October 2, 2006 issue of of Time magazine contains an article written by Tim Padgett. As I mentioned in a previous post of Time, the picture of Hugo Chavez is one which is favorable to Chavez. It makes him appear strong and real for lack of better adjectives. See the capture below.
This article was written from of the attention garnered by Chavez when he called President Bush "the devil" during his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week. The calm firestorm which came from the many Americans was one of disgust as Mr. Padgett informs Hugo Chavez in the interview. "He seemed genuinely surprised when I informed him that rebukes were pouring in from liberals in the US Congress over the way he insulted Bush on US soil," writes Padgett. "Bush has called me worse," Chavez said, with a shrug.. continues Padgett.
Chavez then refers to the names he accused Bush of using, "Tyrant, populist dictator, drug trafficker." I don't know whether Chavez are these are not. Regardless of these he has no inhabitions about socializing the economy. The government owns the oil, brings in all the revenue and distributes it somehow. Billions. Per the Time article it may be about $40 Billion this year. This figure has more than tripled in the last 10 years. All this wealth and Chavez has to show, medical clinics in the barrios, 7 Eleven canceling Citgo's contract and an economy which had promise when he took office and is now failing in true 3rd world standards.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
7 Eleven, Citgo and Chavez
After watching the speech at the UN General Assembly last week by Hugo Chavez, I was offended and angry. Then when I heard the news 7 Eleven would not be renewing it's contract with Citgo (Venezuelan government owned oil company) it made me proud enough to writ the following to 7 Eleven customer relations;
"I watched the speech at the UN General Assembly and in New York, when Hugo Chavez spoke negatively about the President. Because of the decision of 7Eleven to not renew contracts with CITGO, when needing gas or a gallon of milk I will now search out 7 Eleven stores to make my purchases. There is a store just 1 mile from my residence which I have used before. Now I will always use this station. Thank you for making this decision. You have just won another loyal customer. I will be sure to tell everyone I know what a positive thing your company has done for this country."
"I watched the speech at the UN General Assembly and in New York, when Hugo Chavez spoke negatively about the President. Because of the decision of 7Eleven to not renew contracts with CITGO, when needing gas or a gallon of milk I will now search out 7 Eleven stores to make my purchases. There is a store just 1 mile from my residence which I have used before. Now I will always use this station. Thank you for making this decision. You have just won another loyal customer. I will be sure to tell everyone I know what a positive thing your company has done for this country."
Monday, September 11, 2006
5th Anniversary of 9/11
I have been watching C-Span2 for an hour as family members of those who died in the Towers are reading their loved ones names. The is real. I have respect. I am sad and angry all over again. If I always feel like this on September 11, then I still care.
Friday, August 25, 2006
"CNN.com to replay 9/11 attacks coverage"
Posted on Yahoo News;
NEW YORK - CNN will mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by replaying on the Internet the cable network's coverage of that day's events.
ADVERTISEMENT
Viewers can watch how events unfolded starting at 8:30 a.m., minutes before the first reports of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center. The feed will run in real time, as the network showed it five years ago, until midnight.
For the day, CNN will make its online video service, CNN Pipeline, available for free. Normally, viewers pay $2.95 a month or $24.95 a year for four separate video feeds.
Online viewers will be able to watch live reports of memorial services through one of the feeds. So that viewers won't accidentally stumble upon graphic footage from 2001, the replay feed will be covered with a notice instructing users to click only if they want to watch.
"Our users may choose to view the stream of coverage from Sept. 11, 2001, or live coverage of memorial services at Ground Zero, or they may click through the numerous interactive elements on the site," said David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com. "They have the power to determine the best way for them to remember the anniversary."
CNN is a unit of Time Warner Inc.
NEW YORK - CNN will mark the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks by replaying on the Internet the cable network's coverage of that day's events.
ADVERTISEMENT
Viewers can watch how events unfolded starting at 8:30 a.m., minutes before the first reports of an airplane hitting the World Trade Center. The feed will run in real time, as the network showed it five years ago, until midnight.
For the day, CNN will make its online video service, CNN Pipeline, available for free. Normally, viewers pay $2.95 a month or $24.95 a year for four separate video feeds.
Online viewers will be able to watch live reports of memorial services through one of the feeds. So that viewers won't accidentally stumble upon graphic footage from 2001, the replay feed will be covered with a notice instructing users to click only if they want to watch.
"Our users may choose to view the stream of coverage from Sept. 11, 2001, or live coverage of memorial services at Ground Zero, or they may click through the numerous interactive elements on the site," said David Payne, senior vice president and general manager of CNN.com. "They have the power to determine the best way for them to remember the anniversary."
CNN is a unit of Time Warner Inc.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Syria Angry at Plans for International Force
The AP reported Syria is stating an international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel would be an aggressive act.
"Syria warns against deployment of troops
AP - 44 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday the situation in Lebanon was "explosive" while Syria's president says the deployment of international troops along the Syria-Lebanon border would be a "hostile" act. The escalating rhetoric came as the 10-day cease-fire was shaken by the deaths of three Lebanese soldiers killed defusing a missile and an Israeli killed by a land mine in south Lebanon."
Syria appears to be in a temper-tantrum because because they are obviously not getting what they wanted. If Syria truly was not involved in Hezbollah, then it would not have made such a statement. Syria has something to gain and lose in the outcome of this conflict and they just showed part of their hand. It is time for the U.N. to "call" and "raise" Hezbollah.
"Syria warns against deployment of troops
AP - 44 minutes ago
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Israel's foreign minister said Wednesday the situation in Lebanon was "explosive" while Syria's president says the deployment of international troops along the Syria-Lebanon border would be a "hostile" act. The escalating rhetoric came as the 10-day cease-fire was shaken by the deaths of three Lebanese soldiers killed defusing a missile and an Israeli killed by a land mine in south Lebanon."
Syria appears to be in a temper-tantrum because because they are obviously not getting what they wanted. If Syria truly was not involved in Hezbollah, then it would not have made such a statement. Syria has something to gain and lose in the outcome of this conflict and they just showed part of their hand. It is time for the U.N. to "call" and "raise" Hezbollah.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Lou Dobbs and his contempt for Adam Smith
He has become so cynical and pessimistic I have stopped reading and watching Lou Dobbs with regularity. While I was reading CNN today I saw Lou had an article linked titled “It’s good to be a Superpower”.
He not only shows again his cynicism, this article he adds a degree of hate capitalism and it appears to me contempt for the US. My assessment of him may not be accurate for I do not know the man personally. I suppose he could also simply be ignorant. He may have never read Wealth of Nations. Remember, he is a journalist, a master of none.
I have linked articles and EU charts which disagree with Lou’s article.
GERMAN IMPORTS RISE FROM CHINA
WORLD EXPORTS AND US IMPORTS
Per this article it appears the US buys roughly 23% of the world clothing output, while we have less than 5% of the world population. If it were not for the US purchasing products from other nations, their clothing industries everywhere would contract painfully or maybe collapse. If a company suffered a 23% loss in sales, what do you think would happen to the company? Mass layoffs, possible closure or sale to a another firm?
According to this article, clothing imports are up in Europe.
The real news is what the Dutch have done to their clothing import trade. The article appears to suggest the Dutch government has applied an import duty on textiles and clothing. The import market has fallen dramtically. This not only raises prices on imports, but it will inevitably raise the price per unit of clothing made in country. Artificially softening competition in a nation will always allow prices to rise.
“Prices go up
This big fall in the Netherlands was due mainly to a big price increase of 203 per cent to an average 15.89 euros per kg paid by Dutch importers in the first quarter.
EU importers on the whole in the first quarter also saw an increase in prices of 21.1 per cent in knitted clothing and 12.7 per cent in woven clothing.
The average cost for knitted clothing was 13.56 euros per kg and 17.21 euros per kg in woven clothing.”
But is not only Lou Dobbs who does not understand the world's market economy. The Washington Post also has a story, "China to Raise Tariffs On Clothing Exports". It is about China's textile exporting. If people are buying China's clothing, they must be satisfied with a) the quality, with relation to b)the price.
Regarding the possibility of China's export tax, The New York Times adds the most meaningful bit of information I have read from the media to date. Yes, the quality. China clothing manufacturers understand this... If all they make is inexpensive and lower quality clothing, they are limited in their market. However if some of China's clothes are of higher quality (and would still be relatively inexpensive versus US or EU produced clothing, then the China textile market will find new and more customers. The market always finds it's own way.
He not only shows again his cynicism, this article he adds a degree of hate capitalism and it appears to me contempt for the US. My assessment of him may not be accurate for I do not know the man personally. I suppose he could also simply be ignorant. He may have never read Wealth of Nations. Remember, he is a journalist, a master of none.
I have linked articles and EU charts which disagree with Lou’s article.
GERMAN IMPORTS RISE FROM CHINA
WORLD EXPORTS AND US IMPORTS
Per this article it appears the US buys roughly 23% of the world clothing output, while we have less than 5% of the world population. If it were not for the US purchasing products from other nations, their clothing industries everywhere would contract painfully or maybe collapse. If a company suffered a 23% loss in sales, what do you think would happen to the company? Mass layoffs, possible closure or sale to a another firm?
According to this article, clothing imports are up in Europe.
The real news is what the Dutch have done to their clothing import trade. The article appears to suggest the Dutch government has applied an import duty on textiles and clothing. The import market has fallen dramtically. This not only raises prices on imports, but it will inevitably raise the price per unit of clothing made in country. Artificially softening competition in a nation will always allow prices to rise.
“Prices go up
This big fall in the Netherlands was due mainly to a big price increase of 203 per cent to an average 15.89 euros per kg paid by Dutch importers in the first quarter.
EU importers on the whole in the first quarter also saw an increase in prices of 21.1 per cent in knitted clothing and 12.7 per cent in woven clothing.
The average cost for knitted clothing was 13.56 euros per kg and 17.21 euros per kg in woven clothing.”
But is not only Lou Dobbs who does not understand the world's market economy. The Washington Post also has a story, "China to Raise Tariffs On Clothing Exports". It is about China's textile exporting. If people are buying China's clothing, they must be satisfied with a) the quality, with relation to b)the price.
Regarding the possibility of China's export tax, The New York Times adds the most meaningful bit of information I have read from the media to date. Yes, the quality. China clothing manufacturers understand this... If all they make is inexpensive and lower quality clothing, they are limited in their market. However if some of China's clothes are of higher quality (and would still be relatively inexpensive versus US or EU produced clothing, then the China textile market will find new and more customers. The market always finds it's own way.
Friday, August 11, 2006
Greenpeace Co-Founder, "Grew Up"
Moore on envrionmental extremism, Nuclear Energy, deforestation, global warming.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Monday, August 07, 2006
2006 Hurrican Season & Global Warming
One year ago I was still in denial. I did not believe the Earth was warming and I did not think "we" had anything to do with it. A year has seen change and some "digging in."
A record number of hurricanes and some fierce storms came off the Atlantic in 2005. It was a field (day) year for alarmists. There were those who made their predictions for 2006. As the previous is from Wikipedia, it has the potential to change. Below will be cut and paste as to never leave the corridors of history:
On May 22, 2006, NOAA released their forecasts for the 2006 season. They predict 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes.[5]
On May 31, 2006, Klotzbach's team released their final pre-season forecast for 2006, confirming their previous numbers.[6]
Midseason Outlook
On August 3, 2006, Klotzbach's team lowered their season estimate to 15 named storms, with 7 becoming hurricanes and 3 becoming major hurricanes. They noted that conditions have become less favorable than they were earlier in the year. The sea level pressure and trade wind strength in the tropical Atlantic are above normal, while sea surface temperatures are on a decreasing trend.[7]
It is important to note the table posted to the page:
Record high activity (2005): 28 15 8
CSU 5 December 2005 predicted; 17 9 5
CSU 3 August 2006, now the lowered prediction: 15 7 3
Activity to date: 3 - -
If there is so much need for alarm, then why has CSU reduced their own 2006 predictions? We are almost half way through the hurrican season. If the conditions we so ripe as they were in 2005, we should have had 8-10 hurricanes by now and at least 3 major. So far, 3 wimpy tropical storms; Alberto, Beryl and Chris.
I am trying to be open minded. But could someone throw me a bone?
Plus I have a bet with a young lady, there will be less than 5 hurricanes total this year. If she wins (more than 5 hurricanes) I drink tobasco sauce. If I win (5 or less), she will do something similar, She loves Tobasco and habaneros. Let us hope for less destruction and my win.
A record number of hurricanes and some fierce storms came off the Atlantic in 2005. It was a field (day) year for alarmists. There were those who made their predictions for 2006. As the previous is from Wikipedia, it has the potential to change. Below will be cut and paste as to never leave the corridors of history:
On May 22, 2006, NOAA released their forecasts for the 2006 season. They predict 13 to 16 named storms, with 8 to 10 becoming hurricanes, and 4 to 6 becoming major hurricanes.[5]
On May 31, 2006, Klotzbach's team released their final pre-season forecast for 2006, confirming their previous numbers.[6]
Midseason Outlook
On August 3, 2006, Klotzbach's team lowered their season estimate to 15 named storms, with 7 becoming hurricanes and 3 becoming major hurricanes. They noted that conditions have become less favorable than they were earlier in the year. The sea level pressure and trade wind strength in the tropical Atlantic are above normal, while sea surface temperatures are on a decreasing trend.[7]
It is important to note the table posted to the page:
Record high activity (2005): 28 15 8
CSU 5 December 2005 predicted; 17 9 5
CSU 3 August 2006, now the lowered prediction: 15 7 3
Activity to date: 3 - -
If there is so much need for alarm, then why has CSU reduced their own 2006 predictions? We are almost half way through the hurrican season. If the conditions we so ripe as they were in 2005, we should have had 8-10 hurricanes by now and at least 3 major. So far, 3 wimpy tropical storms; Alberto, Beryl and Chris.
I am trying to be open minded. But could someone throw me a bone?
Plus I have a bet with a young lady, there will be less than 5 hurricanes total this year. If she wins (more than 5 hurricanes) I drink tobasco sauce. If I win (5 or less), she will do something similar, She loves Tobasco and habaneros. Let us hope for less destruction and my win.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Law Enforcement Catch Serial Snipers
Police announce the Serial Snipers are the two in custody.
Little did other Phoenix residents know, they are also linked to the recent arson at a Walmart which shut down the store for some time. No injuries from the Walmart fire.
They both deserve the death penalty.
Little did other Phoenix residents know, they are also linked to the recent arson at a Walmart which shut down the store for some time. No injuries from the Walmart fire.
They both deserve the death penalty.
Phoenix Serial Sniper, Two Suspects Questioned
The below article is from AZCentral.com, a local news and entertainment publication. Do not believe the article's title when it says Phoenix was in the "grip" of fear... not true.
It may be some very good news coming from the Valley. A 10:00am press conference is scheduled to the Valley details.
It may be some very good news coming from the Valley. A 10:00am press conference is scheduled to the Valley details.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Cuban Dictator Crisis
What if Fidel Castro really died?
How long has it been? 1959 is when Fidel Castro and his guerillas militarily took control of Havana. Wteadily he gained more control of Cuba until the whole the nation was communist with a central economy, socialized medicine and zero free speech.
Per Wikipedia "June 1960...Cuba nationalized some $850 million worth of US property and businesses. The revolutionary government grabbed control of the nation by nationalizing industry, expropriating property owned by Cubans and non-Cubans alike, collectivizing agriculture, and enacting policies which it claimed would benefit the population. While popular among the poor, these policies alienated many former supporters of the revolution among the Cuban middle and upper-classes. Over one million Cubans later migrated to the US, forming a vocal anti-Castro community in Miami, Florida." The economic changes are still held today, and the country is poor. The people have very little.
The Cuban's and families in Cuba still hate Castro. This week they have been parading and celebrating Castro's ailment. I think they may wish he pass. What could this mean to Cuba and Cubans, once Fidel Castro dies?
Currently Fidel's brother Raul is in charge of the country's affairs. Who is Raul Castro?
1) Wikipedia "According to an August 1, 2006 article in Time, he was responsible for overseeing the summary execution of 'scores' of soldiers loyal to deposed Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista after Batista's downfall."
2) Miguel A Faria MD, NewsMax, 2001
Do Cubans desire change?
Yes says a woman I spoke with named Zalenia. She is of Cuban decent and still visits family in Cuba a couple times per year. While the national news of the US shows video of support for Fidel as he is sick, Zalenia describes a different Cuba. "The people of Cuba do not have a choice of speech, they are poor, they hate Castro. The millions of Cubans living in Miami, Florida hate Castro... He has done nothing but ruin the Cuban economy and has killed thousands of countrymen. His brother Raul has himself killed thousands over the years of Fidel's power. "Cubans in Miami and Los Angeles are celebrating." Many in Cuba are as well.
The communist government in Cuba still has complete control over the national broadcasts and news. They still have Soviet-like officers in the street keeping people from granting interviews to foreign journalists. "We've been asked to keep things normal here, and to make sure that the revolution continues," said Daniel, a young social worker." -courtesy breitbart.com
I do not know what Cuban's will want. It is not clear whether Raul Castro will have the iron fist of his brother. Supposedly Raul does not have the natural charisma of his brother. He has not the same respect of Fidel. To make up for this handicap for power, Raul may have to be brutal again, if he wants to maintain the communist control of Cuba.
The hope is there will be a bloodless Revolution. Young Cubans will begin organizing rallies in the Havana streets, demanding more freedom, maybe democracy. Cuban exiles in the streets of Miami and LA I hope do the same. Build the political clout and pressure for revolutionary change again. With the death of Fidel Castro, let the birth of Cuban freedom begin.
No more death in Cuba, no more starving masses, and maybe someone can import a new car or two.
How long has it been? 1959 is when Fidel Castro and his guerillas militarily took control of Havana. Wteadily he gained more control of Cuba until the whole the nation was communist with a central economy, socialized medicine and zero free speech.
Per Wikipedia "June 1960...Cuba nationalized some $850 million worth of US property and businesses. The revolutionary government grabbed control of the nation by nationalizing industry, expropriating property owned by Cubans and non-Cubans alike, collectivizing agriculture, and enacting policies which it claimed would benefit the population. While popular among the poor, these policies alienated many former supporters of the revolution among the Cuban middle and upper-classes. Over one million Cubans later migrated to the US, forming a vocal anti-Castro community in Miami, Florida." The economic changes are still held today, and the country is poor. The people have very little.
The Cuban's and families in Cuba still hate Castro. This week they have been parading and celebrating Castro's ailment. I think they may wish he pass. What could this mean to Cuba and Cubans, once Fidel Castro dies?
Currently Fidel's brother Raul is in charge of the country's affairs. Who is Raul Castro?
1) Wikipedia "According to an August 1, 2006 article in Time, he was responsible for overseeing the summary execution of 'scores' of soldiers loyal to deposed Cuban leader Fulgencio Batista after Batista's downfall."
2) Miguel A Faria MD, NewsMax, 2001
Do Cubans desire change?
Yes says a woman I spoke with named Zalenia. She is of Cuban decent and still visits family in Cuba a couple times per year. While the national news of the US shows video of support for Fidel as he is sick, Zalenia describes a different Cuba. "The people of Cuba do not have a choice of speech, they are poor, they hate Castro. The millions of Cubans living in Miami, Florida hate Castro... He has done nothing but ruin the Cuban economy and has killed thousands of countrymen. His brother Raul has himself killed thousands over the years of Fidel's power. "Cubans in Miami and Los Angeles are celebrating." Many in Cuba are as well.
The communist government in Cuba still has complete control over the national broadcasts and news. They still have Soviet-like officers in the street keeping people from granting interviews to foreign journalists. "We've been asked to keep things normal here, and to make sure that the revolution continues," said Daniel, a young social worker." -courtesy breitbart.com
I do not know what Cuban's will want. It is not clear whether Raul Castro will have the iron fist of his brother. Supposedly Raul does not have the natural charisma of his brother. He has not the same respect of Fidel. To make up for this handicap for power, Raul may have to be brutal again, if he wants to maintain the communist control of Cuba.
The hope is there will be a bloodless Revolution. Young Cubans will begin organizing rallies in the Havana streets, demanding more freedom, maybe democracy. Cuban exiles in the streets of Miami and LA I hope do the same. Build the political clout and pressure for revolutionary change again. With the death of Fidel Castro, let the birth of Cuban freedom begin.
No more death in Cuba, no more starving masses, and maybe someone can import a new car or two.
Friday, July 28, 2006
RofaSix - Threat of Islamic Facism
New find, RofaSix has a link and his own commentary on the subject of Rick Santorum's speech to the Press Club, Islamic Facism.
Where would Al Queda be today?
Interesting read from Arab News. Where would Al Queda be today if they had not attacked New York on 9/11?
Monday, July 24, 2006
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Why Are Jews Not Dummies?
Often I have wondered why there seems to be so many successful Jews? It may be easy for many people to name name multiple successful Jews. Most historically have been democrats and a few Republicans. I see it daily in columnists in the media and radio. Voices of respect are three of my favorites; Charles Krauthammer - Washing Post columnist, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved - both syndicated radio hosts.
While Prager and Medved are conservative and I have little doubt Republican, Charles Krauthammer I do not believe professes himself to be Republican.
Let us get away from their political aisles and focus on their success.
I believe theie success comes from intelligence grown from years of living in "survival mode." Whether the Jewish person lives in Israel or elsewhere, they might feel this same survival mentality.
The ability to be intelligent may be largely inherited yet I think it is reasonable to ascertain how much someone learns is a) up to their motivation and b)environmental. I do not imagine there is any proof of one country's citizens have more inherintly intelligent people than another. Every nations bell curve of intlligence is likely similar. There are dummies, average folks and brilliance. The difference comes in when all members of the population are exposed to and compete for learning and use the knowledge productively. The raises the whole of a nation so even the dummies can become smarter dummies.
Adding the above theory to Israel's small size, small population (7 million in Israel) and their years of "surviving" with enemies at the front step and back porch, they have all learned to be a little more crafty, work harder, learn more... The nation has been pushed by outside pressures to succeed and keep up with the big boys. It is analogous to a small aluminum manufacturer competing with a titan manufacturer. The large Alcoa, for example, has competitive advantages in nearly all categories compared with a smaller company. If a small business wants to compete, I would think each employee must work harder, smarter and longer to develop the product and get awarded the contracts. A larger company nearly always has the advantage. But not everyone in the titan has to be intelligent or work hard. By and large the bigger company must have a good product, cost effective and a solid team. But there can be some laggerds who do not pull their wait and the company will still survive.
A small firm must have all employees firing on all cylinders. Their team is smaller, they each may do more than one specialized job and the impact felt by each employee is more easily seen and felt. The lead engineer may have to write contract proposals one day, an office manager take a sales call, while the President brews a new cup of coffee. A week link in the small firm is a more critical problem. So it is with the nation of Israel with few people, expected to wear many hats (each male must spend 2 years in the military). They must care for their families, be successful at business and all the other "normal" problems in a typical life. Add to this the constant pressure of knowing millions of people would like nothing more than to see you and your family dead with no rationale.
Pressure and stress motivates people to improve. Too much stress can be a bad thing, but too much stress is relative. Jewish folks have succeeded like any other nation, while living with higher levels of stress than most any nation.
While Prager and Medved are conservative and I have little doubt Republican, Charles Krauthammer I do not believe professes himself to be Republican.
Let us get away from their political aisles and focus on their success.
I believe theie success comes from intelligence grown from years of living in "survival mode." Whether the Jewish person lives in Israel or elsewhere, they might feel this same survival mentality.
The ability to be intelligent may be largely inherited yet I think it is reasonable to ascertain how much someone learns is a) up to their motivation and b)environmental. I do not imagine there is any proof of one country's citizens have more inherintly intelligent people than another. Every nations bell curve of intlligence is likely similar. There are dummies, average folks and brilliance. The difference comes in when all members of the population are exposed to and compete for learning and use the knowledge productively. The raises the whole of a nation so even the dummies can become smarter dummies.
Adding the above theory to Israel's small size, small population (7 million in Israel) and their years of "surviving" with enemies at the front step and back porch, they have all learned to be a little more crafty, work harder, learn more... The nation has been pushed by outside pressures to succeed and keep up with the big boys. It is analogous to a small aluminum manufacturer competing with a titan manufacturer. The large Alcoa, for example, has competitive advantages in nearly all categories compared with a smaller company. If a small business wants to compete, I would think each employee must work harder, smarter and longer to develop the product and get awarded the contracts. A larger company nearly always has the advantage. But not everyone in the titan has to be intelligent or work hard. By and large the bigger company must have a good product, cost effective and a solid team. But there can be some laggerds who do not pull their wait and the company will still survive.
A small firm must have all employees firing on all cylinders. Their team is smaller, they each may do more than one specialized job and the impact felt by each employee is more easily seen and felt. The lead engineer may have to write contract proposals one day, an office manager take a sales call, while the President brews a new cup of coffee. A week link in the small firm is a more critical problem. So it is with the nation of Israel with few people, expected to wear many hats (each male must spend 2 years in the military). They must care for their families, be successful at business and all the other "normal" problems in a typical life. Add to this the constant pressure of knowing millions of people would like nothing more than to see you and your family dead with no rationale.
Pressure and stress motivates people to improve. Too much stress can be a bad thing, but too much stress is relative. Jewish folks have succeeded like any other nation, while living with higher levels of stress than most any nation.
Secretary Madeline Albright on Greta Blog
On FoxNews, Greta had on Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright as a guest. Greta asked the Secretary for an opinion on the Hezbollah/Israel conflict.
Greta; What will happen if Israel steps over "the line" into Lebanon?
Sec; I think it makes whole situation more dangerous...
Israel is drawn into a conflict which they are not fighting from outside but from the inside. Israle wants very much not to be occupiers any longer, they have learned this from past experience. They [Israel] need to deal with hezbollah as military threat.
Greta; Does stepping over the line into lebanon invite Syria or Iran to play bigger role?
Sec; Well it depends on the spin which comes out of this...
Not every detail is palnned ageah... there could be an accidental bombing into a Syrian area.. so there are unintended consequences and that's the problem... We are at a cross roads time in all of this where this could go in a very bad direction into spreading into a regional conflict... We need to try to get a resolution not allowing Hezbollah to regroup, and allow to feel safe within their own borders.
Greta; UN Resolution 1559 did not disarm hebollah, why should we think another Resolution would work? (Greta/Sec clarified the Sec; was not actually thinking of another UN Resolution, but simply an answer to the problem.)
Sec; I think what needs to happen, this cannot be solved militarily in the long run, we need diplomatic action in the long run... There are a number of diplomats in the region.. I hope very much Secretary Rice takes a larger role in this.. I am sure Sec Rice is in New York right now trying to figure out a more diplomatic method ...
I don't think hezbollah can be disarmed completely with military action.. and I think Israel is just going to get more sucked in...
Greta; What kind of diplomatic solution with hezbollah?
Sec; Well what has to happen, lebanon needs to control it's own territory, Hezbollah needs to be surrounded with international forces of some kind..
and the thing that is so interesting, frankly what is happening in the Middle East
is some of Sunni leaders [Saudi and others] are very critical of Hezbollah, that particular aspect of it needs to be strengthened.. That is something we need to work with...
Greta; will Arab's opinion change if Israel takes too long or take, what would appear to be, excessive force?
Sec; I think that is one of the real dangers here. Some of leaders are critical of Hezbollah, but are people on the street are thinking of Hezbollah.
Israel is in their right to protect themselves... The Katyusha rockets are coming from Hezbollah.. but at what moment does this go in a different direction.. where they seem to be the aggressors and lose their support in Arab Nations?
Like the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Iraq... throughout region this is a billiard table, very dynamic... be carefull this does not spin out of control.
I believe Greta asked the right questions and was relatively hard hitting. I also think the former Secretary did some dancing with the questions. She spent much time just restating facts and not giving her opinion. When the opinion was given I agreed with some.
MoreThanCorn agrees with Sec;
1) Israel has right to defend herself
2) Sunni leaders (governmental and religious) are critical of Hezbollah and the rest of the world needs to work with this...
3) The Middle East is analogous of a billiards table, very dynamic.
4) The "spin" from this could change everything.
MoreThanCorn disagreements with Sec;
1) Military force will not disarm Hezbollah in the long run.
2) Hezbollah needs to be surrounded by international troops
3) Israel could accidentally bomb in a Syrian area?
There is one new point above which I have yet to hear, number 4, Spin playing a role in this defensive action by Israel. Sec Albright impressed me with this. The media's coverage of this could change the direction and outcome. It could assist or desist in the resolving of this conflict with eventual peace or it could draw other nations into the conflict and escalate. The media needs to be extremely ethical and conscious of their reports and pictures. I will not hold my breath.
The disagreements are beyond recognition. The Secretary is absolutely wrong with all three above. I believe she is downplaying the significant role this "offense makes the best defense" method Israel is taking. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with 200+ US soldiers deaths notched in their headboards and 60+ Jews in this conflict alone. The total Jews killed is I am sure in the thousands. These people are not those who would sit down with cup of warm Green Tea and negotiate or voluntarily give up their remaining 12,500 Katyusha rockets, even if the tea has a hint of Jasmine. Hezbollah are terrorist/civilians, as I have heard them defined. Civilians store rockets in their homes and aid and abet Hezbollah even if they do not participate in the conflict themselves. They want Jews exterminated again and it appears revel in the hopes of this coming to pass.
The only time Diplomatic means would assist is for continued work on above "agreement #2, continued critical speech toward Hezbollah. There is where a veteran cheerleader could do some good. The military is there for one reason, insure Israeli security. This is accomplished well (and in the long run) through extermination of terrorists and exploding their rocket caches. The Secretary says, then the Lebanese government can move in troops with possible help from international forces to take back control of Southern Lebanon and encircle remaining Hezbollah terrorists. Did the Secretary not just say military action is also the long term answer? Let us review; Militarily (Israel) weed out terrorists (Hezbollah), then regain control of South Lebanon with a military (Lebanese)?
And how are international (United Nations) troops any better than Israel for taking care of Hezbollah? Would UN troops be ineffective?
I never much liked Secretary Albright.
Greta; What will happen if Israel steps over "the line" into Lebanon?
Sec; I think it makes whole situation more dangerous...
Israel is drawn into a conflict which they are not fighting from outside but from the inside. Israle wants very much not to be occupiers any longer, they have learned this from past experience. They [Israel] need to deal with hezbollah as military threat.
Greta; Does stepping over the line into lebanon invite Syria or Iran to play bigger role?
Sec; Well it depends on the spin which comes out of this...
Not every detail is palnned ageah... there could be an accidental bombing into a Syrian area.. so there are unintended consequences and that's the problem... We are at a cross roads time in all of this where this could go in a very bad direction into spreading into a regional conflict... We need to try to get a resolution not allowing Hezbollah to regroup, and allow to feel safe within their own borders.
Greta; UN Resolution 1559 did not disarm hebollah, why should we think another Resolution would work? (Greta/Sec clarified the Sec; was not actually thinking of another UN Resolution, but simply an answer to the problem.)
Sec; I think what needs to happen, this cannot be solved militarily in the long run, we need diplomatic action in the long run... There are a number of diplomats in the region.. I hope very much Secretary Rice takes a larger role in this.. I am sure Sec Rice is in New York right now trying to figure out a more diplomatic method ...
I don't think hezbollah can be disarmed completely with military action.. and I think Israel is just going to get more sucked in...
Greta; What kind of diplomatic solution with hezbollah?
Sec; Well what has to happen, lebanon needs to control it's own territory, Hezbollah needs to be surrounded with international forces of some kind..
and the thing that is so interesting, frankly what is happening in the Middle East
is some of Sunni leaders [Saudi and others] are very critical of Hezbollah, that particular aspect of it needs to be strengthened.. That is something we need to work with...
Greta; will Arab's opinion change if Israel takes too long or take, what would appear to be, excessive force?
Sec; I think that is one of the real dangers here. Some of leaders are critical of Hezbollah, but are people on the street are thinking of Hezbollah.
Israel is in their right to protect themselves... The Katyusha rockets are coming from Hezbollah.. but at what moment does this go in a different direction.. where they seem to be the aggressors and lose their support in Arab Nations?
Like the Sunni/Shia conflicts in Iraq... throughout region this is a billiard table, very dynamic... be carefull this does not spin out of control.
I believe Greta asked the right questions and was relatively hard hitting. I also think the former Secretary did some dancing with the questions. She spent much time just restating facts and not giving her opinion. When the opinion was given I agreed with some.
MoreThanCorn agrees with Sec;
1) Israel has right to defend herself
2) Sunni leaders (governmental and religious) are critical of Hezbollah and the rest of the world needs to work with this...
3) The Middle East is analogous of a billiards table, very dynamic.
4) The "spin" from this could change everything.
MoreThanCorn disagreements with Sec;
1) Military force will not disarm Hezbollah in the long run.
2) Hezbollah needs to be surrounded by international troops
3) Israel could accidentally bomb in a Syrian area?
There is one new point above which I have yet to hear, number 4, Spin playing a role in this defensive action by Israel. Sec Albright impressed me with this. The media's coverage of this could change the direction and outcome. It could assist or desist in the resolving of this conflict with eventual peace or it could draw other nations into the conflict and escalate. The media needs to be extremely ethical and conscious of their reports and pictures. I will not hold my breath.
The disagreements are beyond recognition. The Secretary is absolutely wrong with all three above. I believe she is downplaying the significant role this "offense makes the best defense" method Israel is taking. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization with 200+ US soldiers deaths notched in their headboards and 60+ Jews in this conflict alone. The total Jews killed is I am sure in the thousands. These people are not those who would sit down with cup of warm Green Tea and negotiate or voluntarily give up their remaining 12,500 Katyusha rockets, even if the tea has a hint of Jasmine. Hezbollah are terrorist/civilians, as I have heard them defined. Civilians store rockets in their homes and aid and abet Hezbollah even if they do not participate in the conflict themselves. They want Jews exterminated again and it appears revel in the hopes of this coming to pass.
The only time Diplomatic means would assist is for continued work on above "agreement #2, continued critical speech toward Hezbollah. There is where a veteran cheerleader could do some good. The military is there for one reason, insure Israeli security. This is accomplished well (and in the long run) through extermination of terrorists and exploding their rocket caches. The Secretary says, then the Lebanese government can move in troops with possible help from international forces to take back control of Southern Lebanon and encircle remaining Hezbollah terrorists. Did the Secretary not just say military action is also the long term answer? Let us review; Militarily (Israel) weed out terrorists (Hezbollah), then regain control of South Lebanon with a military (Lebanese)?
And how are international (United Nations) troops any better than Israel for taking care of Hezbollah? Would UN troops be ineffective?
I never much liked Secretary Albright.
Friday, July 21, 2006
ABC News, Phoenix "Under Seige" from Sniper
Just got off the phone with a friend in Indianapolis. He said ABC News headlines claim, "Community Under Seige", and then the report said, "...entire city is paralyzed with fear..."
This could not be further from the truth. ABC news is guilty of inflating the story.
I live and work in Phoenix. My employer is just a few blocks from a couple of the shootings. No one here in my office of 80 people have any life-changing fear of the sniper. We are all concerned, but not paralyzed.
Inflated Articles;
July 21 - ABC News
This could not be further from the truth. ABC news is guilty of inflating the story.
I live and work in Phoenix. My employer is just a few blocks from a couple of the shootings. No one here in my office of 80 people have any life-changing fear of the sniper. We are all concerned, but not paralyzed.
Inflated Articles;
July 21 - ABC News
Charles Krauthammer on Israel and Hezbollah
Krauthammer again is brilliant. Read full version below.
The MSM is sending mixed signals in their articles. Fox News, in my opinion, bumbles their article title today, "Arab World Stands Behind Hezbollah". Even when I read the stand alone article I still get the impression governments of Arab nations want Hezbollah out of the equation. They see the terror group as destabilizing. This really is a confusing mess of a region.
If Israel does as Krauthammer hopes, they will due the dirty work and give back the land to Lebanon, free of Hezbollah. Hopefully the "world" will give Israel enough time. The media could help, but I fear they will not.
Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Page A19
"There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?
The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.
Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East.
Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon.
The resolution enjoyed the sponsorship of the United States and, yes, France. As the former mandatory power in Lebanon, France was important in helping the Lebanese expel Syria during last year's Cedar Revolution, but it understands that Lebanon's independence and security are forfeit so long as Hezbollah -- a lawless, terrorist, private militia answering to Syria and Iran -- occupies south Lebanon as a rogue mini-state.
Then there are the Arabs, beginning with the Lebanese who want Hezbollah out. The majority of Lebanese -- Christian, Druze, Sunni Muslim and secular -- bitterly resent their country's being hijacked by Hezbollah and turned into a war zone. And in the name of what Lebanese interest? Israel evacuated every square inch of Lebanon six years ago.
The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.
Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.
Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.
But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.
The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.
It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing.
Just as in Kuwait in 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.
Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?"
The MSM is sending mixed signals in their articles. Fox News, in my opinion, bumbles their article title today, "Arab World Stands Behind Hezbollah". Even when I read the stand alone article I still get the impression governments of Arab nations want Hezbollah out of the equation. They see the terror group as destabilizing. This really is a confusing mess of a region.
If Israel does as Krauthammer hopes, they will due the dirty work and give back the land to Lebanon, free of Hezbollah. Hopefully the "world" will give Israel enough time. The media could help, but I fear they will not.
Lebanon: The Only Exit Strategy
By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, July 19, 2006; Page A19
"There is crisis and there is opportunity. Amid the general wringing of hands over the seemingly endless and escalating Israel-Hezbollah fighting, everyone asks: Where will it end?
The answer, blindingly clear, begins with understanding that this crisis represents a rare, perhaps irreproducible, opportunity.
Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East.
Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon.
The resolution enjoyed the sponsorship of the United States and, yes, France. As the former mandatory power in Lebanon, France was important in helping the Lebanese expel Syria during last year's Cedar Revolution, but it understands that Lebanon's independence and security are forfeit so long as Hezbollah -- a lawless, terrorist, private militia answering to Syria and Iran -- occupies south Lebanon as a rogue mini-state.
Then there are the Arabs, beginning with the Lebanese who want Hezbollah out. The majority of Lebanese -- Christian, Druze, Sunni Muslim and secular -- bitterly resent their country's being hijacked by Hezbollah and turned into a war zone. And in the name of what Lebanese interest? Israel evacuated every square inch of Lebanon six years ago.
The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel. But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.
Fine. Everyone agrees it must be done. But who to do it? No one. The Lebanese are too weak. The Europeans don't invade anyone. After its bitter experience of 20 years ago, the United States has a Lebanon allergy. And Israel could not act out of the blue because it would immediately have been branded the aggressor and forced to retreat.
Hence the golden, unprecedented opportunity. Hezbollah makes a fatal mistake. It crosses the U.N.-delineated international frontier to attack Israel, kill soldiers and take hostages. This aggression is so naked that even Russia joins in the Group of Eight summit communique blaming Hezbollah for the violence and calling for the restoration of Lebanese sovereignty in the south.
But only one country has the capacity to do the job. That is Israel, now recognized by the world as forced into this fight by Hezbollah's aggression.
The road to a solution is therefore clear: Israel liberates south Lebanon and gives it back to the Lebanese.
It starts by preparing the ground with air power, just as the Persian Gulf War began with a 40-day air campaign. But if all that happens is the air campaign, the result will be failure. Hezbollah will remain in place, Israel will remain under the gun, Lebanon will remain divided and unfree. And this war will start again at a time of Hezbollah and Iran's choosing.
Just as in Kuwait in 1991, what must follow the air campaign is a land invasion to clear the ground and expel the occupier. Israel must retake south Lebanon and expel Hezbollah. It would then declare the obvious: that it has no claim to Lebanese territory and is prepared to withdraw and hand south Lebanon over to the Lebanese army (augmented perhaps by an international force), thus finally bringing about what the world has demanded -- implementation of Resolution 1559 and restoration of south Lebanon to Lebanese sovereignty.
Only two questions remain: Israel's will and America's wisdom. Does Prime Minister Ehud Olmert have the courage to do what is so obviously necessary? And will Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's upcoming peace trip to the Middle East force a premature cease-fire that spares her the humiliation of coming home empty-handed but prevents precisely the kind of decisive military outcome that would secure the interests of Israel, Lebanon, the moderate Arabs and the West?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
