anything to worry about, according to Senator McCain. That's because the government would be offering all taxpayers a refundable tax credit -- $2,500 for a single worker and $5,000 per family -- to be used "to help pay for your health care."
You may think this is a good move or a bad one -- but it's a monumental change in the way health coverage would be provided to scores of millions of Americans. Why not more attention?
The whole idea of the McCain plan is to get families out of employer-paid health coverage and into the health insurance marketplace, where naked competition is supposed to take care of all ills. (We're seeing in the Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch fiascos just how well the unfettered marketplace has been working.)
Taxing employer-paid health benefits is the first step in this transition, the equivalent of injecting poison into the system. It's the beginning of the end.
I can't wait. Next, how about evening out or abolishing a few of those other dings on the self-employed?
Diana Furchtgott-Ross explains the McCain plan in the New York Sun:
Mr. McCain would give Americans refundable tax credits of $2,500 per individual, $5,000 per family, to buy health insurance. He would pay for this by changing the current tax status of employer-provided insurance, and including employer-paid health premiums in workers' taxable income. The proposed tax credit would wipe out the new tax liability for nearly every worker.Workers in the 25% tax bracket pay an extra $5,000 in tax on an additional $20,000 of income. So a $5,000 credit would offset the federal tax on employer-paid premiums up to $20,000 -- and an average plan only costs $12,000 per year, according to the bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care.
The tax credit would also be available for individuals -- employed, self-employed, unemployed -- who buy health coverage independently, although not to seniors on Medicare. People with pre-existing conditions who could not get health insurance would be insured through new state Guaranteed Access Plans.
With the tax advantage shifting to individuals from employers, people would not have to worry about losing their insurance when they change jobs -- just as they aren't concerned about losing their auto or home insurance.
The tax credit would be "refundable," meaning that it would go to people who don't owe tax. If it exceeded the cost of a plan, the individual would get the difference credited to a Health Savings Account, whose balances could be used to pay for insurance premiums and other health care costs.
The McCain plan would knock down state-line barriers to private health insurance plans and expand Health Savings Accounts. The combination of tax credits, nationwide insurance, and savings accounts would lead to increased competition among insurance companies, potentially driving down premiums.
"Potentially." Hmmm...you met any health insurers? I don't foresee that happening.
Who's The Dumbshit Who Let The Feral Pigs In?
You're jogging along up in Alpena, Michigan, and you've got your iPod on, and all of a sudden, you feel some powerful thing clamp onto your leg and take you down. Mike Wendland writes in the Freep about the highly dangerous wild pigs besieging most of the counties in Michigan:
Across Michigan, the signs are going up."Wanted Dead (Not Alive)," they read. "Last seen in 63 Michigan Counties."
The photo below the bold type shows as ugly a prey as you can find: a wild pig.
"Escaped from game ranches, wild boars threaten Michigan's natural resources and agriculture," the poster says. Signed by a coalition of Michigan wildlife and farming organizations, it amounts to a declaration of all-out war against a critter so wily and destructive it may now be impossible to control.
"We are not exaggerating when we say the wild boar problem in Michigan is now at crisis proportions," Patrick J. Rusz, director of wildlife programs for the Michigan Wildlife Conservancy, said last week. "They are good for absolutely nothing.
"We're telling people: If you see one, shoot it."
The problems started a few years ago when wild pigs, also called feral swine, started to escape from the estimated 60 hunting preserves around the state.
The animals usually free themselves by furrowing under the typical deer-proof fencing that encircles them and then lifting up the fence wire with their powerful snouts.
...Outside the preserves, the hogs have ranged widely, thriving in Michigan's climate with no real natural predators to control their numbers.
..."The agricultural damage they do is unlike anything we've seen from any other animal," he said. "We're talking a wild pig population explosion over the next few years in Michigan."
And it isn't just farmers who suffer. "I've seen yards they destroyed in populated areas up in Midland County that look like they were rototilled," Rusz said. "We've had reports of them menacing joggers in southeastern Michigan.
"They are showing up everywhere."
Nationally, feral hogs cause about $800 million in agricultural damages, according to John Mayer, a spokesman for the Washington Savannah River Co., a South Carolina environmental support firm for the U.S. Department of Energy and probably the nation's leading expert on wild pigs.
The problem: Thousands of square miles of salad bar -- all-you-can-eat corn. And just think of the lawn freaks in Grosse Pointe and Bloomfield Hills, looking out the window in the morning, "Marge! There's a thing eating our front yard!"
The prescription: Get a gun. Get a big gun. And if you see a feral pig, shoot it on sight. And make sure there isn't a school bus or something behind it, if you have a moment before you try to blow it away.
What's next, "Let's bring in deadly spores from outer space, put 'em in this test tube and play catch with it, and hope it doesn't break!"?
Here are the pictures:
Preference And Reality
I'm not a leftist because I'm a realist. I'd like the world to be a nicer place; one where, say, all the countries and all the Osamas out there could agree never to use nuclear weapons on others, and instead, to resolve all differences peacefully, over some peanutbutter sandwiches, followed by milk, cookies, and a few rousing rounds of kumbaya. And maybe if you got me really, really high, I might see the sense in this. Otherwise, I'm with Thomas Sowell, who would also like things to be different, but until they are, gets how misguided -- and, in fact, adolescent -- the fantasy approach is:
Should we be surprised that the strongest supporters of the political left are found among the young, academics, limousine liberals with trust funds, media celebrities and federal judges?These are hardly Karl Marx's proletarians, who were supposed to bring on the revolution. The working class are in fact today among those most skeptical about the visions of the left.
Ordinary working class people did not lead the stampede to Barack Obama, even before his disdain for them slipped out in unguarded moments.
The agenda of the left is fine for the world that they envision as existing today and the world they want to create tomorrow.
That is a world not hemmed in on all sides by inherent constraints and the painful trade-offs that these constraints imply. Theirs is a world where there are attractive, win-win "solutions" in place of those ugly trade-offs in the world that the rest of us live in.
Theirs is a world where we can just talk to opposing nations and work things out, instead of having to pour tons of money into military equipment to keep them at bay. The left calls this "change" but in fact it is a set of notions that were tried out by the Western democracies in the 1930s -- and which led to the most catastrophic war in history.
For those who bother to study history, it was precisely the opposite policies in the 1980s -- pouring tons of money into military equipment -- which brought the Cold War and its threat of nuclear annihilation to an end.
The left fought bitterly against that "arms race" which in fact lifted the burden of the Soviet threat, instead of leading to war as the elites claimed.
Personally, I wish Ronald Reagan could have talked the Soviets into being nicer, instead of having to spend all that money. Only experience makes me skeptical about that "kinder and gentler" approach and the vision behind it.
thanks, Robert W!
Wanna Hear Scary-Stupid?
Per an LA Times story by Tom Hamburger and Maeve Reston, we've had our V.P. candidates requesting earmarks...
Right:
Palin, in fact, requested $198 million in federal earmarks in February, including such expenses as $487,000 to fight obesity in Alaska and $4 million to develop recreational trails.
And left:
The requests included $17 million for one company, W. L. Gore and Associates, makers of Gore-Tex fabrics, to supply equipment to the Delaware National Guard.
And yet, the FBI doesn't have internet access at some agents' desks. L. Gordon Crovitz writes in the WSJ:
...Less than one-third of the FBI's national security branch agents and analysts have Internet access at their desks. A $500 million technology project to update the software to access the terrorist watch list of some one million names doesn't reliably track Arabic names when translated into English. It also doesn't allow basic search terms such as "and" and "or."Government intelligence has been reorganized into the massive bureaucracy at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In contrast, countries such as Britain and Israel have structures that encourage information sharing while also ensuring competitive analysis of what the gathered intelligence really means.
Given how commercial innovation is outpacing government, it's likelier that you'll see a targeted, online advertisement for a flight to Orlando just when you're ready to go, long before smart algorithms mining classified data will alert intelligence authorities to connections among suspicious characters. The intelligence community should be challenged at least to become a fast follower of innovation.
Remembering 9/11 means remembering the losses of that day, but it also means remembering what went wrong to allow it to happen. No intelligence system can work all the time, but the government still has a lot to learn from Silicon Valley about how information flows best and how technology can help turn facts into knowledge. A war based on information should be a war fought on our terms, if we can become more intelligent about intelligence.
Anybody got any idea how it would be possible for us to become any less intelligent?
In every "case" I have solved or person or bit of information I've tracked down (from my car thief to my hit-and-run driver to a friend's secret stalker), the Internet has played a substantial part -- if not the lead role. Just in day-to-day interactions while on the phone, I'll get on the Internet and look something up with great frequency. FBI agents, especially FBI agents in charge of national security going without Internet access at their desks? It's just obscene.
And P.S., I am so tired of these sleazebag politicians -- on both sides of the aisle -- who are really just big old whores for reelection. Unfortunately, what other choice is there?
Live, From New York...
It's Sunday morning, and for those of you who missed "Saturday Night Live," here's the tape. The blond chick (Amy Pohler) is a really terrible Hillary, but Fey is more Palin than Palin. Like, they could send her to state dinners if Palin is busy.
(Note: Somebody at NBC put up a non-working embed code. Here's a link. An error message may come up briefly, but it'll play.)
"Hopelessly Wedded To Reason"
While the religious right promotes the teaching of creationism in schools, the left has its own educational ugly. Never-prosecuted violent criminal Bill Ayers, with his mentor Maxine Greene, got Teachers College Press to put out a series of books on "social justice teaching," writes Sol Stern on City Journal:
Teaching science for social justice? Let Teachers College professor Angela Calabrese Barton, the volume's principal author, try to explain: "The marriages between capitalism and education and capitalism and science have created a foundation for science education that emphasizes corporate values at the expense of social justice and human dignity." The alternative? "Science pedagogy framed around social justice concerns can become a medium to transform individuals, schools, communities, the environment, and science itself, in ways that promote equity and social justice. Creating a science education that is transformative implies not only how science is a political activity but also the ways in which students might see and use science and science education in ways transformative of the institutional and interpersonal power structures that play a role in their lives." If you still can't appreciate why it's necessary for your child's chemistry teacher to teach for social justice, you are probably hopelessly wedded to reason, empiricism, individual merit, and other capitalist and post-colonialist deformities.
Count me as "hopelessly wedded to reason, empiricism, individual merit, and other capitalist and post-colonialist deformities."
thanks, Kate Coe!
Why Are Muslims Powerless?
Haifa Diary first has Dr Farrukh Saleem asking why Jews are so powerful. His answer: Education. Why, then, he asks, are Muslims powerless? A few examples:
LITERACY
As per data collected by the UNDP, literacy in the Christian world stands at nearly 90 per cent and 15 Christian-majority states have a literacy rate of 100 per cent. A Muslim-majority state, as a sharp contrast, has an average literacy rate of around 40 per cent and there is no Muslim-majority state with a literacy rate of 100 per cent.Some 98 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world had completed primary school, while less than 50 per cent of the 'literates' in the Muslim world did the same. Around 40 per cent of the 'literates' in the Christian world attended university while no more than two per cent of the 'literate s' in the Muslim world did the same.
SCIENCE
Muslim-majority countries have 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The US has 4,000 scientists per million and Japan has 5,000 per million. In theentire Arab world, the total number of full-time researchers is 35,000 and there are only 50 technicians per one million Arabs (in the Christian world there are up to 1,000 technicians per one million). Furthermore, the Muslim world spends 0.2 per cent of its GDP on research and development, while theChristian world spends around five per cent of its GDP.Conclusion: The Muslim world lacks the capacity to produce knowledge.NEWSPAPERS
Daily newspapers per 1,000 people and number of book titles per million are two indicators of whether knowledge is being diffused in a society. In Pakistan , there are 23 daily newspapers per 1,000 Pakistanis while the same ratio in Singapore is 360. In the UK , the number of book titles per millionstands at 2,000 while the same in Egypt is 20.Conclusion: The Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge....Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't producing knowledge. Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't diffusing knowledge. Why are Muslims powerless? Because we aren't applying knowledge. And, the future belongs to knowledge-based societies.
Interestingly, the combined annual GDP of 57 OIC-countries is under $2 trillion. America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $12 trillion; China $8 trillion, Japan $3.8 trillion and Germany $2.4 trillion (purchasing power parity basis). Oil rich Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $500 billion; Spain alone produces goods and services worth over $1 trillion, Catholic Poland $489 billion and Buddhist Thailand $545 billion. (Muslim GDP as a percentage of world GDP is fast declining).
The day somebody discovers an alternative energy source to oil, the Muslim countries will be back on their way to centers of, well, goatherding.
These days, instead of science education, Muslims have...Tom & Jerry as a Jewish conspiracy!
I particularly loved the part about "the Jewish Walt Disney company."
Muslims/Knowledge via thereligionofpeace.com
Fatty Issue
What's your take on this?
If you're a guy and you're fat, and you've recently gotten that way, and the girl who's been your FWB (Friend With Benefits) secretly doesn't want to have sex with you because she's only attracted to you in your regular, non-plumped-up size...and you still want to have sex with her, and are kind of moping to her that she hasn't been around lately...would you rather she tell you or not that you need to shave off some pounds? And if so, how?
Condell On The Saudis
A good one I missed when it came out -- from Pat Condell.
Here's the latest from the nutbags.
Hmm, it seems Trey Parker and Matt Stone are the devil. Keep up the good work, boys!
thanks, deja!
Iranian-American Pie
I ran into this guy in the parking lot at a Starbucks. I asked him if he was an American vet. Not quite.
He's been here 30 years, he told me. From Iran. He's legal, has a green card. How grateful is he to be in America? Well, you see there are three flags on there, not just one, right?
And in case you're wondering, as a guy who comes from what is now Terroristville, and who went on and on about how he truly values all the freedoms we have here and about what idiots people are who minimize the dangers from terrorism...if he could vote, I don't think he'd be voting for Obama.
Here's another Mideast emigrant living the American dream. Born Chaim Witz in Haifa, Israel...
Lookin' Secure!
The TSA: It's the appearance of security as opposed to actual security; or as security expert Bruce Schneier calls it, "security theater". In Schneier's words, from a 2006 blog item:
Banning box cutters since 9/11, or taking off our shoes since Richard Reid, has not made us any safer. And a long-term prohibition against liquid carry-ons won't make us safer, either. It's not just that there are ways around the rules, it's that focusing on tactics is a losing proposition.It's easy to defend against what the terrorists planned last time, but it's shortsighted. If we spend billions fielding liquid-analysis machines in airports and the terrorists use solid explosives, we've wasted our money. If they target shopping malls, we've wasted our money. Focusing on tactics simply forces the terrorists to make a minor modification in their plans. There are too many targets -- stadiums, schools, theaters, churches, the long line of densely packed people before airport security -- and too many ways to kill people.
Security measures that require us to guess correctly don't work, because invariably we will guess wrong. It's not security, it's security theater: measures designed to make us feel safer but not actually safer.
Airport security is the last line of defense, and not a very good one at that. Sure, it'll catch the sloppy and the stupid -- and that's a good enough reason not to do away with it entirely -- but it won't catch a well-planned plot. We can't keep weapons out of prisons; we can't possibly keep them off airplanes.
The goal of a terrorist is to cause terror. Last week's arrests demonstrate how real security doesn't focus on possible terrorist tactics, but on the terrorists themselves. It's a victory for intelligence and investigation, and a dramatic demonstration of how investments in these areas pay off.
And if you want to know what you can do to help? Don't be terrorized. They terrorize more of us if they kill some of us, but the dead are beside the point. If we give in to fear, the terrorists achieve their goal even if they were arrested. If we refuse to be terrorized, then they lose -- even if their attacks succeed.
After reading that, I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear that the security theater troupe is getting a whole new set of costumes. Yes, Jon Hilkevitch writes in the Chicago Trib:
If there is any truth to the old military expression that "the uniform makes the man," then new garb might do wonders for the morale of the nation's airport security screeners.That, and generating more respect from the flying public, is the hope of the Transportation Security Administration. On Thursday--the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks--the TSA put on a security fashion show of sorts at O'Hare International Airport.
Out are the TSA uniforms that have been worn since the agency was created after 9/11 and which, many screeners complained, made them look like glorified Andy Frain ushers.
In is a new official wardrobe that looks more like a police officer's uniform.
The cloth TSA badge that was sewn onto the white shirt on the old uniform has been replaced by a gold metal badge. The white shirt has been traded in for a blue one.
The goal is to give screeners a more professional appearance and establish a greater air of authority, in an effort to command respect from travelers.
Yeah, a new uniform. That should do it!
Personally, my thinking is similar to Scheier's. I think it's possible that some of us will be killed in terrorist attacks. I try to live to the fullest in case somebody takes me out.
Accordingly, with life in general, and travel more specifically, being made so unpleasant, and with so little real benefit, it's just not worth the price -- to me, anyway. I vote for Schneier's approach -- focusing on the terrorists themselves -- and trying to be prudent but living according what I've heard described as "the restaurant water glass theory": the way any restaurant figures that a certain number of water glasses will break.
A certain number of us may get knocked off by terrorists. At the moment, at least a few of us are losing years of our lives while in line to be bent over by the TSA, and for what?
If we're going to have security theater, I'll take being allowed to bring four oz. of toothpaste on the plane and the dancing girls in an airport bar, thanks.
Check out the march of TSA fashion here (scroll down).
Maybe It's In The Basement Of The Rayburn House Office Building!
Somewhere in Washington, D.C., there has to be some big rainbow with a big pot of gold at the end. That old place -- Rayburn -- is as good as any for somebody to have hidden it.
I say this about the pot of gold because, according to John R. Benfield, MD, an emeritus surgery prof at UCLA Med who's looking to bring more socialism to medicine, it seems there's a bunch of money hidden somewhere. He's even designated a search team: Yes, it seems "finding" the money to pay for health care "is the job of our government." Here's his letter to the editor in the LA Times:
Our medical-care system requires a revolution. Reform is not enough.Lopez tells of his struggle to avoid whole brain radiation for his sister. He obtained for her the more desirable gamma knife treatment by insisting on breaking out of the network.
But how many Americans have an ombudsman like Lopez? His story reflects the experience of almost everyone who struggles with our healthcare system. The system is tyrannical. It deprives most patients of free choice, and it places no value on the time of patients and their families.
How can Americans continue to tolerate this? We need a single-payer system. Universal healthcare is a requirement in a wealthy, civilized nation.
Finding the money to pay for it is the job of our government. We must elect representatives who are driven to learn from the mistakes of "socialized medicine" elsewhere, and who are committed to creating a better healthcare system.
When I complained about that "finding the money" line to a friend of mine on the phone, she said what I was thinking: "Where's he going to find it, in my bank account?"
Here's a better idea: I'm guessing the good doctor earned a few shekels as a surgery prof -- probably a few more than I do as an advice columnist. Dr. Benfield, feel free to pay my Kaiser bill for next month. I mean, I'm really into this concept of "found money" you bring up, and it would be super-cool to find some of yours funding my health care. Please just e-mail me and I'll tell you where to send your check.
And thanks! If you're going to take personal responsibility for my health care bill, I can take personal responsibility for a few more slinky dresses from the designer resale store.
More on single-payer plans here. In case you were wondering, I want the government and employers out of health care. And that's because I like staying alive.
Partying Like It's September 10, 2001
Jihadwatch's Robert Spencer laments all the people -- 48 percent, per a CNN survey -- who are casting their vote based on the economy and not on terrorism. Here's why he thinks (and I think) that's wrong (links within are live at the link above):
I remembered that there are still people around the world who hold the same ideology as that held by the 9/11 hijackers. They haven't given up. Reports that they have discarded their ideology or given themselves over wholly to infighting are greatly exaggerated or based on a misunderstanding of what their motives and goals were in the first place.I remembered the jihad against Israel, which pitilessly targets civilians -- a 70-year-old woman, an Israeli tourist, was just this morning found murdered in Sinai.
I remembered the airplane plot in Britain, in which one of the plotters made his jihadist intentions very plain: "We are doing this in order to gain the pleasure of our Lord and Allah loves us to die and kill in his path." He may have been referring to Qur'an 9:111, which promises Paradise to those who "kill and are killed" for Allah.
I remembered ongoing efforts in the U.S. to force Americans to accommodate Islamic law. If all such attempts succeeded, Osama bin Laden's dream of an America transformed into an Islamic state would be accomplished right under the noses of Americans, without another terrorist attack. Of course, it is unlikely that these stealth jihadists will attain this goal, but they are already eroding our freedoms as they demand ever more accommodation of Islamic principles and practices -- with politically correct public officials only too happy to oblige, and complacent conservative commentators, if they deign to take notice of this problem at all, serving up contemptuous dismissals of conspiracy-mongering rather than dealing with this issue fully and justly.
I remembered the ongoing jihads in the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, and elsewhere. I remembered the ongoing persecution of Christians by Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, and elsewhere.
And so ultimately I couldn't do it. Today, even if I party like it's September 10, the sun will set, the sun will rise, and tomorrow will, inexorably, unavoidably, be September 11.
More from an editorial in the Telegraph/UK:
As reported in this newspaper on Monday, Western security sources believe Islamists based in northern Pakistan, in the lawless tribal areas of Waziristan, are using the political chaos there to continue plotting against the West. Their aim is to obtain a nuclear device or make a radioactive 'dirty' bomb for use against a Western target. Those who believe such warnings are scaremongering must consider the events in this country in recent years - not just the suicide bombers on July 7, but other conspiracies that were intent on mass murder.Dihren Barot, an al-Qaeda 'sleeper' living in north London, last year admitted planning to use a low-level radioactive dirty bomb in the UK that would have caused widespread panic and chaos, even if it had not been particularly large.
The Islamists' hatred of the West and its values encourages them to pursue ever more dramatic attacks. Sept 11, unfortunately, is not for them the apogee of terrorist achievement but a benchmark for greater destruction. The fanatics may be small in number, but it only takes a few to get through to cause death, misery and mayhem.
If anyone still doubts that, let them imagine what it must have been like starting work on the upper floors of the World Trade Centre, seven years ago today.
Here's a piece in the Times of London about some of the children whose parents were murdered on 9/11. (The Times article uses the term "lost" their parents. I hate that term, which, for me, calls to mind misplaced keys, not thousands of people brutally incinerated and forced to jump from burning buildings in their adult prime.)
What Will Obama-Care Mean For You?
No, he's not suggesting a national health service like they have in the UK. He can't -- it would surely make him unelectable. And sure, it's purely speculation on my part, but the way the Democrats see government as a sort of Big Mommy, I suspect that that's eventually part of the plan. If so, let's see how that might play out.
DeadFishWrapper, up in Oregon, blogs about health care tourism in the UK. India is the most popular destination for everything from heart surgery to hip operations. Heart surgery?! A far cry from budget Botox and cut-rate plastic surgery you'd think people with already paid (taxpayer-paid) health care would be going for. DFW links to a story from the Daily Mail from 2007:
Record numbers of Britons are travelling abroad for medical treatment to escape the NHS - with 70,000 patients expected to fly out this year.And by the end of the decade 200,000 "health tourists" will fly as far as Malaysa and South Africa for major surgery to avoid long waiting lists and the rising threat of superbugs, according to a new report.
... Almost all of those who had received treatment abroad said they would do the same again, with patients pointing out that some hospitals in India had screening policies for the superbug MRSA that have yet to be introduced in this country.
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said the figures were a "terrible indictment" of government policies that were undermining the efforts of NHS staff to provide quality services.
New research shows that growing NHS bureaucracy has left nurses with little time to see patients - most spending long periods dealing with paperwork.
Of course it has. This is government bureaucracy brought to health care.
Bad News At The Salad Bar In Anbar
A Telegraph/UK story, sourced to a tribal leader in western Anbar, has Al Qaeda banning women from buying phallic-shaped eats:
Sheikh Hameed al-Hayyes, a Sunni elder, told Reuters: "They even killed female goats because their private parts were not covered and their tails were pointed upward, which they said was haram."They regarded the cucumber as male and tomato as female. Women were not allowed to buy cucumbers, only men."
Other farcical stipulations include an edict not to buy or sell ice-cream, because it did not exist in the time of the Prophet, while hair salons and shops selling cosmetics have also been bombed.
Most seriously, Sheikh al-Hayyes said: "I saw them slaughter a nine-year old boy like a sheep because his family didn't pledge allegiance to them."
Such tactics have triggered a backlash among Sunnis, whom Al-Q'aeda had claimed to be protecting, the sheikh and military leaders said.
Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Albers, an American intelligence officer, told the news agency: "Al-Qa'eda's very heavy-handed killing of civilians backfired on them. The Sunnis just wouldn't stand for it any more.
"The self-described protectors of the Sunni community now kill more Iraqi Sunnis than anyone else."
Amy Alkon Comes To Los Angeles!
I know, that doesn't sound like news. But, actually, it is, because starting tomorrow, my column will be running locally, in LACityBeat. Here's the interview I did with Mayrav Saar over at FishbowlLA to celebrate tomorrow's launch -- linking to some of my favorite local babes with brains.
Guess Who's Looking For An Advance On Their Allowance
At least, that's what The Big Three automakers say they're looking for -- just a loan. Mmmmhmmm. Just like when kids borrow money from their parents and hope they eventually just forget about it.
In a story in the LATimes, Richard Simon and Maura Reynolds put it like so:
House Democratic leaders are considering a $25-billion rescue package for the auto industry as part of an effort to bolster the sagging U.S. economy.
Let's fix that so it tells the truth:
House Democratic leaders are considering a $25-billion rescue package for the auto industry as part of an effort to buy votes for the Democratic candidate.
Here's more from the actual story in the LAT:
Democratic leaders said they had not yet decided whether to include the aid plan -- which would come in the form of low-cost government loans focused on helping Detroit develop more fuel-efficient vehicles -- in an energy bill or in a broad new economic stimulus package....On Tuesday, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama campaigned in Michigan, while Republican John McCain stumped across Ohio. Both are promising federal help for a region and an industry in crisis.
"What we have to do is invest in retooling the auto industry to make our cars more efficient and make sure they're made not in Japan, not in South Korea, but right here in Michigan and right here in the United States of America," Obama said at a town hall-style event in Farmington, Mich.
It was Farmington Hills, Michigan (at my high school), and excuse me, but why is retooling the auto industry my job?
Maybe, as long as he's up for socialism, Obama can just nationalize the property of the people responsible. Go around Bloomfield Hills and Grosse Pointe, to all those mansions of the guys who didn't put the profits back into research. And hey, while you're at it, the working man has made out like a bandit, too, thanks to the unions, adding hugely to the cost of every car. Time to hand back!
I mean, again, if the alternative is I pay, and we all pay, well, invoice the source.
What's Next? They Try To Extradite You For Being Gay Or Wearing A Miniskirt?
They really hate Western values, those Muslims. All that nasty, nasty freedom of speech -- freedom of speech that allows us bad, bad westerners to criticize or even parody the freedom-abhoring death cult that calls itself "the religion of peace."
The latest absurdity comes out of Jordan. Elizabeth Samson writes for the WSJ/Europe that a Jordanian court is prosecuting 12 Europeans for, well, for being real meanies when they talk or create work about Islam:
The prosecutor general in Amman charged the 12 with blasphemy, demeaning Islam and Muslim feelings, and slandering and insulting the prophet Muhammad in violation of the Jordanian Penal Code. The charges are especially unusual because the alleged violations were not committed on Jordanian soil.Among the defendants is the Danish cartoonist whose alleged crime was to draw in 2005 one of the Muhammad illustrations that instigators then used to spark Muslim riots around the world. His co-defendants include 10 editors of Danish newspapers that published the images. The 12th accused man is Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, who supposedly broke Jordanian law by releasing on the Web his recent film, "Fitna," which tries to examine how the Quran inspires Islamic terrorism.
Jordan's attempt at criminalizing free speech beyond its own borders wouldn't be so serious if it were an isolated case. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger campaign to use the law and international forums to intimidate critics of militant Islam. For instance, in December the United Nations General Assembly passed the Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions; the only religion mentioned by name was Islam. While such resolutions aren't legally binding, national governments sometimes cite them as justification for legislation or other actions.
More worrying, the U.N. Human Rights Council in June said it would refrain from condemning human-rights abuses related to "a particular religion." The ban applies to all religions, but it was prompted by Muslim countries that complained about linking Islamic law, Shariah, to such outrages as female genital mutilation and death by stoning for adulterers. This kind of self-censorship could prove dangerous for people suffering abuse, and it follows the council's March decision to have its expert on free speech investigate individuals and the media for negative comments about Islam.
...Amman has already requested that Interpol apprehend Mr. Wilders and the Danes and bring them to stand before its court for an act that is not a crime in their home countries. To the contrary. Dutch prosecutors said in July that although some of Mr. Wilders's statements may be offensive, they are protected under Dutch free-speech legislation. Likewise, Danish law protects the rights of the Danish cartoonists and newspapers to express their views.
Neither Denmark nor the Netherlands will turn over its citizens to Interpol, as the premise of Jordan's extradition request is an affront to the very principles that define democracies. It is thus unlikely that any Western country would do so, either. But there is no guarantee for the defendants' protection if they travel to countries that are more sympathetic to the Jordanian court.
You know, if Mohammed is as great and powerful as they say he is, what's with the guy not being able to take a little criticism? (Remind me to stay out of countries with extradition treaties with the primitive republic of Jordan.)
Time To Go Poddy
Catherine G. Burke writes in the LATimes about one of my fantasies -- the personal subway car:
In the near future, 70 million of us will enter retirement, and inevitably some of us will lose the ability to drive a car, whether from physical disability, poverty or denial of insurance. We will need something better than the auto -- and better is here, now.It's a "podcar," also called "personal rapid transit" -- a system of vehicles that provide on-demand, private, nonstop travel. These vehicles can carry people or light freight. They ride on small, overhead guideways -- like a monorail or people mover -- above existing roads, and are powered entirely by electricity. Picture the car as an elevated, driverless taxi. It's under computer control, so there would be no accidents, thereby saving lives and lowering insurance costs.
Podcars operate on demand, waiting at off-line stations; they can be summoned if one is not available when you arrive at the station. Each vehicle can hold four people, yet the system can be cost-effective even with a single rider for each trip.
The capital cost is low, about $25 million to $40 million a mile for the first systems, which include guideways, vehicles and stations, compared to $100 million to $300 million a mile for light-rail or subway systems. Because it operates over existing streets and sidewalks, there are few costs for rights of way or taking of private property. It is also inexpensive to operate and thus can be available 24/7 and still make an operating profit, depending on pricing policies.
Detractors say it can't be done: That to be cost-effective, public transit must mass large groups of people together to travel to the same place; that a podcar system would be too complex and expensive; that an elevated guideway would be ugly.
The naysayers haven't done their homework. A podcar system called ULTra is being built at London's Heathrow airport. Vectus, a Korean podcar, is being tested in Uppsala, Sweden. One or both of these systems may be used in the Masdar eco-city in the United Arab Emirates that is being planned as the world's first auto-free, carbon-free new town.
What futuristic thing do you see making the world better?
Pray For Pipeline?
No Obama fan here, but come on, McCain can't be serious. His candidate for V.P. goes around making speeches asking people to pray for a natural gas pipeline?
I can see it now: If she and McCain get in office, when they want to pass a law or get some diplomatic action, they won't go through the usual channels. No, Palin will just get out there in that little park across from The White House, click her heels together three times, and...arrrrgh!
Richard Mauer writes for the Anchorage Daily News:
In her eight-minute remarks, delivered without notes except when she read a brief passage from the New Testament Book of Ephesians, she melded the issues of governance with a call to bringing Alaskans to God."What I need to do is strike a deal with you guys as you go out throughout Alaska -- I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline." Palin said. "Pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done, in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. But I can do my job there, in developing our natural resources, and doing things like getting the roads paved, making sure our troopers have their cop cars and their uniforms and their guns, and making sure our public schools are funded.
"But really, all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's hearts isn't right with God. And that's going to be your job," she said. "As I'm doing my job, let's strike this deal. Your job is going to be: to be out there, reaching the people, (the) hurting people throughout Alaska, and we can work together to make sure God's will be done here."
A few weeks ago, I blogged about the ridiculous guy who was praying for lower gas prices. And now, this woman may be a heartbeat away from the codger-in-chief? (And, again, I say that as no Obama fan.)
Obama's Saudi Sweetie?
On the other side, Investor's Business Daily asks, "Does Barack Obama owe his meteoric rise to an Israeli-hating adviser to a Saudi billionaire? Why did a race-baiting mentor to the Black Panthers favor this yet unknown community organizer?"
Lovely.
The IBD editorial board writes:
We know he's a Harvard graduate and was editor of the Harvard Law Review. Less known is the story of how he got into the prestigious Ivy League university. As Newsmax's Kenneth Timmerman reports, he was helped by a letter written by Percy Sutton, former Manhattan borough president and a credible candidate for mayor of New York in 1977.In an interview earlier this year on New York's all-news cable channel NY1, the 88-year-old Sutton made some interesting revelations about his relationship with the young Obama. He told NY1 reporter Dominic Carter on "Inside City Hall" that he was introduced to Obama by a friend raising money for him. The friend asked Sutton to write a letter in support of Obama's application to Harvard law school.
"The friend's name is Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, from Texas," Sutton said. "He is the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men. He told me about Obama."
Sutton recalled that al-Mansour said, "There is a young man that has applied to Harvard. I know that you have a few friends up there because you used to go up there to speak. Would you please write a letter in support of him?" Sutton did.
According to Timmerman, "At the time Percy Sutton, a former lawyer for Malcolm X and a former business partner of al-Mansour, says he (al-Mansour) was raising money for Obama's graduate school education (and) al-Mansour was representing top members of the Saudi Royal family seeking to do business and exert influence in the United States."
...What did this radical extremist see in young Barack Obama that he would seek to sponsor and perhaps finance Obama's education? Obama says he paid his way solely through student loans. How did they meet? Where did the money he raised come from? Now that we know who the father of Bristol Palin's baby is, maybe the mainstream media will have time to find out.
Obama's camp denies the Percy Sutton claim. Here's Sutton on NY1 making it:
Ben Smith at Politico.com tried to check out the story. He writes:
Sutton's story is particularly difficult to follow at one point: that al-Mansour was "raising money" for Obama. Obama attended Harvard with the help of student loans, as the Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet reported in detail at one point, writing that he had $42,753 in debt.I left messages for al-Mansour and for Sutton, but haven't heard back. Sutton, an eminence in Harlem politics, has not been well lately, people who know him said; I also left a message for his son.
Sutton supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and was quoted saying of Obama at the time, "We don't know the other person in this election -- we've never met him."
UPDATE: I spoke to Mansour Thursday evening, who said he'd avoided directly contradicting the story out of respect for Sutton, "a dear friend, his health is not good."
But pressed, he denied all the details of Sutton's story.
"The scenario as it related to me did not happen," he said.
"I'm sure he's written a letter [to someone else] and he got it confused somehow," he said of Sutton, adding that he'd never asked Sutton to write a letter to any university supporting anyone's admission.
Mansour said he admires Obama, but first heard of him when a relative sent him a copy of Obama's 2004 convention speech.
"I've never met him," he said.
So, true, false? Documents released to the media anytime soon?
Sutton's story does sound rather detailed. But, maybe he's wrong. Maybe he's just...old, and losing his memory.
Let's hope.
Stand And Deliver
A few days ago, I exchanged a few e-mail with a Registered Nurse and midwifery student who comments here, mentioning a film I saw at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference about modern-day hunter-gatherers who give birth standing up.
It seemed much easier and more efficient than the way we do it -- and hey, if you're a young mother, maybe you could do double duty: drop your kid while standing in line for concert tickets.
I asked whether she knew about it, and if so, what did she think? She wrote back:
Amy,Birthing upright: Absolutely. The lithotomy position -- that'd be flat on your back, legs in the air -- is the least physiological birthing position possible. You could only make it worse if you hung the woman upside-down. It's convenient for the physician, not the mother or the baby. Even "semi-sit", which is basically the lithotomy position with the mother half-sitting up (how most American women give birth), is not much better. These positions lead to longer pushing stages, more hypoxic babies, more use of forceps and vacuum extraction, more episiotomy, and more frequent and severe tissue damage to the mother. There are much better outcomes with the woman on all fours, kneeling, side-lying, squatting, standing...basically, get gravity to work with you, not against you. Providers are hesitant to encourage women to get in those positions because many of them haven't been taught to deliver babies that way, and it's harder, frankly, to cut episiotomies (using scissors to enlarge the vaginal opening- *shudder*). Also a woman who can't feel anything below the waist and who is hooked up to a couple machines isn't going to be able to maneuver much. I'm really glad that this information is starting to filter out into popular culture. A decade ago, who would have thought that Ricki Lake would be an effective childbirth activist?? Not me! It makes me laugh that the AMA and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) is so infuriated about it ;)
Part of what drew me to your blog in the first place was the emphasis you put on understanding people's behavior through the lens of evolutionary anthropology. I was an anthro major in college and minored in biology...evolutionary and primate studies were my hands-down favorite classes. When I'm out of school I hope to pick that reading up again. It's a very interesting aspect of modern humans, and our culture in particular, that leads to this conflict between physical maturity and emotional maturity/readiness for independence: our prolonged adolescence. You have girls who are at peak physical readiness to bear children at 16 or 17, but are totally without the tools you need to keep afloat on your own in our culture, let alone raise kids. Graduating from high school, getting an associate's or bachelors, or work experience...and isn't the median age for women at marriage 25 now? To expect people to abstain until marriage is fighting against millions of years of evolution and it's a battle we're gonna lose. We can encourage young people to abstain for as long as possible, and act responsibly when they DO become sexually active, or we can watch abortion rates (legal and back-alley) skyrocket, as well as deal with the poor kids produced by teenaged parents. Talk about starting out in life with one arm tied behind your back, and society suffers along with the kids.
I tell you, every time I get a teenager on Depo-Provera, I feel like I've struck a blow for the country at large ;)
Sorry, No Inciting Murder Here, Barbarians
According to Israel Today, Muslims at USC are enraged by the university's decision to remove an Islamic text from a student group's website because it encourages the murder of Jews. Israel Today staff writes:
Until recently, the website of the now-defunct Muslim Student Association, which is hosted on the university's servers, had featured the full text of the hadiths, the words of Mohammed that are not found in the Koran.One of those hadiths calls on Muslims to "fight against the Jews and...kill them," and promises that even the stones and the trees will assist Muslims in that gruesome task.
A statement issued by the Muslim Student Union at USC suggested that the hadith was being taken out of context, and called the school's decision to remove it from the website "unprecedented and unconscionable."
Taken out of context? Here's the Hadith:
You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone will say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.
I think that's pretty damn clear, don't you?
Naturally, the Muslim Student Union got all boohoo-y, and accused the school administration of unfair censorship.
Hmmm. What's your guess? If the Latino Student Union put up a website that suggested, say, "fight against the Canadians...and kill them," do you think that would fly?
Race Baste
The LA Times is always a bit of a mess lately, after drop-kicking a good bit of their staff. I went to look online for a letter to the editor I saw in the print edition on Saturday, and they are missing that day in their online letters to the editor. They go right from September 5 to September 7.
Luckily, I saved the page, so I have Kevin Smith's letter, referencing the story about UCLA being accused of illegal admitting practices. He wrote:
I was a white student who was shown no special preference in getting admitted to UCLA, yet somehow I got in and graduated. I took the community college route because I wasn't at first up to UCLA's standards. Isn't this an option for minority students? When does the entitlement end?
The story, in brief, by Seema Mehta:
Arguing that UCLA admissions policies are being manipulated to circumvent the state's ban on consideration of applicants' race, a professor there has resigned from a faculty committee that he says refused to allow him to study the matter.Political science professor Tim Groseclose resigned Thursday from the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Relations with Schools, saying high-ranking university administrators and fellow committee members are engaged in a "coverup" to block illegal activity from being discovered.
"A growing body of evidence strongly suggests that UCLA is cheating on admissions," he wrote in an 89-page report posted on a UCLA website.
...Attempts to reach Groseclose on Friday were unsuccessful, but he wrote in his report that admissions officials often learned of students' race in personal application essays, and factored it into admissions decisions.
"It is obvious that the admissions staff was under intense pressure to admit more African Americans," he wrote.
My pal Heather MacDonald had an excellent piece on the subject in Sunday's LATimes (thankfully, hers made it online), "How UC is rigging the admissions process: Officials are perverting the law in a desperate attempt to increase black enrollment":
Students admitted with drastically lower qualifications than their school's norm frequently end up in the bottom of their class and take much longer to graduate, if they graduate at all. UCLA law professor Richard Sander has shown that black law students, almost all of whom receive large racial preferences in law school admissions, are six times as likely as whites to fail the bar after multiple efforts. The reason, Sander has argued persuasively, is that students learn less in an academic environment pitched over their heads than they would in a school that matches their capabilities. Thus, racial double standards can end up hurting black and Latino students rather than helping them.Yet UC administrators continue to devise new schemes to admit poorly qualified minority students to their most competitive campuses on the ground that objective tests of academic merit are not related to subsequent performance. The fact is, nothing else comes close to the predictive power of aptitude and other objective tests -- including the "spark" and "leadership" qualities that UC administrators purport to be seeking these days.
The academic elitism behind the effort to shoehorn underqualified black and Latino students into UC's flagship schools is an insult to the rest of California's college and university system. The proportion of underrepresented minorities in the UC system as a whole has returned to its pre-209 levels. "Irrelevant!" say preference supporters. Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau has complained that there are not enough black and Latino students at Berkeley to provide minority communities with the "leadership" they need -- in other words, don't expect UC Riverside or Cal State Long Beach to graduate "community leaders." But if attending Cal State Northridge or Santa Monica Community College would so impair the life chances of black and Latino students, why should any student be subjected to such a fate? Why not close down all second- and third-tier schools so that everyone can get an elite degree?
The energies that have been expended since 1996 to re-create a full-blown preference regime have been wasted. While UC race advocates have fiddled with their admissions criteria, the test score gap in California has widened. Blacks' average math SATs in 2007 were 429, compared to 564 for Asians and 549 for whites, according to the California Department of Education. On reading, blacks scored 438, compared to 510 for Asians and 541 for whites. The dropout rate in 2007 was 41.6% for blacks, 15.2% for whites and 10.2% for Asians.
These figures reveal the true educational crisis in California: It is in the state's elementary and high schools and in its homes, not in the universities. If, over the last decade, pro-preference faculty members and administrators had devoted their considerable talents to tutoring minority students and convincing them and their families that learning is important, Groseclose's whistle-blowing might not have been needed.
My New Toy
One of those as-seen-on-TV thingies, and yes, it really works.
I got the lower-level model at the drugstore for $10 after reading that it worked on Consumerist, but the supposedly better one is only $9.99 at the Amazon link above.
Chattel Prod
Are children parents' property? At what point should you get to decide your own fate -- especially when the decision being made will substantially affect the course of the rest of your life?
Being a pregnant teenager almost certainly means stunting your personal and professional growth -- especially if you marry at 18.
I cited Lassek and Gaulin's research before. Gaulin presented it at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Conference at William and Mary in 2007, showing that women who have children before the age of 18 are cognitively worse off, as are their children, because their children are developing as they're still developing, and they rob the mothers of cognitive resources and end up shorter in that department as well. (Gaulin and Lassek actually showed that women with "bimbo" bodies -- an hourglass figure with big boobs -- are more protected from this and are, in general, smarter and have smarter children.)
Of course, a Barbie body won't do anything for the lost personal development and career years, the time in a girl's late teens and in her twenties when she should be experimenting to figure out who you are and what you will be in the world.
Plus, a person changes enormously between 20 and 24, let alone 17 or 18 and 20. This is probably why Helen Fisher found, reading U.N. divorce stats a few years back (and I'm not sure if these are exactly true now), that more marriages end between age 20 and 24. If those marriages end with children in their wake, not a good thing, not a good thing at all.
But, back to the question -- I have been thinking about that recently, but it's been a question I've had for years -- about why parents should be able to decide the lives of children on the cusp of adulthood. This view is a view of these near-adult children as property. At what point are they deserving of autonomy?
William Saletan at Slate is wondering the same thing, noting that one category of Americans remains officially subjugated -- maturing minors (links within the piece are live at the Slate link):
A maturing minor is someone already in transition to adulthood, as evidenced most clearly by the ability to produce children of her own....A boy and a girl made a mistake that has forced them to become a man and a woman. They are, in Palin's words, shouldering the responsibilities of adulthood.
Yet Palin refuses to treat a young woman in this position as an adult. She thinks the parents of pregnant girls should have veto power over the most life-changing decision their daughters may ever face. Palin made her position clear last fall, when she denounced and sought to reverse an Alaska Supreme Court ruling that upheld the rights of teenage girls. "It is outrageous that a minor girl can get an abortion without parental consent," said the governor.
The court affirmed that minors often needed guidance, that parents were entitled to provide that guidance, and that states could facilitate this role by notifying parents whose daughters sought abortions. But the law in question, the Alaska Parental Consent Act, went further. It required girls to get their parents' written consent. If the parents refused, the girl had to go to court. Any doctor who granted an abortion request without parental or court approval faced the threat of criminal prosecution.
These provisions made parents not just stewards of their children, but owners. The justices concluded that the law "allows parents to refuse to consent not only where their judgment is better informed and considered than that of their daughter, but also where it is colored by personal religious belief, whim, or even hostility to her best interests."
The argument for parental consent laws is that if girls can't even get their ears pierced without parental approval, they certainly shouldn't be allowed to get something as serious as an abortion. As Palin's spokeswoman put it last year, "She feels parental consent is reasonable because it is required in nearly every aspect of a child's life." But that logic is backward. The more profoundly a decision affects a girl's future, the more vital it is that no one, even her parents, be authorized to veto it. And nothing short of death alters a person's life more profoundly than bringing a child into the world. It is the moment when you cease to be the primary purpose of your own existence.
...Watch the video of Palin answering abortion questions during a 2006 gubernatorial debate. "If your daughter were pregnant ... what would be your reaction and advice?" asks a reporter. "I would choose life," she answers, smiling. The reporter persists: What if your daughter had been raped? "Again, I would choose life," she replies. Not she would choose. I would choose.
McCain speaks similarly about his daughter:
"Cindy and I will make that decision."...But restrictions that start with minors have a way of leaking out. A month ago, junk-food crusaders crossed the line from kids to adults: Los Angeles prohibited construction of new fast-food restaurants in a section of the city occupied by 500,000 low-income people. And last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a ban on some abortions for adult women. The court reasoned that some of these women "did not know" how gruesome the procedure would be and that the ban, by "ensuring so grave a choice is well informed," would "encourage some women to carry the infant to full term." Paternalism once reserved for girls now extends to women. McCain and Palin want more justices like Samuel Alito, who voted to uphold a law requiring women to notify their husbands before getting abortions. In fact, they want a constitutional amendment to ban nearly all abortions.
The idea of letting minors, even maturing ones, make abortion decisions may sound radical. But that's how autonomy for blacks and women used to sound, too. It's hard to recognize the injustices of your own era. One reason to try is that paternalists may have targeted people like you in the past. The other reason is that if you don't speak up, they'll come for you again.
UPDATE: Robert Wright says Palin's daughter's pregnancy is a reason to vote against her. Dr. Laura is bothered by the same thing.
Did Palin Ban Books Or Did She Not?
I'm not a fan of Palin or what Palin stands for, but I would like to know the truth. I got an e-mail with the following -- and I'm very concerned (and opposed) if Palin did try to ban books, and certainly, those on the list:
Let's spend a few moments browsing the list of books Mayor Sarah Palin tried to get town librarian Mary Ellen Baker to ban in the lovely, all-American town of Wasilla, Alaska. When Baker refused to remove the books from the shelves, Palin threatened to fire her. The story was reported in Time Magazine and the list comes from the librarian.net website.Free Republic counters with this:
I'm sure you'll find your own personal favorites among the classics Palin wanted to protect the good people of Wasilla from, but the ones that jumped out at me were the four Stephen King novels (way to go Stephen, John Steinbeck only got three titles on the list), that notorious piece of communist pornography "My Friend Flicka," the usual assortment of Harry Potter books, works by Shakespeare, Walt Whitman, Kurt Vonnegut, Mark Twain (always fun to see those two names together), Arthur Miller, and Aristophanes, as well as "Our Bodies, Ourselves" (insert your own Bristol Palin joke here), and the infamous one-two punch of depravity: "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "Little Red Riding Hood." But the cherry on the sundae, the topper, is Sarah Palin's passionate, religious mission to clear the shelves of the Wasilia Public Library of that ultimate evil tome: "Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary." That's the one with "equality," "free speech" and "justice" in it.
Go over to your book case and take down one of the books you'll find on the list (I know you've got a couple) and give it a read in honor of the founding fathers. Then tell me I'm not the only voter who doesn't want this woman within thirty feet of the United States Constitution.
Sarah Palin's Book Club
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle
Annie on My Mind by Nancy Garden
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
Blubber by Judy Blume
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson
Canterbury Tales by Chaucer
Carrie by Stephen King
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Christine by Stephen King
Confessions by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Cujo by Stephen King
Curses, Hexes, and Spells by Daniel Cohen
Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite
Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Peck
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Decameron by Boccaccio
East of Eden by John Steinbeck
Fallen Angels by Walter Myers
Fanny Hill (Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) by John Cleland
Flowers For Algernon by Daniel Keyes
Forever by Judy Blume
Grendel by John Champlin Gardner
Halloween ABC by Eve Merriam
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prizoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by J.K. Rowling
Have to Go by Robert Munsch
Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman
How to Eat Fried Worms by Thomas Rockwell
Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
Impressions edited by Jack Booth
In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak
It's Okay if You Don't Love Me by Norma Klein
James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman
Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
Love is One of the Choices by Norma Klein
Lysistrata by Aristophanes
More Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
My Brother Sam Is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier
My House by Nikki Giovanni
M y Friend Flicka by Mary O'Hara
Night Chills by Dean Koontz
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
On My Honor by Marion Dane Bauer
One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Ordinary People by Judith Guest
Our Bodies, Ourselves by Boston Women's Health Collective
Prince of Tides by Pat Conroy
Revolting Rhymes by Roald Dahl
Scary Stories 3: More Tales to Chill Your Bones by Alvin Schwartz
Scary Stories in the Dark by Alvin Schwartz
Separate Peace by John Knowles
Silas Marner by George Eliot
Slaughte rhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
The Bastard by John Jakes
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
The Devil's Alternative by Frederick Forsyth The Figure in the Shadows by John Bellairs
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood
The Headless Cupid by Zilpha Snyder
The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks
The Living Bible by William C. Bower
The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare
The New Teenage Body Book by Kathy McCoy and Charles Wibbelsman
The Pigman by Paul Zindel
The Seduction of Peter S. by Lawrence Sanders
The Shining by Stephen King
The Witches by Roald Dahl
The Witches of Worm by Zilpha Snyder
Then Again, Maybe I Won't by Judy Blume
To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Twelfth Night by William Shakespeare
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary by the Merriam-Webster Editorial Staff
Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth
Palin Derangement Syndrome strikes again. This time it's hysterical librarians and their readers on the Internet disseminating a bogus list of books Gov. Sarah Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Looks like some of these library people failed reading comprehension. Take a look at the list below and you'll find books Gov. Palin supposedly tried to ban...that hadn't even been published yet. Example: The Harry Potter books, the first of which wasn't published until 1998.The smear merchants who continue to circulate the list also failed to do a simple Google search, which would have showed them that the bogus Sarah Palin Banned Book List is almost an exact copy-and-paste reproduction of a generic list of "Books Banned at One Time or Another in the United States" that has been floating around the Internet for years. STACLU notes that the official Obama campaign website is also perpetuating the fraud. And it's spread to craigslist, where some unhinged user is posting images likening Palin to Hitler. Here it is again.
The person who first spread the Palin smear is identified as "Andrew Aucoin," a commenter on the blog of librarian Jessamyn West. West has done the right thing in keeping the bogus comment up and pointing out in her main post that "there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up."
It's a fake. Not true. Total B.S. A lie.
If it gets sent to you by a moonbat friend or family member, set 'em all straight. Fight the smears. They've only just begun.
Librarian Jessamyn West expresses her concern for sourcing here:
note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. ... There appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.
Emma, on Jessamyn's site, makes this point:
# Emma Says: September 6th, 2008 at 7:21I imagine somewhere in these 200+ comments, someone has already pointed out that the Harry Potter books couldn't possibly have been on Palin's banned books wish list in 1996, which of course calls the whole list in to question.
I don't really doubt that Palin wanted to ban books, but why make up a list that's so easily proven false? It certainly doesn't do us Democrats any good.
Walter Reed Army Middle School
Whoops, wrong photo behind McCain!
(I think this might've been the building they were looking for.)
The Old College Try
A story making the rounds this week was how Palin went to a bunch of colleges. Nicholas K. Geranios writes for the AP that she seems to have switched colleges six times in six years. Woooooo!:
According to a biography -- "Sarah" by Kaylene Johnson -- Palin and three friends went to the University of Hawaii at Hilo after graduation from high school in Alaska in 1982. But they left after a few weeks because of the constant rain there, the book said.The registrar at Hawaii-Hilo has no record that she ever enrolled, school officials said Thursday.
Palin, then known as Sarah Louise Heath, and a friend then traveled to Honolulu and enrolled at Hawaii Pacific University, a private, nonsectarian school. She attended only as a freshman during the fall of 1982, school spokeswoman Crystale Lopez said.
She was in the business administration program as a full-time student, Lopez said Thursday.
"We're trying to track down someone who knew her," Lopez added.
From Hawaii Pacific, Palin transferred to North Idaho College, a two-year school in Coeur d'Alene, about 30 miles east of Spokane. She attended the college as a general studies major for two semesters, in spring 1983 and fall 1983, spokeswoman Stacy Hudson said.
...From North Idaho College, Palin transferred 70 miles south to the University of Idaho, the state's flagship institution. She majored in journalism with an emphasis in broadcast news. She attended Idaho, whose mascot is the Vandals, from fall 1984 to spring 1985.
She then returned to Alaska to attend Matanuska-Susitna College in Palmer in fall 1985.
Then she returned to Idaho, for spring 1986, fall 1986 and spring 1987, when she graduated.
And we should care about this why? Forget whether you like Palin or not, stuff like this takes the focus off the issues. Were you ever around 20? If I remember correctly, it's a time you try a lot of stuff out, maybe even change your mind a lot.
And actually, what the story does show is that she follows through on what she starts. Okay, she had a few hops around, but the lady did graduate.
And I say that as somebody who's very much against a number of things she's for -- but for a campaign that's about what matters.
Step On A Tax...
Break a poor single mother's back. A disgusting example of protectionism I bet you didn't know about. I sure didn't. From a Wall Street Journal editorial, they ask "Who wins when we impose tariffs even if there are no American jobs to defend?"
With the exception of high-end footwear, more than 95% of the shoes Americans wear are produced outside the U.S. Yet the U.S. still imposes a tax on imported shoes that can reach as high as 67%, a legacy (believe it or not) of the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930. Shoe tariffs raise more money than auto tariffs, and the tax is applied most heavily on the lowest-priced imported footwear."This is the most regressive policy in America today," says Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute. "The biggest victims are poor, single mothers." He's right. The tariff steals about $5 billion a year from U.S. consumers, and a family that shops at Payless or Wal-Mart typically pays a $5 duty on a $15 pair of sneakers.
As with all tariffs, this one also creates perverse winners. Under current trade law, tariffs on fabric-soled shoes are only about one-third as high as tariffs on rubber-soled shoes. So one company, E.S. Originals of New York, has a patent for a process to imbed fabric into rubber soles. The sole purpose of this process is to get around the higher tariff. Shoe companies spend $40 million a year on royalties to pay for the imbedding technology -- which is an income transfer from low-income Americans to one company. One of the firms lobbying for retaining shoe tariffs is . . . E.S. Originals.
...We hear that Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel would like to repeal the tariff but feels constrained because under Congressional rules he'd have to raise taxes or cut spending by $2 billion a year to replace the lost revenue. Congress could always save the $2 billion by spending less, but it's politically so much easier to reduce the standard of living of working families by keeping an unjust tax.
Teddy Goes To Siberia
My friend Kate Coe's 21-year-old son Ted is in Russia and is blogging about it here. Here's one of his posts I found interesting:
Russians perceived outside of Russia always conjurs up images of frozen people, huddled together for warmth with icicles hanging from their nostrils all listening to some public speaker haraunging on about the evils of one thing or another. When he is done they go back to their little homes, whether or not its a big apartment building or not is irrelevant because the apartments are still tiny, once there they eat some bland soup drink plenty of vodka, and then settle down for a long nights rest.I was too young to ever visit the Soviet Union before it collapsed so I cannot say wether this interpretation of Russia is correct. But what I can say is what Russia is like today, and modern Russians would have shocked their grandfathers right out of their felt boots.
Young Russians today have wisened up to the games of their adults, they all have the trait of someone who has been misled for so long, even the ones born after 1990 because they still feel the after effects of the parent's ridiculous desicions to build ugly as sin buildings and drive cars with the same amount of styling as a trash compacter. And they're bitter and confused because of it. They seem upset that they're forced to live around such hideous buildings and confusing engineerings desicions but at the same time they're relieved that they're now earning enough money to put giant tiger decals on their Lada's or wear shirts with Americanesque logos printed on them.Like the kid who gets to watch the adult TV show for the first time, young Russians are feeling the power of having money in their pocket, and for those who can spend it, they buy the most outlandish and over stylized things they can find. Needless to say, pointy shoes and mind numbing electronic music are in vogue, but thats the norm in Europe so no biggy. Imagine that model of a Russian I mentioned earlier, a frozen solid fuzzy man; kids today are the opposite, flexible, pink t-shirts and rat tail hairdo's. In a sense, young Russians are going through a sort of cultural revolution of style. Trying to show the rest of the world what Russia has become, how its changed. Proving to themselves and their peers that what happened in Russia before can't happen again because of the cool clothes they wear, how much of individuals they are, but they're trying to combat a dead enemy, while another creeps in, nationalism.
Were You A Teen Sex Offender?
It really doesn't take much. No, you don't have to expose yourself to little children, or molest some neighbor's 7-year-old. In some states, you can just have sex with your teenaged girlfriend. Hot, horny consenting sex with a girl just about your age.
Now, this is night and day away from being some adult sex predator who preys on children. But, lately, a couple of horny teens get it on in the wrong state, and one kid's life can be ruined forever. Check out what happened to this kid, who apparently believed a girl who lied about her age:
Ricky and Amanda met at an Iowa teen club on a Saturday night in December of 2005. Ricky was 16 and Amanda told him she was nearly the same age. They got to talking, learned they were from the same town outside the area and hit it off. They started dating and had sex on two occasions, definitely not the right thing for kids that age to do, but not uncommon. It ended when Amanda told Ricky's mother she was only 14 and asked her not to reveal this to Ricky. Actually, she was 13.Several months later Amanda ran away from home. At the urging of the friend she was staying with, she contacted the police and told them she was afraid to go home. The police picked her up and took her home.
Ricky was questioned by police and acknowledged that he did have sex with Amanda on two occasions but that this ended when he learned that Amanda had deceived him about her age. Ricky and his mother met with Amanda's parents to discuss the situation. Given the circumstances, Amanda's parents weren't interested in pressing charges. But the District Attorney had different ideas. On May 3 Ricky, now 17, was arrested, charged with two felony counts of third degree sexual abuse and found himself in jail.
The public defender that represented Ricky made it clear that going to trial could very well result in a 20 year prison term for the sexual abuse felonies he was charged with. Ricky was advised that if he pled guilty to one count of lewd or lascivious acts with a child, there would be a deferred judgment, he would not have to state a felony conviction on job applications and he would not have to register as a sex offender. But minutes before the plea hearing, Ricky was informed that the laws in Iowa had just changed and that the plea deal would include the requirement that he be registered as a sex offender for a period of 10 years. He wept at this devastating news but decided to take the plea deal anyway to avoid the possibility of a long prison term. A deferred judgment was issued on the charge of lewd or lascivious acts with a child and Ricky was sentenced to two years probation and was registered as a sex offender.
Ricky's family left Iowa and returned to Oklahoma where they had previously lived. Because of the three year age difference between Ricky and Amanda, Oklahoma law required that Ricky register as an aggravated lifetime sex offender. Shortly thereafter, in response to federal incentives created by the Adam Walsh Act, Oklahoma adopted a law requiring Ricky to be registered for life with tier 3 predator status, which is reserved for the most dangerous sex offenders. When the Oklahoma authorities became aware of Ricky's sex offender status, he was removed from high school. He's prohibited from being in the presence of children other than his younger brother. He can't go near schools, day care centers or parks. His brother, age 11, can't bring friends into their home. (If his brother had been a girl, Ricky would have been removed from his home.) His social life has been destroyed. He's been ostracized, taunted, harassed and videotaped by neighbors and members of his community. He flees when spoken to by girls his age. His identity has been devastated. He's lost his sense of security, his expectations for any kind of normal life and his ability to trust.
Prior to this tragic series of events, Ricky had planned to join the Navy and ultimately to pursue a career in law enforcement. With the assistance of an Oklahoma legislator, he was given the opportunity to earn his GED. His life now consists of studying online at home for a college degree and caring for his mother who has recently lost all of her vision. Despite the obvious obstacles, Ricky now hopes to someday become an Attorney.
Lawmakers have taken a "get tough" stand on sex offenses. The resulting polices have had serious unintended consequences. We as a society feel very strongly about protecting our children from sexual predators, and we should. But when this public zeal crates political incentives to enact policies that create the kind of tragedy we see in Ricky's life, we are reminded that popular outrage is not a reasonable foundation for sound and effective legislation. We as citizens of this nation must look more deeply at the complete set of implications that go along with legislation, considering not only the strength and toughness of the laws we adopt, but the justice that will or will not result when these laws are applied to the real situations that occur in our society. Society pays a price when we recklessly overreach in creating tough laws on hot button issues. Most of us pay none of it, but bask in the sense of security it brings. The price is paid by a small minority, in denominations of human lives. There isn't a single politician who's worried about losing the votes of people like Ricky and his family. When the broader community fails to rise up against such injustices, we ensure that they will persist. In this democracy it is we, the people, who are ultimately accountable.
I'm totally behind going after pedophiles. Going after kids playing doctor, engaging in horseplay or teens having consensual sex...it's just nuts, and a life-ruiner, and at age not noteworthy for its great wisdom.
Classically Liberal lays out a few examples. Say, for example, two lovebird teens, one, 17, and one, 16, have sex in Alaska, where the age of consent is 16. No crime, no time. But CL asks:
What would have happened had the young couple in question engaged in youthful sexuality in Arizona? There the young man would become both a "father-to-be" and a felon at the same time. Any sexual act by an 18-year-old and a 17-year-old is a felony in Arizona, even if the girl's mother is running for vice president of the United States.In California the young man would be guilty of a crime, though only a misdemeanor. But he would still be guilty of a "sex crime". In Florida the boy is also a sex felon unless he could prove that the girl wasn't "chaste" before they had sex. In Illinois the young man is also a sex criminal though it is also a misdemeanour there.
In Idaho the young man would be a felon as well. In Texas the young man has committed a crime but has an affirmative defense provided he didn't use force at the time, wasn't more than three years older than the "victim", and if the "victim" was of the opposite sex. In other words, if the two young people were gay then the older one would be a 'sexual predator" but isn't a "predator" if the younger partner is of the opposite sex. (What did you expect? It's Texas.)
...Does any reasonable person actually think that the young man is a "sex offender" and should be treated as one? Few do. In this case he wants to marry his sweetheart and they will raise the child. That's nice and I wish them well. Even their religious supporters say they are doing the right thing. But those same supporters, in various states, put laws on the books which would mandate the young man's arrest, imprisonment and his joining the sex registry database, if this had happened there.
Does anyone actually think that would be a good thing? Would that be good for (the girl)? Would that be good for the baby? Would this somehow make our society safer? Would the young man actually benefit in any way? Would anyone, anywhere, actually get any benefit of any kind if that were to happen? No. But point that out and you are accused of being soft on pedophiles -- even when the cases have absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia, such as this one.
Roving For Consistency
Jon Stewart's researchers go at it on O'Reilly and O'Rove and O'Hannity and some old Democrat Dick -- all of them going for The Peggy Noonan Award:
Just Another Politician
Palin, writes Timothy Noah, hates big government -- except when it's her state feeding at the trough (links within his piece are live at the Slate link above):
Please take a moment to look at this U.S. Census chart showing federal-government expenditures, per capita, in the 50 states. You will observe that Alaska receives about $14,000 per citizen from the federal government. That's more than any other state, and a good $4,000 more than every other state except Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico, and North Dakota. The chart is from the Census Bureau's Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2005. I skipped over the 2006 report, the most recent one available, because Hurricane Katrina put Louisiana and Mississippi ahead of Alaska that year. But that's an anomaly. Alaska held the per-capita record for sucking on the federal teat in 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, and 2000. According to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, Alaska gets back $1.84 for every dollar it pays into the U.S. Treasury--even though Alaska enjoys a higher per-capita income than 34 of the 50 states. This is a state that preaches right-wing libertarianism while it practices middle-class socialism.Palin has not bucked this venerable tradition. It's been widely reported that even though Palin came out against the federally funded, $223 million "bridge to nowhere," a wasteful Alaska earmark (and one she'd supported before it created an uproar in Congress), Alaska ended up receiving the same amount of federal money as transportation funds to be spent at the state's own discretion. When Palin was mayor of Wasilla, she hired the former chief of staff to Sen. Ted Stevens, the recently indicted dean of the Alaska congressional delegation, to lobby for the town (pop. 6,700)--which, as a result, wound up receiving nearly $27 million in federal earmarks over four years. As governor, Palin just this past February sent Stevens a memo outlining $200 million in new funding requests. Granted, Palin enjoys inexplicably warm relations with the secessionist Alaska Independence Party, whose founder's anti-Americanism, Rosa Brooks points out in the Los Angeles Times, puts Rev. Jeremiah Wright in the shade. ("The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government," he told an interviewer in 1991--a year when Republicans controlled the White House and U.S. troops went into battle to free Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.) But there's little real danger that Alaska would ever choose to secede from the Lower 48. Independence would cost it too much in lost federal revenue.
Can anybody name anybody in government who doesn't just pretend they're a fiscal conservative, but actually is one? Anybody you'd vote for for president of V.P., for that matter?
The Royal Wee
photo by Gregg Sutter
Liar, Liar, Mike's On Fire
Peggy Noonan says one thing in scripted form -- and quite another when she doesn't know the microphone's hot.
Here's what I'll call "The Before Story," Noonan on Palin, which I read sometime this afternoon in the WSJ:
Because she jumbles up so many cultural categories, because she is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist; because she wears makeup and heels and eats mooseburgers and is Alaska Tough, as Time magazine put it; because she is conservative, and pro-2nd Amendment and pro-life; and because conservatives can smell this sort of thing -- who is really one of them and who is not -- and will fight to the death for one of their beleaguered own; because of all of this she is a real and present danger to the American left, and to the Obama candidacy.
Via LAObserved, from the LATimes political blog Top Of The Ticket, an accident in honesty.
Noonan says McCain's pick of Palin means "it's over." "The race is over."
"Is she the most qualified woman...?" Murphy asks.
"The most qualified?" Noonan responds. "No. I think they went for the, excuse me, political bullshit about narratives. (unintelligible) ...Every time Republicans do that, because that's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."
Whoops! (To borrow from Joan Crawford) Peggy, get the mop!
And she does, backtracking, not only on her remarks on Palin, but most notably, for appearing to be human while appearing on TV. (I like Noonan a lot more as a human than when she sounds like a first grade teacher going all profound.) She writes in her WSJ post-open-mike mea culpa:
In our off-air conversation, I got on the subject of the leaders of the Republican party assuming, now, that whatever the base of the Republican party thinks is what America thinks. I made the case that this is no longer true, that party leaders seem to me stuck in the assumptions of 1988 and 1994, the assumptions that reigned when they were young and coming up. "The first lesson they learned is the one they remember," I said to Todd -- and I'm pretty certain that is a direct quote. But, I argued, that's over, those assumptions are yesterday, the party can no longer assume that its base is utterly in line with the thinking of the American people. And when I said, "It's over!" -- and I said it more than once -- that is what I was referring to. I am pretty certain that is exactly what Todd and Murphy understood I was referring to. In the truncated version of the conversation, on the Web, it appears I am saying the McCain campaign is over. I did not say it, and do not think it. In fact, at an on-the-record press symposium on the campaign on Monday, when all of those on the panel were pressed to predict who would win, I said that I didn't know, but that we just might find "This IS a country for old men." That is, McCain may well win. I do not think the campaign is over, I do not think this is settled, and did not suggest, back to the Todd-Murphy conversation, that "It's over."However, I did say two things that I haven't said in public, either in speaking or in my writing. One is a vulgar epithet that I wish I could blame on the mood of the moment but cannot. No one else, to my memory, swore. I just blurted.
Peggy, there are men all over America right now who'd give, I dunno, something pretty good, just to hear you say "fuck."
Pissed Away
One more reason why the L.A. Times is hemorrhaging readers -- their dirty words policy. They won't even allow "pissed off" in the paper.
And here are a few bits from their dirty words regulations:
Guidelines on Obscenity and Taste IssuesObscenities, profanity, vulgarities and coarse language, even in their milder forms, should not be used in The Times - in print or online - unless they are germane to the essence of a story.
The Times will adhere to a conservative standard on the use of such terms; attempts to be merely colorful, vivid, clever or conversational, or to reflect common practices of other media, do not meet that standard.
Oh, you mean to be fun and interesting? No...perish forbid! Wouldn't want that.
Here's why first-person pieces they run are often super-boring:
Communicating effectively across our varied audiences often means differences in content, voice and style on the website, but not lower standards. For Web content, the practices of the printed paper generally apply in straight news stories. This is also true of most feature material, but here a less formal voice may sometimes be appropriate. In columns and blogs, conversational style is encouraged, and more slang and informal language is acceptable; it should not, however, be offensive to a typical reader. User-generated content is moderated but not edited, and is granted wide leeway in style and expression. However, submissions containing vulgar, offensive or illegal comments will be rejected. Similarly, we will not link to external websites that include nudity, excessive obscenity or other objectionable content.
Oh, and that end bit is why they aren't likely to link to my website! Or, for example, highly trafficked sites like Gawker, where I found the link to this silly policy. Gawker's Ryan Tate writes:
And yet newsroom "leaders" just spent 18 months in a fucking (ahem) committee debating what swears LATimes.com bloggers should be allowed to use, and when. The byzantine machinations involved some sort of appeal to a "ruling" of a special committee about some formal guidelines, and of course resulted in a tedious and useless memo that should make anyone who ever cared about the once-great newspaper want to slit his wrists. Its insufferable, self-indulgent stupidity lies after the jump. Oh, and it basically says no one can use "pissed off" because it's crude and might tarnish the LA Times's sterling image in the remaining months before the paper's now-all-but-inevitable collapse.
A bit more of what they came to at the LA Times after their 18-months dirty words summit:
We acknowledge that a wide range of vulgarities are commonplace on the Internet and elsewhere, but we intend to maintain a much higher standard. We may describe and report on people whose speech is obscene, profane, crude or crass, but we should avoid doing so at their level. When in doubt, think conservatively. The overall goal is to maintain a clean, dignified and civil tone in all writing, in the paper and on the website.
You go, girl! (Queen Victoria, girl!)
Meanwhile, a friend e-mailed me last night to point out, here the LAT is firing reporters by the gross, and they've got TWO readers' reps? Right.
Standards and practices, baby, standards and practices.
Gotta have a full staff to explain why they can't talk pussy in the paper -- except, of course, when writers inexplicably, and in a way that's not the least bit funny, sneak cunning linguist past the pussy police.
Fly Retro
Remember the days when the job of the customer service rep was, most bizarrely, to...serve the customer?
I read this on Consumerist.com, a story about how Southwest Air had a mechanical problem, and, in the wake of it, treated the passengers like valued customers.
One of their reps actually apologized and explained what went wrong (as did the pilot on the plane) and included a $175 voucher for every passenger to compensate them for their two-hour delay. The rep's letter follows:
I'm sorry for the unexpected circumstances surrounding the disruption of your Aug 10 flight from Oakland. In addition to my apologies, I'd like to provide you with some information about what happened that afternoon.Shortly after takeoff, the Pilots received a low pressure indication for one of the two independent hydraulic systems (A&B) on the aircraft. In response to this situation the Captain returned to have the aircraft inspected. In this case, the problem was with the A hydraulic System - there was a fluid leak. After speaking with our Maintenance Department, I learned that the supply line which helps operate one of the movable panels on the aircraft's wing surface was leaking hydraulic fluid, and as such, the corresponding line was then replaced to fix the problem.
Thank you for your patience while alternate flight arrangements were made to continue your trip. With the hope that you will grant us the opportunity to prove there are better experiences to have with us, I'm sending a LUV Voucher to each person who was onboard your flight that we invite you to apply toward future Southwest reservations. We truly appreciate your valued patronage, and we look forward to welcoming you back again real soon.
Kind Regards
Melissa ChalupaEnclose : One Southwest LUV Voucher.
Another example from the comments below the Consumerist post:
Rachacha at 09:24 PM on 08/31/08I recently was waiting at the airport for a coleague who was coming in from another city, and decided to wait for him at one of the southwest terminals. On this particular day, there was a large weather front that was delaying almost every flight into and out of the mid-west, and it had a trickle down effect, so almost every flight on every airline was delayed. The gate that I was waiting at, had a plane that also had a mechanical issue, and caused further delay, but I was very impressed with how everything was handled:
1) The PILOT got on the intercom for the gate and relayed what he knew about the problem, and advised pasengers that a mechanic was coming to assess the situation. He advised that he would come back in about 15 minutes and update the status.
2) 15 minutes later the Pilot was again back, and advised that the problem was severe, but that he had already contacted corporate and they were going to "steal" a plane destined for another flight (and corporate would get a replacement aircraft in ASAP so they would have the correct plane allocations) He thanked everyone for their patience, and then tried to lift everyone's spirits by saying that the pilot from the previous flight would be de-planing soon and he was the one that "broke" the plane, so everyone should "Boo" him when he gets off the plane. All of the passengers applauded him for his transparency in the issue, and the fact that he was taking a personal interest in the problem.
3) A few minutes later, the pilot from the previous flight deplanes, all of the passengers "boo" and then crack a smile, and the 2 pilots exchange a few (friendly) words..."Yeah, well at least I don't go around breaking someone else's plane..."
4) About 5 minutes later the pilot comes on the waiting area intercom again, and says that they have secured a new plane, and asked everyone to proceed to the new gate. Again everyone applauded and had a smile on their face, even though they were delayed by more than 2.5 hours because of weather and mechanical delays.
Moral to the story...keep the passengers informed and they will remain happy, keep them in the dark and they will turn into an angry mob.
Humor counts, too. They actually have some on Southwest. Rare deal in airplanes and airports these days.
Not Tan Enough To Speak Out
I continue to be attacked by the left for what they perceive as racism. Here, on the American Prospect's blog, some twit named Adam Serwer (not "sewer," but close) posted this:
...Palin's daughter intends to marry the father of her child, but I don't really understand why someone who isn't quite as fortunate as her should be subject to the kind of degrading, sometimes violent language used on the right when discussing single moms, especially when the moms in question are black.
That link on "violent language used on the right" goes to a blog item of mine, "Is It Racist If I Say This?" in which I trick-post this quote, which happens to be from the rather-more-tan-than-I-am blogger LaShawn Barber:
There is a crisis, to understate the matter, in the black community. About 75 percent (more in some cities) of black babies in the U.S. are born out-of-wedlock. That women should keep their legs closed until marriage is considered a naïve notion at best and a sexist/oppressive one at worst. Subversive is what it is.Some people are offended by the expression "keep your legs closed." Is it vulgar? Perhaps, but so is having babies with several different men without being married to any of them.
Of course, I personally don't believe in marriage, and would never get married or live with anyone, but I'm a 44-year-old who refers to herself as "BARREN!" When it comes to what I think you owe any child you bring into the world, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura.
Here are the comments I left for the American Prospect twit who decided my criticism of the black community's tacit approval (by not loudly disapproving) of women who have multiple daddyless children means I'm a hater:
SERWER: I don't really understand why someone who isn't quite as fortunate as her should be subject to the kind of degrading, sometimes violent language used on the right when discussing single moms, especially when the moms in question are black.First of all, I understand that you have a need to pigeonhole me as "on the right." Count me as probably the only "right-winger" who voted for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton in the last three elections.
I'm actually not so easily pigeonholeable, although there's a mob of "progressives" from an attack site that's determined to do just that to me, for speaking in a way unapproved by "progressives."
Furthermore, while I refer to the 24-year-old woman who had six different children by five different drug dealers as having a "litter," I use the same terminology to refer to 1. Rich white women who have lots of children, 2. Muslims who have lots of children, and 3. Catholics who have lots of children.
I know, leftythink is that mere mention of somebody being black is RACISM! And perish forbid that you should, you know, offer a little criticism of the vast parade of unwed mothers in the black community and suggest that children do better with daddies, or at least two parents, in the case of gay and lesbian families.
Why is this case different? Because Palin's daughter is a minor. Tarika Wilson was 24.
Also, Palin's daughter had one accidental pregnancy and is marrying the father. Tarika Wilson had six children from five different DRUG DEALER "daddies" -- none who stuck around -- and then she had the nerve to take up with yet another drug dealer, endangering her children. That you can't see the difference, or aren't interested in seeing the difference, disgusts me to my core.
And I have to say, many on the right are no fan of what I write. The difference is, they simply post blog items about what an idiot I am. The left, via SadlyNo, sent over the 7,000 dwarves to my site to punish me for speech unapproved by "progressives," to intimidate me from further speech unapproved by "progressives," and to wage psychological warfare against me: posting 30 page pieces of spam and mucking up my comments section with hundreds of posts asking whether I'm "a tranny."
That's right, fight perceived racism by using being transgendered as a form of denigration.
This whole thing has been a real lesson about the left for me. I know, not all leftists are like this, but people I know on the right keep telling me the left are the real fascists, and I used to laugh at that.
Guess what: I don't laugh at that anymore.
I left this comment later, quoting Alinsky's Ghost, another commenter there:
But clearly most of the effort at improving black society must come from within the community itself, from pastors, teachers, pundits, artists, and other notables as well as the wider population. They need to discuss and use the power of persuasion to promote more healthy values in terms of family but also in other areas. To quote Voltaire, as I often do in reference to my own shortcomings (not just those of others): "Do better, miserable humans!"Totally agree. And to that end, I started a program in an inner-city school near me, where I go talk to kids once a month to demystify making it.
When I'm there, I tell the girls that becoming pregnant as a teen or as an unmarried or unpartnered early 20-something will likely mean they and their child will live in poverty and suggest that they wait until they develop themselves and a career and a stable partnership in order to do things like the fun, exciting stuff I've talked about (I'm a newspaper columnist and author who first sold her own column to papers when the syndicators laughed at the idea. I talk about how, with hard work, you can accomplish much, etc.)
And I do this with skin the color of fresh Wite-Out to kids who are mostly black and Latino. Yet, once again, I find myself, here above, being painted as some hateful racist -- simply because I recognize a problem and write about it, and simply because I'm actually not a racist, and thus refuse to do the leftist language pussyfoot around an issue simply because it involves people with skin more tan than mine.
I'm reminded of the time that I was once accused of being anti-semitic because I mentioned, in a bit on freedom and control, how you see Cubans floating here in their retrofitted cars, but you don't see, say, Jewish grannies floating off to Cuba in their big yellow Cadillacs: "Oy, Irving! I forgot my heart medication back at the condo!"
I got an e-mail from an older Jewish couple: "How dare you use your column as a platform for anti-semitism?"
I wrote back something along the lines of: "Shalom! If I am anti-semitic, I learned it at Temple Beth El. That's my bubbie I'm writing about, who drove a big yellow Cadillac around Pompano Beach. I thought she'd get a kick out of appearing in my column -- which she did. Mere mention that somebody is Jewish is not anti-semitism."
Likewise, criticizing the black community for not coming out more and saying children need daddies doesn't mean I'm racist.
And doing so doesn't change the fact that I am against our drug laws and think it's reprehensible that the police did a SWAT raid on a house with six children in it.
Finally, a note for those of you who spotted a comment here linked back to The Rogue Voice the other day, using the moniker "Some Hypocrite who is not transgendered."
That comment actually did not come from Stacey Warde, the Rogue Voice blogger. First of all, it turns out that he is at a different IP address. And when I contacted him to ask why a guy who wrote this:
"It's simple. Treat your enemies with respect. Love your neighbor and your enemy....I'll be voting for candidates who treasure the world and the people in it, who see others as themselves and wouldn't think of dehumanizing and degrading them."
...would join in the Sadly Pathetic campaign to punish me for speech not approved by "progressives," he wrote, "I have plenty of enemies, some of whom have done worse things than use my name to say nasty things," and also this:
Amy:Clearly you went to some trouble to find out a little bit about me, and from what you've read, I'd hope that you would realize I did not write or send the offensive comment. It's not me. I don't even know what was said.
My concern is that someone is using my email address to post material that I would never write or claim. Any information that you can provide in that respect will help me to eliminate the problem. Thank you.
I guess he offended the little SadlyPathetic turds, too. Which, although we're not exactly political peas in a pod, makes me like him instantly.
Class Half Empty
It's the restaurant refill issue, the topic in my Advice Goddess column I just posted. Here's the question:
My wife and I are newlyweds. We went to breakfast, and I ordered coffee, and she said she wanted only water. The waitress kept refilling my coffee. A couple times, my wife took sips. The waitress asked if she wanted coffee, and she declined. The manager also asked politely, "Nothing to drink for the lady, just water?" Later, my wife took another sip. I told her it wasn't proper to keep drinking from my coffee, and she should've ordered her own. Now I'm the bad guy. Her comments before she refused to talk to me at all were that the rudeness was "all in (my) own mind," and, "What are they gonna do, throw us in jail?" and, "You're just criticizing me to put me down." Was I wrong?--Doghoused
And here's an excerpt from my answer:
Why not take home the silverware and condiments, and maybe a chair or two? After all, they do say "Let me show you to your seats." And why order food at all? After the guy at the next booth gets up without finishing his breaded veal chop, just reach over and grab it. When the waitress comes around, say, "Thanks, just water for me, and a nice empty plate. Oh, and would you mind heating this up?"Does the corner diner really need to bring in a legal team to have you sign off on the terms of your breakfast? ("Initial here: Drink refills are per person purchasing a beverage.") Life is filled with unwritten rules, "social norms," that everybody just knows and follows -- which is why, even without signs all over the diner, when nature calls, you don't see some guy striding up to the pastry case, unzipping, and doing his business down the side.
Is a little beverage grifting really such a big deal? You could argue that a $2 cup of coffee sets the restaurant back about 10 cents -- that is, if they give you the dry stuff and you brew it over a fire and drink it on a park bench from a cup you pulled out of the garbage. The restaurant owner's got a right to charge $65 a cup if he wants, and if you've got a problem with that, well, collect some cockroaches, hire a busboy, and yell "eggseasytoastbacon!" at home.
Comments on this entry are open here, where the entire column is posted.
No, I Don't Think You Get To Have It All
People take different paths. Some choose to be parents. I did not. I don't have the desire to have a child or children, and I recognize the enormous responsibility involved. For me, once you have a kid, you lose your right to put you first.
That's one of my problems with Sarah Palin.
Now, I know, there will be mad screeching in the comments below...am I saying that a woman can't have a family and a high-powered career and do justice to both? Probably not. Not unless the commercial fisherman husband, for example, is doing as my friend Glenn Sacks did when his and his wife's kids were small: being their stay-at-home parent while his wife worked nine-to-five.
Palin has FIVE children, including a very young daughter and a special needs newborn -- and now a grandson on the way, being born to one of her children. Okay, V.P. is a really big, really cool job, and she really, really wants it. Daddy, she's thinking, can dock the boat for four years and change diapers.
The thing is, I think, once you have kids, there's really no turning back. You have to make sacrifices -- say, when your 17-year-old daughter gets knocked up, and your accepting the V.P. nod will make her a public figure in a way that she probably found totally unimaginable until it actually happened. As I wrote yesterday, it's bad enough when your whole high school is whispering about you. When your picture is making the news internationally, and for true ugliness, when Daily Kos is doing it...ugh.
I have to mention it again: Don't these reprehensible lefty bloggers get that a teenager is off-limits? I don't care if her mother is the next Adolf Hitler, Che Guevara and Pol Pot all rolled into one. She's a minor child who's only in the news because of the political aspirations of her mother. LEAVE HER ALONE.
Oh, and for the record, I felt just as sorry for Monica Lewinsky, to whom I wrote a sympathy note when her HBO special aired, saying something along the lines of "We all do really dumb things in our 20s. The only difference is, yours was covered by the international press." Bill Clinton was the villain in that deal. If you want to have an affair while in The Oval Office, be smart and do it with some mature married broad with something to lose -- not some ga-ga-eyed intern.
Back to Palin, I am opposed to a number of the woman's views. But, most of all, I don't agree with the view that you can can have five children and be mommy and governor or mommy and V.P. or mommy and president at the same time, and do both jobs adequately. And sorry, once you make that choice to leave the Trojan's on the night table, mommy comes first.
Yes, of course it's cool that she's a pro-guns hottie who shoots moose and all that, and has a he-man husband, and that she either does or doesn't have a track record of refusing earmarks and going after corruption (there are conflicting reports). It would be cooler, however, if she took responsibility for the kids she created and told McCain "maybe next time" -- even if it seemed there might never be a next time.
UPDATE: I'm not a mother, but my good friend Nancy Rommelmann is, and she's with me on this, on LAObserved, in "Go Home, Sarah Palin." An excerpt:
This is one time I think the candidate should step down to spend more time with her family. A cursory look at Sarah Palin's personal life, details of which are exploding as from an overripe papaya:· She's the mother of an infant
· She has four other kids
· Her 17-year-old daughter is pregnant
· She may have canned an official who refused to can her brother-in-lawThat her husband has a decades-old DUI, I don't see as fair game. He's a grown man and she's not in charge of what he did as a 22-year-old. She does, as a mother, have untold responsibilities to her kids. You know how much work an infant is? Not much, but it's a ton of time, as a baby tends to have needs at any and all and often inconvenient times. Okay, so maybe she farms out that part of the mothering job; she gets a nanny. She can also hire cooks and drivers and tutors, so the day-to-day family stuff is taken care of. But the kids still need attention, and if you think older kids don't, I will only say: ha. My 18-year-old daughter called me yesterday from JFK airport in New York (I'm in Portland, Oregon). She was in the back of a cab and wanted to know how to get to downtown Brooklyn.
"Just tell the cabbie to take whatever way has less traffic at this hour," I told her.
"But he's asking me which way," she said, sounding cranky from the red-eye flight, maybe feeling a little unsafe, unsure.
And this kid's not pregnant. Anybody out there remember the first time she was pregnant, the 100,000 questions, the fears and tears? If you were seventeen and living at home with your parents, whom would you ask? And expect to answer you? Do you farm this out, too?
One More Reason To Feel Confident About John McCain
I just loved reading this. From The New York Times, by Elisabeth Bumiller, dated Monday, September 1 (kind of like completing your homework after you turn it in):
Aides to Mr. McCain said they had a team on the ground in Alaska now to look more thoroughly into Ms. Palin's background. A Republican with ties to the campaign said the team assigned to vet Ms. Palin in Alaska had not arrived there until Thursday, a day before Mr. McCain stunned the political world with his vice-presidential choice. The campaign was still calling Republican operatives as late as Sunday night asking them to go to Alaska to deal with the unexpected candidacy of Ms. Palin.Although the McCain campaign said that Mr. McCain had known about Bristol Palin's pregnancy before he asked her mother to join him on the ticket and that he did not consider it disqualifying, top aides were vague on Monday about how and when he had learned of the pregnancy, and from whom.
And if you believe that, can I interest you in a nice A.R.M. on that nice big bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn?
The Squeaky Wheel
What's Worse Than Having Everybody In Your High School Talking About You?
Having a good part of the western world doing it, like some on the left are to Palin's poor teenage daughter.
Amanda Carpenter writes about it on TownHall, starting with a blogger's sick shout-out to Governor Palin:
"Sarah, I'm calling you a liar" wrote blogger ArcXIX. "And not even a good one. Trig Paxson Van Palin is not your son. He is your grandson. The sooner you come forward with this revelation to the public, the better. " Photos of Bristol with detailed commentary about her abdomen are contained in the post.Not only is the DailyKos disgustingly inspecting Bristol's midriff with all the fervor of LA paparazzi examining J-Lo's or Jennifer Aniston's washboard stomachs for evidence of a "bump," the DailyKos is wrong on when the photo was taken. It was taken, and published, by the Anchorage Daily News in 2006. Baby Trig, a child with Down's Syndrome, was born on April 18, 2008. That's a long time for a teen girl to be carrying a "bump" which looks nothing more than the curve of a tight sweater.
Just a thought: Do girls who are pregnant and hoping to keep it a secret wear form-fitting clothes in photos for their Momma's website? And wouldn't a woman who wasn't pregnant but wanted to appear so run around with a little stuffing in her pantyhose?
Leave the kid alone. Let's just hope she's made of stronger stuff than that girl who killed herself after just one adult harassed her on the web.
Interfaith Dialogue, Islamic-Style
Britain's leading Muslims say they are fighting extremism. When the press goes away, the reality is a bit different. Reporter Sara Hassan went undercover to get the real story -- as a follow-up to the original "Undercover Mosque," a show condemned for "damaging community relations" by West Midlands Police, who sought to prosecute the producers and Channel 4/UK under racial hatred laws.
Of course, Hassan's report finds that nothing, really, has changed. She writes in The Telegraph/UK of a vile and barbaric talk a Muslim woman preacher gave -- at Regent's Park Mosque in London, "widely considered the most important mosque in Britain":
Adulterers, she says, are to be stoned to death - and as for homosexuals, and women who "make themselves like a man, a woman like a man ... the punishment is kill, kill them, throw them from the highest place".These punishments, the preacher says, are to be implemented in a future Islamic state. "This is not to tell you to start killing people," she continues. "There must be a Muslim leader, when the Muslim army becomes stronger, when Islam has grown enough."
A young female student from the group interrupts her: the punishment should also be to stone the homosexuals to death, once they have been thrown from a high place.
These are teachings I never expected to hear inside Regent's Park Mosque, which is supposedly committed to interfaith dialogue and moderation, and was set up more than 60 years ago, to represent British Muslims to the Government. And many of those listening were teenage British girls or, even more disturbingly, young children.
...But although the circle does preach against terrorism and does not incite Muslims to break British laws, it teaches Muslims to "keep away" and segregate themselves from disbelievers: "Islam is keeping away from disbelief and from the disbelievers, the people who disbelieve."
Friendship with non-Muslims is discouraged because "loyalty is only to the Muslim, not to the kaffir [disbeliever]".
A woman who was friendly with a non-Muslim woman was heavily criticised: "It's part of Islam, of the correct belief, that you love those who love Allah and that you hate those who hate Allah."
Yeah, some of the Muslims talk a good game, but it's not like those Christian and Jewish interfaith exchanges. Correct me if your experience is different, but it seems that the Christian and Jewish leaders at interfaith events actually want to eliminate friction and increase understanding between the groups. As a post-Jewish atheist, I can attest that that's what the Jews say, anyway, even after all the Christians leave the room.
Meanwhile, here we have a Muslim view from Hassan's piece -- again, from the leading mosque in Britain:
Regent's Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year.I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque's women's circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn't there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue.
One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: "What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it's an abomination." As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: "This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce."
Ugly, ugly stuff.
But, is there anything they can do in the U.K.? Without turning the place into a police state, that is. Or is it, as I suspect, too late? These Muslims are there, they're breeding and breeding hate, and converting others to the fold.
via JihadWatch
