We have had 8 consecutive days of sunny weather. Although the temperature is quite brisk (our lows will be down to 33 degrees tonight), it is a nice departure from our normal temperatures. These sunny days are only supposed to last for another two days.
The wind (which is blowing like crazy!) will be bringing in rain over the weekend for Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Middle Class Jobs?
Today, General Motors announced that they would be laying off 30,000 employees and shutting down 12 plants across the nation. Union leadership claimed this was another example of the destruction of middle class manufacturing jobs.
These employees make an average of $25 per hour and have nearly there entire benefits paid for by the corporation. At GM supplier, Delphi, management has needed to make similar decisions to cut jobs. Similarly paid jobs actually cost Delphi a total of $65 per hour (when including benefits). If we are actually concerned about losing American jobs, consumers will have to either make a conscious decision to spend more money on goods (and thereby consume less), or manufacturing workers must take significant pay cuts (to about $20 per hour including benefits, which works out to a salary of approximately $13 per hour). Neither of these are likely popular, and therefore, more jobs will be cut.
It is inevitable.
These employees make an average of $25 per hour and have nearly there entire benefits paid for by the corporation. At GM supplier, Delphi, management has needed to make similar decisions to cut jobs. Similarly paid jobs actually cost Delphi a total of $65 per hour (when including benefits). If we are actually concerned about losing American jobs, consumers will have to either make a conscious decision to spend more money on goods (and thereby consume less), or manufacturing workers must take significant pay cuts (to about $20 per hour including benefits, which works out to a salary of approximately $13 per hour). Neither of these are likely popular, and therefore, more jobs will be cut.
It is inevitable.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Suicide Terrorism
As you probably know, I am reading a book about suicide terrorism/bombings called, "The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism."
The thesis of this book is that despite what we want to admit, suicide bombings work. They tend to force a country (predominantly democracies) to withdraw their troops from the questioned territory. This happened to the United States, France and Israel from Lebanon, it mostly worked on India from Sri Lanka, and the Sinhalese from Tamil, also in Sri Lanka, and it is working in Palestine. And of course, this seems to be working in Iraq (the jury is still out).
Regardless of what we want to believe, suicide terrorism works because we allow it to work. Despite this, it is important to understand that organizations commit themselves to suicide terrorism because a power (i.e. America) occupy their country. The one proven way to prevent this from ocurring is to withdraw troops. Promoting democracy will not stop suicide terrorism. Is this the appropriate exit strategy from Iraq/Afghanistan/the gulf states?
This is a question for our politicians.
I believe there is one other way to defeat this without allowing the jihadis to win. This way requires us to convince the Muslim world that suicide, despite its reasons, is a violation of Muslim law. This of course is true. All who commit suicide go to hell. However, beginning in Lebanon in the early 1980's, certain political clerics began to convince the largely uneducated populace that martyrdom is ok. In other words, despite the Koran, and even the prophet Muhammed saying that suicide is the ultimate sin, certain clerics have exempted so called, martyrdom. Obviously this is a red herring. Their own religious scriptures prohibit suicide. But, despite this, jihadis are still comitting suicide. Why is this? And further, do they realize they are sending their victims straight to heaven (i.e. the Jews) and themselves to hell? There are no virgins in the seventh layer of hell, guys. If we don't want to withdraw our troops, this is the way out.
The thesis of this book is that despite what we want to admit, suicide bombings work. They tend to force a country (predominantly democracies) to withdraw their troops from the questioned territory. This happened to the United States, France and Israel from Lebanon, it mostly worked on India from Sri Lanka, and the Sinhalese from Tamil, also in Sri Lanka, and it is working in Palestine. And of course, this seems to be working in Iraq (the jury is still out).
Regardless of what we want to believe, suicide terrorism works because we allow it to work. Despite this, it is important to understand that organizations commit themselves to suicide terrorism because a power (i.e. America) occupy their country. The one proven way to prevent this from ocurring is to withdraw troops. Promoting democracy will not stop suicide terrorism. Is this the appropriate exit strategy from Iraq/Afghanistan/the gulf states?
This is a question for our politicians.
I believe there is one other way to defeat this without allowing the jihadis to win. This way requires us to convince the Muslim world that suicide, despite its reasons, is a violation of Muslim law. This of course is true. All who commit suicide go to hell. However, beginning in Lebanon in the early 1980's, certain political clerics began to convince the largely uneducated populace that martyrdom is ok. In other words, despite the Koran, and even the prophet Muhammed saying that suicide is the ultimate sin, certain clerics have exempted so called, martyrdom. Obviously this is a red herring. Their own religious scriptures prohibit suicide. But, despite this, jihadis are still comitting suicide. Why is this? And further, do they realize they are sending their victims straight to heaven (i.e. the Jews) and themselves to hell? There are no virgins in the seventh layer of hell, guys. If we don't want to withdraw our troops, this is the way out.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Democracy and the School System
This past Tuesday, Washington state voted by a significant majority to prohibit private parties from allowing smoking at their establishments at which the general public is permitted to frequent.
In other words, if you own a restaurant or bar or smoke shop in Washington state, you will be fined for allowing people to smoke at your establishment. This is a clear example of Americans' complete lack of knowledge as to our system of government.
Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government we have after the Constitution was ratified in Philadelphia. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Please note, he did not say we have a democracy. There is a very simple explanation for this: the founders thought a democracy would lead to the majority tyrannizing the minority. And they were right to fear that, for that is precisely what happened in Washington state. The government has declared that you will be punished if you allow smoking at your commercial establishment.
Clearly, democracy has gone too far. Of course, our government is a Constitutional republic, meaning that the country is ruled by the people, but they cannot trounce the Constitution and take rights away from some because it is the popular thing to do.
For example, in Germany, it is against the law to impersonate Adolph Hitler. In France, it is against the law to write racist literature. While I agree that people shouldn't publish racist literature, this is America folks: we cannot take that right away from people. Because that right wasn't given by people, people cannot take it away. Our Constitution protects the minority.
Somehow, our country forgot this very important lesson. Even our Supreme Court justices are using precedent in countries with very different governments and laws to "interpret" our Constitution. Imagine that!
I can't wait until the first dissident is assasinated in this country because you can do it in China! Maybe people will determine our founding documents were in fact important, and not a means to an end.
In other words, if you own a restaurant or bar or smoke shop in Washington state, you will be fined for allowing people to smoke at your establishment. This is a clear example of Americans' complete lack of knowledge as to our system of government.
Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government we have after the Constitution was ratified in Philadelphia. He replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Please note, he did not say we have a democracy. There is a very simple explanation for this: the founders thought a democracy would lead to the majority tyrannizing the minority. And they were right to fear that, for that is precisely what happened in Washington state. The government has declared that you will be punished if you allow smoking at your commercial establishment.
Clearly, democracy has gone too far. Of course, our government is a Constitutional republic, meaning that the country is ruled by the people, but they cannot trounce the Constitution and take rights away from some because it is the popular thing to do.
For example, in Germany, it is against the law to impersonate Adolph Hitler. In France, it is against the law to write racist literature. While I agree that people shouldn't publish racist literature, this is America folks: we cannot take that right away from people. Because that right wasn't given by people, people cannot take it away. Our Constitution protects the minority.
Somehow, our country forgot this very important lesson. Even our Supreme Court justices are using precedent in countries with very different governments and laws to "interpret" our Constitution. Imagine that!
I can't wait until the first dissident is assasinated in this country because you can do it in China! Maybe people will determine our founding documents were in fact important, and not a means to an end.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Judge Samuel Alito and Vanguard
After reviewing some of the facts of the case, the concern about Judge Alito's "non-recusal" in a case of a woman suing Vanguard is ridiculous.
It is true that with Vanguard being a mutual company, it is owned by its shareholders. This is no different than an auto insurance policy from a mutual company, such as State Farm. So does that mean that if State Farm was a defendant or a plantiff in a case, and a judge has auto insurance through State Farm that said judge must recuse himself/herself? That is patently absurd and all of the skirmishing about this issue is a red herring. It is simply left wing radicals (and lazy reporters) making a big deal out of nothing.
The only reason this is any kind of big deal is that these said radicals and reporters can't find any red meat on the guy and they are figuring out that, in reality, he is a pretty good guy and a great judge.
I hope that if there is some dirt we should know about, that it comes out, but it is important for everyone to remember that he is applying for a judicial position and not a political one.
It is true that with Vanguard being a mutual company, it is owned by its shareholders. This is no different than an auto insurance policy from a mutual company, such as State Farm. So does that mean that if State Farm was a defendant or a plantiff in a case, and a judge has auto insurance through State Farm that said judge must recuse himself/herself? That is patently absurd and all of the skirmishing about this issue is a red herring. It is simply left wing radicals (and lazy reporters) making a big deal out of nothing.
The only reason this is any kind of big deal is that these said radicals and reporters can't find any red meat on the guy and they are figuring out that, in reality, he is a pretty good guy and a great judge.
I hope that if there is some dirt we should know about, that it comes out, but it is important for everyone to remember that he is applying for a judicial position and not a political one.
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Judge Samuel Alito
After doing some reading about Judge Alito, it is my opinion that he will be confirmed with just slightly less of a majority than did Chief Justice Roberts. His credentials are impeccable, he has shown in his opinions to base his decisions on the rule of law, rather than his own opinions, and he is probably a hell of alot smarter than most of the members of the Senate Judicial Committee.
This pick, rather than being "sloppy seconds," as John Roberts of CBS news recently asked, should have been the pick in the first place. And fortunately, we won't have to hear Rev James Dobson testify, nor are the reasons for his pick because "he is a good Christian."
I believe that this hearing will be contentious, but informative. Hopefully, he will be able to faithfully execute the Constitution, and not the unConstitutional judicial ammendments thereto.
This pick, rather than being "sloppy seconds," as John Roberts of CBS news recently asked, should have been the pick in the first place. And fortunately, we won't have to hear Rev James Dobson testify, nor are the reasons for his pick because "he is a good Christian."
I believe that this hearing will be contentious, but informative. Hopefully, he will be able to faithfully execute the Constitution, and not the unConstitutional judicial ammendments thereto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
