Many communists and socialists around the world have been quite glib in their converage of Hurricaine Katrina. These statements have been profoundly arrogant and almost joyous. They have ranged from, "America should have signed the Kyoto Protocol," as if that would have done anything to prevent any weather or natural event for at least 10 years, to "this is an example of how big government is far superior to less government."
As you might imagine, I completely disagree with these Cassandra's. I believe this is an important opportunity to see why big government has failed us. Who were successful in addressing this natural disaster? Who failed? The American people, under no prompting from the government, raised more than a half billion dollars within a week for this crisis. Charities, churches and concerned individuals were on the ground, despite many having travelled by car across the country. Problems ocurred when they had to collaborate with FEMA and other government agencies.
While each government agency was complaining about not getting support, or how the response was somebody else's fault, the Red Cross was creating evacuation shelters. When the governor was paralyzed from doing anything to help her citizens, the Salvation Army was handing out food. When the mayor was cursing out the Feds, churches were paying rent for evacuated residents to find temporary housing (not in a crowded sports arena) and when our wonderful Congress was passing bills for billions, laden with pork which went to different parts of the country not even disturbed by the hurricaine, Craigslist.com members were offering peole to stay in their own homes.
If anything, this disaster should show us that no matter what the government prepares for, it is ill-suited to provide for the people in times of crisis. The wonderful people of this country showed their true colors and came through for those in need. I believe this disaster shows us what a disaster government is and that we can probably save a lot of suffering and about three billion dollars by just terminating FEMA. Is that too radical a solution? Probably, but I am just fed up with all politicians telling me that government is the solution. As President Reagan once said (and somehow Republicans forgot), I don't believe that government is the solution to the problem, but the source.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
New York Times
Tomorrow is the last day that the most popular sections of the online version of the New York Times will be provided free of charge. For those of you who want to read the newspaper going forward, you will either have to get a paper subscription (which will cost about $125 per year, or subscribe to the online content, which will cost $49.95.
While I will miss not being able to read columnists Tom Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, and David Brooks, I'll get over it. The Times, while establishment, is a "left-wing" American paper. This means, that in America, it caters to the left-wing establishment. It is undoubtedly conservative, say in Europe, but not here.
One example is a news artilce I read this morning. It was very interesting, written by a John Leland. The topic was abortion and the author travelled to an Arkansas abortion clinic. It was largely apologetic that there was such a stigma associated with abortion. In fact, this stigma, which coupled with mountains of regulations, is making abortions more difficult to obtain, the author lamented.
Aw shucks. It seems mountains of regulations are OK for every industry except abortions, eh? I am quite familiar with this regulation regime. However, the industry in which I work is regulated far more than the abortion industry. In fact, if you listen to other NY Times authors, my industry is not regulated enough. While I choose not to disclose my industry (doing so may violate my company's Blog policy), I can assure you that decisions I make do not affect life or death.
Having said all of this, the Washington Post is a far superior (and balanced) paper, with a far superior on-line precense. Congrats to that paper's editors, because their sponsors should stand to benefit immensely from the Times err in judgement.
While I will miss not being able to read columnists Tom Friedman, Nicholas Kristof, and David Brooks, I'll get over it. The Times, while establishment, is a "left-wing" American paper. This means, that in America, it caters to the left-wing establishment. It is undoubtedly conservative, say in Europe, but not here.
One example is a news artilce I read this morning. It was very interesting, written by a John Leland. The topic was abortion and the author travelled to an Arkansas abortion clinic. It was largely apologetic that there was such a stigma associated with abortion. In fact, this stigma, which coupled with mountains of regulations, is making abortions more difficult to obtain, the author lamented.
Aw shucks. It seems mountains of regulations are OK for every industry except abortions, eh? I am quite familiar with this regulation regime. However, the industry in which I work is regulated far more than the abortion industry. In fact, if you listen to other NY Times authors, my industry is not regulated enough. While I choose not to disclose my industry (doing so may violate my company's Blog policy), I can assure you that decisions I make do not affect life or death.
Having said all of this, the Washington Post is a far superior (and balanced) paper, with a far superior on-line precense. Congrats to that paper's editors, because their sponsors should stand to benefit immensely from the Times err in judgement.
Sunday, September 11, 2005
How 'bout them Cowboys?!
Both of you who read this periodically probably know that I am a big Dallas Cowboys fan. Even though my Dad's dedication to the team has been wavering as of late, I will continue to carry the flag. And my patience through these difficult times (at least for 1 day) has paid off. The Cowboys defeated a very difficult San Diego Chargers team in San Diego; no small feat.
This rebuilding they have most recently gone through reminds me of the rebuilding they did in the late 1980's. Fans, and even players, were very upset at the sacking of Tom Landry, and those of us in Thousand Oaks, California were very upset at the Cowboys moving their training camp back to Texas.
Nonetheless, the Cowboys went on to win 3 championships and drafted three of the top 20 players the NFL has ever seen. Sometimes, you just have to keep the faith.
So far, that patience is paying off. Go Cowboys (now 1-0).
This rebuilding they have most recently gone through reminds me of the rebuilding they did in the late 1980's. Fans, and even players, were very upset at the sacking of Tom Landry, and those of us in Thousand Oaks, California were very upset at the Cowboys moving their training camp back to Texas.
Nonetheless, the Cowboys went on to win 3 championships and drafted three of the top 20 players the NFL has ever seen. Sometimes, you just have to keep the faith.
So far, that patience is paying off. Go Cowboys (now 1-0).
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
"The Mongol Warlords"
My most recent readings concerned the Mongol Warlords, specifically, Genghis, Kublai, and Hulegu Khan, as well as Tamerlane (or more appropriately, Timur the Lame).
I decided I wanted to know a little more about Central Asia, so I looked back, way back.
The Mongol empire ruled nearly all of Asia in the 13th through the 15th centuries, and theirs was a brutal and highly effective empire. Their skills were matched by few, and consequently, they instilled fear everywhere they went. In fact, many lands immediately gave up upon the Mongols coming.
What I found most interesting about the book is that, despite the fact that they were utterly dominant in the region, to include all of the Muslim lands east of Arabia, ultimately, they had largely converted from shamanists to Muslims. How bizarre is it that conquerers accept the relgion of the people they conquer? I am sure there is a good answer out there, but it was an interesting anamoly.
My next bood is, "In the Land of Magic Soldiers," which is about the civil war in Sierra Leone, a nation in Western Africa. It, like the above is a quick read, as I will probably finish it in 4 days.
I'll soon let you know the details of this.
I decided I wanted to know a little more about Central Asia, so I looked back, way back.
The Mongol empire ruled nearly all of Asia in the 13th through the 15th centuries, and theirs was a brutal and highly effective empire. Their skills were matched by few, and consequently, they instilled fear everywhere they went. In fact, many lands immediately gave up upon the Mongols coming.
What I found most interesting about the book is that, despite the fact that they were utterly dominant in the region, to include all of the Muslim lands east of Arabia, ultimately, they had largely converted from shamanists to Muslims. How bizarre is it that conquerers accept the relgion of the people they conquer? I am sure there is a good answer out there, but it was an interesting anamoly.
My next bood is, "In the Land of Magic Soldiers," which is about the civil war in Sierra Leone, a nation in Western Africa. It, like the above is a quick read, as I will probably finish it in 4 days.
I'll soon let you know the details of this.
Saturday, September 03, 2005
My Birthday
As both of you who read these postings know (and thanks for the calls), yesterday was my birthday. As I am quickly approaching the age of 30, I have recently been reflecting that I don't particularly feel old, simply by my age. Rather, what makes me feel old is when I go to a store or mini-market and view the sign which indicates that you had to be born on such and such a date to purchase cigarettes, for example.
So I was at the mini-market the other day, and I looked at this sign and it said you had to have been born on or before August 31, 1987. Then I thought back to what I was doing at in that year, and now I am starting to feel old.
So I was at the mini-market the other day, and I looked at this sign and it said you had to have been born on or before August 31, 1987. Then I thought back to what I was doing at in that year, and now I am starting to feel old.
Katrina 2
Earlier this week, Rep Dennis Hastert (R-IL) made a comment something akin to it making more sense to abandoning the old New Orleans and rebuilding in a safer place. This brought outrage among Louisiana politicians and others.
But why? New Orleans, although historic and a tourist spot, is on ground which has been sinking for hundreds of years. This instability caused the "fish-bowl" effect which caused the city to continue to suffer such horrific disasters.
Some are calling for the reconstruction and shoring up of additional levees. The truth of this tragedy is that the levees were constructed for protection of nearly any devestation. The levees were thought to have a 99.5% liklihood of success, meaning that about once every 200 years, some storm might come and breach the levees. Statistics are that this is about as good as it gets. No matter what you build there, there is some probability of failure. How are we going to protect against that when it happens?
Every community has some liklihood of devestation, whether it be tornadoes in the Midwest, earthquakes in the West, or tsunamis in the Pacific and Indian oceans. What community planners must do is to design to reduce the liklihood of failure. They should at least seriously consider this option.
Finally, John Thierney of the New York Times, today proposed some changes to how this country insures against floods. As you may or may not know, 2/3 of the homes in the region that was just devestated had no flood insurance. This is often the case in the regions that need it most. The more expensive the insurance, the less likely people are to build in a specific region, thereby making it less likely that this kind of devestation will occur. Because the Federal Government essentially offers free insurance to people in the hurricaine zones, there is no incentive to not build here.
If you'd like to check out the article, it can be accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03tierney.html?oref=login
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
But why? New Orleans, although historic and a tourist spot, is on ground which has been sinking for hundreds of years. This instability caused the "fish-bowl" effect which caused the city to continue to suffer such horrific disasters.
Some are calling for the reconstruction and shoring up of additional levees. The truth of this tragedy is that the levees were constructed for protection of nearly any devestation. The levees were thought to have a 99.5% liklihood of success, meaning that about once every 200 years, some storm might come and breach the levees. Statistics are that this is about as good as it gets. No matter what you build there, there is some probability of failure. How are we going to protect against that when it happens?
Every community has some liklihood of devestation, whether it be tornadoes in the Midwest, earthquakes in the West, or tsunamis in the Pacific and Indian oceans. What community planners must do is to design to reduce the liklihood of failure. They should at least seriously consider this option.
Finally, John Thierney of the New York Times, today proposed some changes to how this country insures against floods. As you may or may not know, 2/3 of the homes in the region that was just devestated had no flood insurance. This is often the case in the regions that need it most. The more expensive the insurance, the less likely people are to build in a specific region, thereby making it less likely that this kind of devestation will occur. Because the Federal Government essentially offers free insurance to people in the hurricaine zones, there is no incentive to not build here.
If you'd like to check out the article, it can be accessed at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/03/opinion/03tierney.html?oref=login
Have a great Labor Day weekend!
Friday, September 02, 2005
Hurricaine Katrina
This past week, Hurricaine Katrina, a hurricaine which measured a category 4 (or once in a 300 year hurricaine to hit the United States) did hit the Gulf Coast. Without a doubt, this catastrophe was devestating. In these kinds of times, peoples' generosity overwhelms you. My wife and I just donated to Mercy Corps, a locally based charity which allowed us to earmark our contribution for this disaster.
I suggest for those of you who have an interest, to look up the website, www.charitynavigator.org. This will allow you to pledge money to the most efficient charity you wish to contribute.
Donate if you can.
I suggest for those of you who have an interest, to look up the website, www.charitynavigator.org. This will allow you to pledge money to the most efficient charity you wish to contribute.
Donate if you can.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Outraged About Gasoline!
No, it's not what you think. I am not outraged by the prices; not even the $6 print in Atlanta. Anybody who wishes to pay $6 per gallon for gasoline has every right to do so. And the government has no obligation in protecting people from their own stupidity.
What I am outraged about is the commentary and the whining by consumers. No government is telling you that you must drive. Further, no government is telling you to buy an automobile that gets less than 25 miles per gallon. We as individuals freely make choices, and one of those choices is to pay for gasoline.
While I am not thrilled by paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, the prices have risen so dramatically for two reasons: demand is outstripping supply, and frankly, prices should rise to whatever level sellers can make a profit, even an outsized profit.
Let me put it this way. Gasoline is no different than a home, except that shelter is a requirement of life. If I wanted to try to sell my 1050 square foot home for $1 million, would I be accused of "price gouging?" Probably not, because nobody would be stupid enough to buy my little home, as cute as it is, for $1 million. In fact, I'd be lucky to get an agent who would waste his time trying to market my house for $1 million. But I have every right to try to list it at this price, even though it would be nearly 8 times my purchase price.
If housing prices had gotten so hot that somebody was actually willing to buy my home for $1 million, should I go to jail for price gouging? Of course not. The counter party has every right to purchase any house they want (or rent for that matter), and they should attempt to bargain for the best price. That is what makes the system work.
If you willingly choose to pay $6 for gas, you are solely to blame for telling the market that $6 is an appropriate price. I don't fault gas stations for raising their prices. They should. In fact, they should raise prices enough to make a sufficient profit (in their eyes, not the governments) and still be competitive with other stations, so long as they are not colluding with other stations, which probably should be against the law.
So if you don't like the high prices for gasoline, I have a tip: Don't buy gas! If someone is charging what is too much in your eyes, don't buy from them ever again. And tell them. It is your choice to pay higher prices for gasoline.
What I am outraged about is the commentary and the whining by consumers. No government is telling you that you must drive. Further, no government is telling you to buy an automobile that gets less than 25 miles per gallon. We as individuals freely make choices, and one of those choices is to pay for gasoline.
While I am not thrilled by paying $3 per gallon for gasoline, the prices have risen so dramatically for two reasons: demand is outstripping supply, and frankly, prices should rise to whatever level sellers can make a profit, even an outsized profit.
Let me put it this way. Gasoline is no different than a home, except that shelter is a requirement of life. If I wanted to try to sell my 1050 square foot home for $1 million, would I be accused of "price gouging?" Probably not, because nobody would be stupid enough to buy my little home, as cute as it is, for $1 million. In fact, I'd be lucky to get an agent who would waste his time trying to market my house for $1 million. But I have every right to try to list it at this price, even though it would be nearly 8 times my purchase price.
If housing prices had gotten so hot that somebody was actually willing to buy my home for $1 million, should I go to jail for price gouging? Of course not. The counter party has every right to purchase any house they want (or rent for that matter), and they should attempt to bargain for the best price. That is what makes the system work.
If you willingly choose to pay $6 for gas, you are solely to blame for telling the market that $6 is an appropriate price. I don't fault gas stations for raising their prices. They should. In fact, they should raise prices enough to make a sufficient profit (in their eyes, not the governments) and still be competitive with other stations, so long as they are not colluding with other stations, which probably should be against the law.
So if you don't like the high prices for gasoline, I have a tip: Don't buy gas! If someone is charging what is too much in your eyes, don't buy from them ever again. And tell them. It is your choice to pay higher prices for gasoline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
