I saw this news story today:
"A gimmicky snack bearing a caricature of US President Barack Obama making a peace sign has gone on sale in Indonesia, but worried consumer activists are already calling for it to be banned.
The "Obama" snack packet shows a grinning Obama making a peace sign with his right hand and spinning the globe like a basketball on the fingers of his left hand."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.e51d3128469e20a697ca763ff37e9031.21&show_article=1
No wonder Indonesians want them banned--they're probably too much like their namesake:
Great packaging, but nothing inside except a bill for $20,000,000,000,000 that's due in ten years.
Scott
Friday, March 6, 2009
Friday, December 5, 2008
Islamic Terror in Mumbai
Ever since Vietnam, we've propagandized ourselves with the idea that nothing is worse than war, and therefore it is to be avoided at all costs.
The effectiveness of this propaganda is reflected in how unwilling countries are to face something that is really so much worse than war, and is getting worse (and more widespread) every day.
Islamic terrorism transcends borders and nationalities; it is a broad, relentless attack on civilization itself, and cannot be negotiated away, or bought off, or waited out.
How many more innocents are going to die before we wake up?
The effectiveness of this propaganda is reflected in how unwilling countries are to face something that is really so much worse than war, and is getting worse (and more widespread) every day.
Islamic terrorism transcends borders and nationalities; it is a broad, relentless attack on civilization itself, and cannot be negotiated away, or bought off, or waited out.
How many more innocents are going to die before we wake up?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Should we bail out big auto?
Should we bail out big auto?
Nope.
Sooner or later, everyone who’s made a bad decision has to take his lumps. Automakers have spent decades making bad decisions, and they’re going to have to face it.
Yeah, it’s tough to think about all those high-paying jobs being lost. But if they’re not value-added activities, they need to end.
This “bailout” is really corporate welfare, in which the rest of us get to subsidize the wages of automakers because their own efforts can’t justify their pay. Terrible idea.
I live in a city that twenty years ago went through a local depression; energy, transportation, and defense jobs went away simultaneously. It was painful - extremely so - but not ruinous. The economy diversified, some of those cyclical jobs returned, and things are better now.
So it’s far better to pay the piper and get over it than to throw good money after bad trying to perpetuate an unsustainable economic model.
Scott
Nope.
Sooner or later, everyone who’s made a bad decision has to take his lumps. Automakers have spent decades making bad decisions, and they’re going to have to face it.
Yeah, it’s tough to think about all those high-paying jobs being lost. But if they’re not value-added activities, they need to end.
This “bailout” is really corporate welfare, in which the rest of us get to subsidize the wages of automakers because their own efforts can’t justify their pay. Terrible idea.
I live in a city that twenty years ago went through a local depression; energy, transportation, and defense jobs went away simultaneously. It was painful - extremely so - but not ruinous. The economy diversified, some of those cyclical jobs returned, and things are better now.
So it’s far better to pay the piper and get over it than to throw good money after bad trying to perpetuate an unsustainable economic model.
Scott
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Is Religion "Religulous"?
The insufferable twerp Bill Maher has a movie out, "Religulous", in which he makes the point that organized religion is dangerous.
Movie critic Roger Ebert says "The movie is about organized religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, TV evangelism and even Scientology, with detours into pagan cults and ancient Egypt. Bill Maher, host, writer and debater, believes they are all crazy. He fears they could lead us prayerfully into mutual nuclear doom."
Maher's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I'd like to share something from what I saw last weekend.
My local Catholic church (I'm not a member) had its annual International Festival; it's a low-key fundraiser for the church and school. It features food booths with treats from various countries--Jordan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico (of course), Germany, and others.
Looking around, I noticed that it was an event that transcended race, gender, age, income, and any other demographic lines you'd care to name. Everyone had a good time. Parents supervised, boys and girls flirted, little kids played games, and everyone was eating a lot. The unifying factor of this diverse group was Catholicism.
I just have to think--despite Maher's concerns that religion is a negative influence, all I have to say is that it's been the atheistic cultures (Nazism, communism) that have been both the most murderous and the shortest-lived. (Cany anyone name any great culture in the history of the world that has been without worship?)
Of the atheists I've known, I've never seen any of them engage in the kind of simple community pleasures offered by this one parish's event. I've heard a lot of talk from them about tolerance and brotherhood, but frankly, I've never seen them practice the kind of tolerance I saw at this church-sponsored event.
Perhaps religion has a lot to answer for--no doubt, killing others in the name of God isn't much of a recommendation for brotherly love--but it would be a shame only to focus on the negative and ignore the long history of kindness, creativity, and even unity that religion can offer.
Movie critic Roger Ebert says "The movie is about organized religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, TV evangelism and even Scientology, with detours into pagan cults and ancient Egypt. Bill Maher, host, writer and debater, believes they are all crazy. He fears they could lead us prayerfully into mutual nuclear doom."
Maher's entitled to his opinion, of course, but I'd like to share something from what I saw last weekend.
My local Catholic church (I'm not a member) had its annual International Festival; it's a low-key fundraiser for the church and school. It features food booths with treats from various countries--Jordan, Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico (of course), Germany, and others.
Looking around, I noticed that it was an event that transcended race, gender, age, income, and any other demographic lines you'd care to name. Everyone had a good time. Parents supervised, boys and girls flirted, little kids played games, and everyone was eating a lot. The unifying factor of this diverse group was Catholicism.
I just have to think--despite Maher's concerns that religion is a negative influence, all I have to say is that it's been the atheistic cultures (Nazism, communism) that have been both the most murderous and the shortest-lived. (Cany anyone name any great culture in the history of the world that has been without worship?)
Of the atheists I've known, I've never seen any of them engage in the kind of simple community pleasures offered by this one parish's event. I've heard a lot of talk from them about tolerance and brotherhood, but frankly, I've never seen them practice the kind of tolerance I saw at this church-sponsored event.
Perhaps religion has a lot to answer for--no doubt, killing others in the name of God isn't much of a recommendation for brotherly love--but it would be a shame only to focus on the negative and ignore the long history of kindness, creativity, and even unity that religion can offer.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
The First Presidential Debate
I was counting Obama's stammers, pauses, "umm's", etc. throughout (I got a total of 165), and they were occuring at an increasing rate as the debate wore on, getting quite obvious at the end.
As to the Kissinger statement, I think it might have been another attempt by Obama to get a rise out of McCain (as he tried earlier with the litany of things McCain had been "wrong" about). Much to McCain's credit, he kept his cool despite the taunts.
Overall, I think Obama was clearly trying to do two things: Tie McCain to Bush and blame businesses for all economic problems. The first point is absurd, and the second reflects Obama's hostility toward capitalism.
Has anyone noticed that Obama knows nothing about how money is made? He pictures the capitalist as a misanthropic Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of cash while laughing at the misery of the peasants. (Even McDuck knew better than that; see 1967's "Scrooge McDuck and Money". Obama would be well-advised to watch it.)
Anyway, economic prosperity depends on business doing well, expanding its efforts, making more capital investment, hiring more workers, finding new markets around the world. Prosperity does not come from the government, which is confiscatory at its foundation.
A glaring ignorance for someone who wants to be the leader of the nation with the world's largest economy. (Note that I did not say "leader of the world's biggest economy"--I don't think that is or should be the President's job.)
Scott
As to the Kissinger statement, I think it might have been another attempt by Obama to get a rise out of McCain (as he tried earlier with the litany of things McCain had been "wrong" about). Much to McCain's credit, he kept his cool despite the taunts.
Overall, I think Obama was clearly trying to do two things: Tie McCain to Bush and blame businesses for all economic problems. The first point is absurd, and the second reflects Obama's hostility toward capitalism.
Has anyone noticed that Obama knows nothing about how money is made? He pictures the capitalist as a misanthropic Scrooge McDuck, sitting on piles of cash while laughing at the misery of the peasants. (Even McDuck knew better than that; see 1967's "Scrooge McDuck and Money". Obama would be well-advised to watch it.)
Anyway, economic prosperity depends on business doing well, expanding its efforts, making more capital investment, hiring more workers, finding new markets around the world. Prosperity does not come from the government, which is confiscatory at its foundation.
A glaring ignorance for someone who wants to be the leader of the nation with the world's largest economy. (Note that I did not say "leader of the world's biggest economy"--I don't think that is or should be the President's job.)
Scott
Monday, September 22, 2008
Global Talent Shortage?
I've read that some feel there's a shortage of talent in the global labor pool.
Here in the US, I see the problem differently: talent is plentiful; the ability to identify, develop, and retain it is what's lacking.
Companies' recruiting efforts are failing to bring in genuine talent. Instead, it's an automated game of word-match, trying to reduce sophisticated skill sets to a handful of keywords. For commodity jobs, this might work, but for the genuinely outstanding talent, it's doomed to failure.
Retention remains problematic not through lack of talented workers, but effective leaders. In this downturn, we'll see whether companies are serious about "people are our most valuable asset"--I'll bet many of these "assets" are dispensed like excess office furniture. This shows a serious lack of recognition of employees' value.
Here in the US, I see the problem differently: talent is plentiful; the ability to identify, develop, and retain it is what's lacking.
Companies' recruiting efforts are failing to bring in genuine talent. Instead, it's an automated game of word-match, trying to reduce sophisticated skill sets to a handful of keywords. For commodity jobs, this might work, but for the genuinely outstanding talent, it's doomed to failure.
Retention remains problematic not through lack of talented workers, but effective leaders. In this downturn, we'll see whether companies are serious about "people are our most valuable asset"--I'll bet many of these "assets" are dispensed like excess office furniture. This shows a serious lack of recognition of employees' value.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Sarah Palin and Wolf Population Control In Alaska
Just for the record, I'm a hunter, a wolf supporter, and a wildlife lover. I'm also someone who will vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and I encourage everyone to do so.
I have learned that one of the most important factors to consider in discussing any wildlife issue is not to take our personal experiences and apply them to the rest of the world.
For example, until a few months ago, I had never visited Alaska, though I'd always wanted to.
Once I finally got there, I was impressed by a few things. For one, it's unimaginably huge (and this is coming from a guy who lives in Texas). It's also unimaginably remote. For most towns, there are no malls, no Wal-Marts, no Domino's Pizza delivery, not even any paved roads (as an example, Eagle, Alaska, a relatively major town with a population of 133, has one road in and out of town, it's unpaved, a single lane, and it's more than 100 miles to the next town, which is even smaller). Most of what you and I take for granted just isn't available to many Alaskans.
For another thing, virtually every person who lives in Alaska comes face-to-face with wildlife in ways the rest of us can't imagine--and for everyone concerned, it's not just an academic exercise. People who hunt moose do so for food; without killing one or two, it means no meat for the whole winter. The winters are long. And dark. And very, very cold.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of killing wolves. But I understand that predator-prey relationships are important. Wolves in particular aren't just beautiful, noble hunters--they compete with people for food. And they're very good at it, too; their large numbers are evidence of that. Which is why they have to be controlled.
Palin's support of predator control isn't some arbitrary, cruel, bloodthirsty decision--it's one that is specifically intended to make sure that all wildlife thrives, and just as importantly, that Alaska's citizens (including the Native Americans) have a good opportunity to feed their families, especially through the winter. What is wrong with that?
If wolves are hunted from the air, it's because it's the only way to get at them. Again, most of Alaska has no roads at all. (Think of people who go "flightseeing" in Alaska--part of the reason to tour by airplane is for the views, but a big part is because that's the only way to get there. You can't drive; you can't take a boat; it's too hard to walk--things like mountains, rivers, and glaciers get in the way.)
Finally, let me dispel some common misconceptions about hunting. For one, hunters contribute more to wildlife conservation than any other group. Any other group. For another, people who hunt have more respect for the animals they harvest than you imagine. I have great respect for the animals I've hunted; in fact, getting started in hunting taught me more about wildlife than anything else I'd ever done. It sounds paradoxical, but I have a higher regard for deer now, after having killed a few, than I did a few years ago. (This is something that most non-hunters simply cannot understand, but it's true.)
Those of you who've eaten meat all your lives but never done the killing yourself have no idea what happens to put your meals in front of you. Let me tell you, it isn't pretty. Deliberately going out to kill an independent, beautiful animal is not an easy thing to do. Watching it die is not pleasurable. (Did you know that animals die with their eyes open? It's not like they're going to sleep. They kick, and thrash, and bleed. It's very sad, and I don't enjoy it one bit.) The first time you see--and smell--an animal cut open and butchered, it'll make you want to throw up (it did for me). But these things have to happen--someone has to do it--unless you want to eat rabbit food the rest of your life (or be a hypocrite).
Please don't impose the "morality" of your comfortable consumerism on everyone--they may not have that choice. For many Alaskans, wildlife management is literally life-or-death. And not hunting--killing a moose or caribou--means looking your kids in the eye and telling them there's nothing to eat. How would that make you feel?
Vote McCain/Palin.
Scott
P.S. Here's a link to my Alaska photo album, from earlier this year, including lots of wildlife photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/srlucado/sets/72157605530077351/
Here are some photos of local Texas wildlife (mostly deer):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/srlucado/sets/72157603508893223/
I have learned that one of the most important factors to consider in discussing any wildlife issue is not to take our personal experiences and apply them to the rest of the world.
For example, until a few months ago, I had never visited Alaska, though I'd always wanted to.
Once I finally got there, I was impressed by a few things. For one, it's unimaginably huge (and this is coming from a guy who lives in Texas). It's also unimaginably remote. For most towns, there are no malls, no Wal-Marts, no Domino's Pizza delivery, not even any paved roads (as an example, Eagle, Alaska, a relatively major town with a population of 133, has one road in and out of town, it's unpaved, a single lane, and it's more than 100 miles to the next town, which is even smaller). Most of what you and I take for granted just isn't available to many Alaskans.
For another thing, virtually every person who lives in Alaska comes face-to-face with wildlife in ways the rest of us can't imagine--and for everyone concerned, it's not just an academic exercise. People who hunt moose do so for food; without killing one or two, it means no meat for the whole winter. The winters are long. And dark. And very, very cold.
Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of killing wolves. But I understand that predator-prey relationships are important. Wolves in particular aren't just beautiful, noble hunters--they compete with people for food. And they're very good at it, too; their large numbers are evidence of that. Which is why they have to be controlled.
Palin's support of predator control isn't some arbitrary, cruel, bloodthirsty decision--it's one that is specifically intended to make sure that all wildlife thrives, and just as importantly, that Alaska's citizens (including the Native Americans) have a good opportunity to feed their families, especially through the winter. What is wrong with that?
If wolves are hunted from the air, it's because it's the only way to get at them. Again, most of Alaska has no roads at all. (Think of people who go "flightseeing" in Alaska--part of the reason to tour by airplane is for the views, but a big part is because that's the only way to get there. You can't drive; you can't take a boat; it's too hard to walk--things like mountains, rivers, and glaciers get in the way.)
Finally, let me dispel some common misconceptions about hunting. For one, hunters contribute more to wildlife conservation than any other group. Any other group. For another, people who hunt have more respect for the animals they harvest than you imagine. I have great respect for the animals I've hunted; in fact, getting started in hunting taught me more about wildlife than anything else I'd ever done. It sounds paradoxical, but I have a higher regard for deer now, after having killed a few, than I did a few years ago. (This is something that most non-hunters simply cannot understand, but it's true.)
Those of you who've eaten meat all your lives but never done the killing yourself have no idea what happens to put your meals in front of you. Let me tell you, it isn't pretty. Deliberately going out to kill an independent, beautiful animal is not an easy thing to do. Watching it die is not pleasurable. (Did you know that animals die with their eyes open? It's not like they're going to sleep. They kick, and thrash, and bleed. It's very sad, and I don't enjoy it one bit.) The first time you see--and smell--an animal cut open and butchered, it'll make you want to throw up (it did for me). But these things have to happen--someone has to do it--unless you want to eat rabbit food the rest of your life (or be a hypocrite).
Please don't impose the "morality" of your comfortable consumerism on everyone--they may not have that choice. For many Alaskans, wildlife management is literally life-or-death. And not hunting--killing a moose or caribou--means looking your kids in the eye and telling them there's nothing to eat. How would that make you feel?
Vote McCain/Palin.
Scott
P.S. Here's a link to my Alaska photo album, from earlier this year, including lots of wildlife photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/srlucado/sets/72157605530077351/
Here are some photos of local Texas wildlife (mostly deer):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/srlucado/sets/72157603508893223/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
