Simmering Beneath the Surface
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Trying to catch up
I've been on the road lately and have really fallen behind on my postings. Not that I haven't had a plenty to write about. Some postings I'll put up soon will be about the EU ruling on Microsoft (dumb idea), the call by Barbara Boxer to the President to lower the Strategic Oil Reserve (really dumb idea), the latest book by Robert Kagan (really good!), some ponderings on Asia-India and China in particular- and why that area of the world should gather more of our attention than Europe, a new idea and structure for the military, and finally some thoughts about hotels for business travelers.
The one topic I'm a little apprehensive to discuss is the military, and that is because I am not a military strategist. From the little I do know, a seed formed (or maybe it deformed) into an idea that may be useful in our post cold war era. Look for it soon.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Old Money & New Money: Its a mind set
I'm not going to weigh in on the Martha Stewart case, just use it as a illustrative point. The court found her guilty, and so she will need to serve her time. If what I also heard about the jury is true, and there were those on the jury who made their decisions based on the idea of, "This will send a message to those crooked CEOs", then I think she has a strong case for appeal.
My point is that a number of people said two questions of the same vein, "If she is guilty, why did she throw away her fortune for $40,000?" or "She can't guilty because she has nothing to gain from $40,000." I thought is that people who think in these terms think like "new money" where a person's very being is determined buy their wealth, their possessions, and the exposing of their wealth to others. It really has nothing to do with your age or how long you or your family has had money, though the term has legs in the fact that most of the newly wealthy exhibit "new money" traits. Don't have a family history, buy one!
Old money doesn't need to prove themselves by flaunting their wealth, they already know who they are and their postions in society. For old money, its all about power, and if that can manifest itself in what can be viewed as trivial ways to some. $40 G's is chump change to Martha, yet she scored the deal while everyone else lost. Her power got her the connections with Sam Waksal, and so she beat everyone to the finish. That is very old money. Donald Trump once said that he wouldn't pass a dollar bill if it was laying on the sidewalk. Why he was ask? "Because, its a dollar!" was the reply. The Don could use dollars for toilet paper, but old money doesn't pass up the chance beat the competion to the dollar.
Old money can also manifest itself in ways that seem "frugal" or "cheap" to new money. Again,think in terms of power, and this will make sense. Sam Walton drove an old pick up. George and Barbara Bush had a simple digital alarm clock that was held together with tape. These folks could clearly afford the finest in any product, yet their reasoning for staying with what they had. "It works just fine." Spending money on what they viewed as a utilitarian item was silly, and thus meant giving up some of their power.
So, if I go with Martha being guilty, I'd say that she just couldn't pass on losing her power.
I'm Glad I'm Not Richard Clarke
Yowch! Beyond the points I made the other night, the administration is making Richard Clarke look foolish. It's one thing to have one person's word against another. But to have memo's written by Clarke 18 months ago contradicting the very things he wrote in his book, well, that's just.......stupid? silly? absurd? ridiculous? election politics?
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
The Boyz of Summer are nearly here!
Yes! Baseball season is just around the corner. I grew up in Texas, so I'm an Astros fan, and this could be a really exciting year for the team. The keys to post season include keeping the pitchers healthy, keep the speed on the base paths, and keep Biggio and Bagwell's averages up.
I also lived in Chicago for four years, so I couldn't help but fall for the White Sox and the Cubs. Yes, I like both teams, though I favor the White Sox more. The Cubs really pissed me off in 2001 and 2002, and I never grew into liking the "lovable loser" tag. The White Sox, while not always dominating their opponents, went out every game and busted their humps to win. Rarely did I feel that they didn't have a chance to win, and that makes for an enjoyable game to watch.
I can't wait, can't wait, can't wait!
The Moor's Last Laugh: From the Wall Street Journal, 3/22/04
In yesterday's Opinion section of the Wall Street Journal, Fouad Ajami, professor at Johns Hopkins University, wrote a really good piece titled, The Moor's Last Laugh, were he discusses Islamic migration into Europe, and how fundamentalist, who have escaped their own country, have leveraged Europe's liberal democracies to further their own fundamentalist views.
I don't have a link to the piece, but find it if you can as I think you gain some insight into these fundamentalist, and how they view their citizenship in any country.
Here is an excerpt:
Spain may attribute the cruelty visited on it to its association with America's expedition into Iraq. But the truth is darker. Jacques Chirac may believe that he has spared France Spain's terror by sitting out the Iraq war. But he is deluded. The Islamists do not make fine distinctions in the bilad al kufr.
Bilad al kufr means "the lands of unbelief", or anything that is not considered a Muslim homeland.
Iraq? Why Iraq?
To some folks, it may sound odd that I would ask this question, but hear me out on this; Why Iraq? Many critics of the administration seem to claim that the President has been all but obsessed with going after Iraq. But why? It one thing to make a claim, but it seems that with these critics, its another thing to back up the claim with any reasoning. I've heard pundits allude that #43 wants to finish the job #41 couldn't. Or that the war was an effort to grab oil. These claims are preposterous on their own merits, and give people the imagery of grassy knolls and multiple gun men. I have yet to see anyone merit stand up and say, "The President wanted to take down Saddam for reasons other than terrorism. And those reasons are..."
Oh my poor brackets!!
I guess its a good thing that I didn't get involved in this years March Madness office pool. Oof!is all I can say. As a fan, I love March Madness, and this year has been no different. I love the upsets, but my brackets are a mess. Kentucky and Stanford are both out!?!?! I guess I should have figured this wouldn't be my year when I missed the play in game of Lehigh and Florida A&M. Who knew a small engineering school from Western Pennsylvania, better known for football than basketball, would lose to the Rattlers of Florida A&M?
I'm still crossing my fingers for St. Joe's. Go Red Hawks!
The Administration's Defectors
Why anyone would pay more than two minutes of attention to Paul O'Neill is beyond me. As Treasury Secretary, O'Neill was consistently ripped by critics for being out of sync with the needs of the Treasury and the Country. The fact that some people try to give him credibility today tells me that the media is trying to invent conflict, or they have forgotten O'Neill's track record.
Richard Clarke is another matter, and I've let his 60 Minutes interview chew on me for a few days. Here's the things that I don't understand: 1) If Clarke is the top terrorist expert, and the Administration has been having meetings regarding terrorism since the first days they took office, why couldn't Clark get a meeting with the President. The CIA Director, George Tenet, had regular meetings with the President discussing terrorism. Clarke claims that when he had concerns, he was shuffled off to the number two men of various agencies. 2) One of those "number two" men was Paul Wolfowitz, the author of "eminent threat, first strike" theory. It seems reasonable that Wolfowitz would latch onto any valid data that Clarke had regarding a valid threat by terrorist. Wolfowitz first authored his theory in the mid 1990's, so this wasn't idea that was germinated in the wake of 9/11. 3) He has been involved in counter-terrorism for 20 years, and so if he is willing to take credit for past counter-terrorism successes, isn't also to blame for the failures like the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the bombing by the U.S. of a suspected munitions plant that turned out to be an aspirin factory in the Sudan, the bombing attack of the USS Cole, and the bombing of the embassies in East Africa? 4) Since this counter-terrorism expert left the White House, a huge terrorist supporter, Libya, has come clean, the Mullahs in Iran are facing an uprising of democratic idealist, North Korea is back at the negotiating table, and Al Queda is scattered. Al Queda is still a threat, and scattering them doesn't make eliminating these folks any easier. Actually, and argument could be made that it is now harder to find these folks. Still, they are on the run, and are hard pressed to find sanctuary from a friendly government. 5) By his own admission, Clarke didn't have meetings with the President, yet he feels qualified to tell us what the President's plans were for Iraq. How did he have access to the information on meetings he did not attend?
I have reached the conclusion that Mr. Clarke is not as important as he makes himself out to be. This is not to impugn his character, his patriotism, or concern for country. I just think that Mr. Clarke thought that he was more connected and better thought of in the administration than he really was, and thus he has misinterpreted the events before and after 9/11. Unfortunately for him, he has also received some bad advise in releasing this book, and so I suspect he will face some difficult professional experiences in the near future. He be viewed not as a whistle blower as much as a uninformed, out of sync, unloyal, employee.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Israel Opens the Gates of Hell
Missiles from Israeli aircraft killed Sheik Ahmed Yassin, spiritual leader and founder of Hamas. Following the death, Hamas proclaimed that Prime Minister Sharon "has opened the gates of hell, and nothing will stop us from cutting off his head." Thousands of angry Palestinians poured into the streets of the streets of Gaza, and the sound of gunfire and hand grenade explosions echoed across the city. This is taken from a Washington Post article.
The gates of hell? Prone to the melodramatics, are we? And hand grenade explosions? In their grief, are the Palestinians blowing themselves up?
Let's get real, is Israel really expected to believe that Hamas, a sworn enemy of the State of Israel, a group who has pledged that there can be no peace in the Middle East as long as Israel exist, a group who has again and again refused to meet at the peace table, and instead has done everything it could to stop the peace process, that Hamas could or would make things worse than they are today? To believe that is to believe that Hamas has been holding something back, that it cold have done more, and yet they didn't because.....why?
Hamas will keep gunning for Israel no matter what event has occurred, and so why not eliminate the head of the group, cause disarray, and potential in fighting for leadership that could draw Hamas to its own destruction?
Mark my words, the next suicide bomb that goes off, the easy speculation will be that it was pay back for the killing of the Sheik. The Appeasers will say that Israel had it coming to them for acting so brash, and it will appear that we all lost our minds. The reality is that the next suicide bombing has already been planned, and messaging of "pay back" will just make for good publicity.
So, hit ‘em before they hit you.
The Appeasers Are Marching
I'll give the local paper a break on this one. They limit the number of words they publish in letters to the editor to 150 words, and I clearly broke that rule. Still, I felt better just getting this out, and moving forward with my thoughts on Spain, the bombing, and the emotional reaction the bombing caused at the ballot box.
As expected, the Appeasers have marched out with their banner of "I told you so". Lest we forget, France announce just a few weeks ago that it had reliable intelligence that it's rail system was a probably target by Muslim terrorist, Russia has been waging a war for several years with Chechen rebels who are well financed by Muslim terrorist, and the German government has called an EU meeting focused on security as the Germans also feel threatened. These three countries weren't exactly partners in the coalition to bring freedom to Iraq, and so when messages are sent out that the bombing in Madrid was a result of support for the US, don't follow the red herring as the results will just leave you with a bad smell. The messengers were trying to leverage our differences in opinions to create a weakness in resolve.
After 9/11, a common refrain was that "we needed to understand" the terrorist better, and once we did this, we would understand why they hated us. So, what do we do now that we understand them, because we do understand them. We used to think that all people want peace, love, and harmony, yet now that we "understand" these terrorist, we find that our ideals, and every other free democracy's ideals, of peace, love, and harmony are not universal. The idea that a pluralistic, democratic society with the free flow of communication, thoughts, and ideas, can exist is considered abhorrent to these extremist, and they believe that peace can not exist until they eliminate us. Harmony and peace lie within a narrow range for these people, and we are outside of this range, and thus must be dealt with in harsh ways. Their absolute views allows no compromise, and so to believe that support for the US policy in Iraq lead to the recent bombing, means that the Appeasers are deluding themselves for the sake of seeking a simple answer. If not prevented by military intervention, the bombings in Madrid were going to happen; it was simply a matter of scheduling for the terrorist. The whole of Europe is no where near safe, no matter their relationship with the US.
More Letters to the Editor
I was feeling especially cranky when I wrote this letter to the editor. Anytime a politician has the gall to stand up in front of people and say that they will dictate how a company will run their business, well it burns my butt! The very idea that they can legislate which jobs will and will not go overseas is nothing short of pure election year politicking, and its disgusting. Can you tell I'm a free market capitalist?
Anyway, here is my letter dated March 7, 2004. I guess the Statesman didn't like me calling the Dems idea nothing short of Communism because this letter wasn't published.
Regarding outsourcing jobs overseas;
"Democrats are rushing to capitalize on such sentiments by proposing measures aimed at stemming the flow of jobs overseas..."
Ostensibly, Democrats are proposing some sort of central economic body that would oversee the planning and needs of the economy, and thus would dictate to corporation when and how often they would hire. Gee, this sounds familiar to something from recent history. Oh yes, didn't the Soviet Union try to tell each of its industries what it could and couldn't do? I wonder how that turned out?
Letters To the Editor
I'll occassionally post letters that I have written to the editor of the local paper, the Austin American-Statesman. Here's one I sent on March 7, 2004 regarding the hulaballoo Democrats are making about outsourcing jobs overseas. The AAS actually printed this one!
Democrats criticize the President's use of images from September 11th as "shameful". Yet, Democrats are ready and willing to parade for us unemployed workers with emotional stories of distress and focus on the "evils" of outsourcing jobs overseas. September 11th is a defining moment for this country and this presidency, and the fall out effects from this tragedy will continue to be debated well past the November election. The effects of outsourcing job overseas on job creation is generally considered to be negligible by most major mainstream economist. So what Democrats are doing is preying on your fears by creating a phobia for a danger that doesn't exist. Now who is being shameful?
Sunday, March 21, 2004
