Category Archives: Current Affairs

Vernon’s Gotten the Attention of Farkers

3 Replies

Well, there’s notoriety and then there’s notoriety.  Vernon Robinson has earned the “Dumbass” tag on Fark.com and about 250 comments that include some slams on him, but also veer into interesting and Fark-esque political debate.  Not that he should care, but it is interesting since a lot of those folks would normally be considered conservative (i.e. Republican) who take exception to his approach.  I think he’ll find a lot of moderate Republican and Democratic voters who feel the same way in the 13th District, which is why I think he’ll dominate the far-right vote and top out at about 30% in November.

Here’s a link to the article that started the discussion and here’s a link to the page with the radio spot they all found a little ridiculous. It’s called “Brad Miller’s Mariachi Party.”

We Can Trust Them, They’re Working for National Security

Leave a reply

Here’s an interesting tidbit from BusinessWeek:

President George W.
Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad
authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded
companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure
obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the
Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained
eye.

Unbeknownst to almost all of Washington and the financial world, Bush
and every other President since Jimmy Carter have had the authority to
exempt companies working on certain top-secret defense projects from
portions of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Administration officials
told BusinessWeek
that they believe this is the first time a President has ever delegated
the authority to someone outside the Oval Office. It couldn’t be
immediately determined whether any company has received a waiver under
this provision.

Honestly if I’d read this a week ago I probably wouldn’t have paid attention, but since I just finished reading “Conspiracy of Fools“, which is a detailed look at the Enron/Andersen debacle, I have to say I find this development disturbing.  You see I used to assume that for the most part if you were a c-level executive at a Fortune 50 company you’d at least be smart and pretty good with management and financial basics.  I also assumed that their auditors would catch on to any really serious malfeasance. This book cured me of those delusions.

I also always assumed that every company had its crooks, and that every company does whatever it can to jack up its financials, but I never imagined that the crooks, especially the stupid ones, could climb so high and not be caught. 

So we only have to look back five years to see a spectacular example of how bad companies can behave, and how lax the oversight can be in the higher reaches of corporate America, and yet now we have the administration potentially providing a cloak of secrecy  to these  guys?  Why give an exemption?  Why not just get some auditors with top-secret clearance?  And why delegate the authority to your chief spy?

Who am I kidding asking these questions?

Another Reason I Love Jon Stewart

Leave a reply

The first time I remember seeing Jon Stewart he was hosting some short-lived late night show on CBS (I think it was CBS) and I just stumbled across it.  All I remember is thinking, “Damn that guys short” and “Damn that guys pretty funny.”  So when he took over the Daily Show I made sure to watch and have been rewarded ever since. 

Thanks to Patrick Eakes I just found the commencement address he gave at William & Mary in 04.  It has what is now my favorite quote about the war:

We declared war on terror. We declared war on
terror—it’s not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I’m
sure we’ll take on that bastard ennui.

Of course with his first name you know he has to be brilliant; we “Jon” folks are a pretty sharp lot.

NC Rep. Compares Himself to Jesus, Kind Of

Leave a reply

The North Carolina legislature is working on reforming its ethics rules (I know, it’s an oxymoron) and they raised the reporting threshold for gifts from nonfamily members to $1,000 and gifts from anyone who does business with the state to $500.  Those that support the higher threshold said that they wouldn’t be influenced by less money than that, and in the best quote of the day Rep. Drew Saunders (D) of Mecklenburg County said:

“Even the baby Jesus accepted gifts, and I don’t think it corrupted him.”

Huh.  I think someon needs to remind Rep. Saunders that he’s no Jesus.

Is the Prerequisite for Being Nationally Syndicated That You Be a Total Moron?

Leave a reply

I was reading my Winston-Salem Journal this morning when I came across Cal Thomas’s op-ed piece titled "Morale Slippage in Iraq".  To be blunt this piece of horse dookey is something I’d expect from my middle-school kids.

The entire piece is about the supposed decline in morale among insurgents in Iraq, and it is based entirely on:

…documents authored by an al-Qaida operative and seized by U.S. soldiers during an April 16 raid in the Yusufiyah area (12 miles south of Baghdad) offer hope to the American side that success may be closer than we think.

The author’s name is not known, but his conclusion about the lack of progress by the insurgent-terrorists is revealing.

So let me get this straight; in a nationally syndicated column you’re going to predicate your entire argument that the insurgents are getting bummed out and we need to stay the course (i.e. ignore the ignorant pessimists calling for us to withdraw) on a document by an unknown author?  For all we know it could have been written by a lovelorn jihadist who’s figured out he misses his girlfriend.

Look at it from the other direction: what would you think of the intellect of someone who based their assessment of the enemy’s outlook on the writings of 18 year old Private Joe Smith from Boise, ID who’s pissed off that he’s frying his butt of in Iraq and happens to think that President Bush is an idiot and that his officers are a bunch of idiots and no one knows what they’re doing  You’d laugh your butt off.

Thomas goes on to list some specifics from the captured writings like:

The documents reveal "The Mujahidin do not have any stored weapons and ammunition in their possession in Baghdad" and that there are as few as 30 or 40 insurgents in some areas compared to "tens of thousands of the enemy troops."

"The only power the Mujahidin have," says the al-Qaida operative, "is what they have already demonstrated." That consists of sniper fire, "planting booby traps among the citizens and hiding among them in hope that the explosions will injure an American or members of the government."

Since the source is unknown how the heck are we supposed to know if this turkey even knows what he’s talking about.  Again it could be some kid who’s reporting what he’s heard through the grapevine.  And of course there’s also the possiblity that this is disinformation but Thomas never considers that.

I’ve never been a fan of Thomas, but as time goes by I’m beginning to wonder if he really can be as obtuse as his writing suggests.  Sadly, I think so.

Economist on Immigration

Leave a reply

Over at Marginal Revolution there’s an “Open Letter on Immigration” (found via Freakonomics) that I found pretty interesting.  The part that really caught my attention was this:

Immigrants
do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs
as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain
free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.

Immigration
in recent decades of low-skilled workers may have lowered the wages of
domestic low-skilled workers, but the effect is likely to be small,
with estimates of wage reductions for high-school dropouts ranging from
eight percent to as little as zero percent.

While a small
percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration,
vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants
make to our economy, including lower consumer prices. As with trade in
goods and services, the gains from immigration outweigh the losses. The
effect of all immigration on low-skilled workers is very likely
positive as many immigrants bring skills, capital and entrepreneurship
to the American economy.

Reading this made me feel a little dumb.  I fell for the weak argument that immigrants take Americans’ jobs, and hand-in-glove, the counter argument that they take jobs that no Americans will do.  Well, when you think about it immigrants have to eat, they need shelter and they have to travel to the job.  In other words they are consumers and they definitely do create jobs just by being here.

Now I’m not getting into the politics of illegal immigration here, but I do think find it interesting that it is so easy to accept at face value so many of the arguments on both sides of the debate.  We all know this is a complex issue and it only gets worse if we don’t use our noggins and get all the pertinent information.  Making decisions based on bromides won’t help anyone.

Foxx Contributions from 149 PACs for $267,913

Leave a reply

According to Capitol Advantage, Virginia Foxx has gotten $267,913 from 149 PACs for the 05-06 election cycle.  The smallest amount ($200) came from the American Association for Marriage and the largest amount ($12,500) came from 21st Century Pac.  Here’s her top 15 PAC contributors

  1. 21st Century Pac, $12,500
  2. Every Republican is Crucial (Ericpac), $10,000
  3. RJ Reynolds Political Action Committee; Reynolds American Inc., $9,000
  4. Together for our Majority PAC (Tompac), $5,000
  5. Wachovia Corporation Employees Good Government Federal Fund, $5,000
  6. Promoting Republicans You Can Elect Project (Pryce Project), $5,000
  7. Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automotive Dealers Association, $5,000
  8. Freshman Pac, $5,000
  9. Credit Union Legislative Action Council of Cuna, $5,000
  10. Keep Our Majority Pac, $5,000
  11. Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, $5,000
  12. Branch Bank & Trust PAC, $5,000
  13. Duke Energy Corporation PAC, $5,000
  14. Americans for a Republican Majority PAC, $5,000
  15. The Freedom Project, $4,751

Other notable PACs that contributed some grease were the Lorillard Tobacco Company Public Affairs Committee ($3,750), Dell Inc. Employee Pac ($2,500), Petroleum Marketers Association of America/Small Biz Committee ($1,500), Exxonmobil Corporation PAC ($1,000), and Tyco International Inc. Employees PAC ($500).

Given Foxx’s strong and consistent stand on immigration reform I was a little surprised to see all the agricultural organizations that gave money to her.  Those  include

  • American Crystal Suger Company PAC ($3,000)
  • Dairy Farmers of America Inc. Depac ($3,000)
  • Weyerhauser Co. PAC ($2,000)
  • NC Farm Bureau Farmpac ($2,000)
  • National Council of Farmer Cooperatives ($1,000)
  • Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperation ($1,000)
  • American Sugarbeet Growers Association PAC ($1,000)
  • North Carolina Pork Council Pac ($1,000)
  • Great Lakes Sugarbeet Growers PAC ($1,000)
  • Western Peanut Growers PAC ($1,000)
  • American Nursery and Landscape Assn. PAC ($1,000)
  • United Egg Association ($1,000)
  • National Cattlemen’s Beef Association PAC ($1,000)
  • Florida Sugar Cane League PAC ($500)
  • Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative PAC ($500)
  • National Chicken Council PAC ($500)
  • National Turkey Federation PAC ($500)
  • American Sugar Cane League of USA ($500)
  • Southern Cottongrowers ($500)
  • National Milk Producers Federation Pac ($500)
  • National Pork Producers Council ($500)

By my count that’s over $20k from ag-related PACs.  The reason that is interesting to me is that she is very strong on immigration reform and is a hard-liner on illegal aliens.  On the other hand agriculture is one of the leading employers/benefactors of illegal alien labor (along with construction).  Strange. **Update** Okay, so I might be an idiot.  She sits on the House Agriculture committee, in which case the donations make sense.  On the other hand I do wonder how the average ag-business person feels about her immigration stance?

**Update #2** In an interview in the Winston-Salem Journal Foxx denied that she had any connections to oil (her opponent Roger Sharpe said she is in the oil companies’ pocket), but she’s gotten some contributions from oil company PACs including ExxonMobil.  It’s a small amount of money so I’d say Sharpe better find another bone to pick. He also better get busy with his fundraising because Foxx has a serious war-chest and as of the last election filings he has, uh, not so much.

Is Your Daughter’s Boyfriend’s Roommate a Terrorist? or Thinking About This Whole ‘Privacy’ Thing

2 Replies

As I posted last week there’s been a slight uproar about the NSA’s efforts to aggregate all the phone call data in the US.  Simply put the NSA is trying to distinguish who is calling whom and how often in an effort to track terrorists by said patterns.  I also said that I didn’t think this would be such a contentious issue if the government had been transparent or forthcoming in its efforts.

Today I read this item on Boing Boing and another aspect of this argument crept into my dim little brain.  First an excerpt:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we call in an effort to root out confidential sources. “It’s time for you to get some new cell phones, quick,” the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Here’s the question that this item caused to flicker in my head: if the government isn’t listening the contents of calls as they claim then how do they know who is making the call and who is receiving it?  If you call my house you could be talking to any one of five people who live here or any number of guests we have over.  If you call my cell phone you may not talk to me;  if the phone is lying around the house any one could pick it up and say hello.

While looking at cell phone records gives you an idea of who is probably talking to whom you just can’t know for sure unless you’re listening to the actual contents of the call.  But because our government has created an environment of guilty until proven innocent we are instictively loathe to give them even that level of access to records of our activities.

As a follow up to the NSA story the results of a survey were released showing that about two thirds of Americans had no problem with this kind of data collection if it helped fight terrorism.  I suspect that is becuase most people don’t feel they have anything to hide.  But how would they feel if they knew there was a possibility that their daughter, who was home for the summer from college, had a boyfriend living in a group home and unbeknownst to him he had a roommate who had links to a terror cell (however tangential).  The daughter’s numerous calls to a number with known terrorist connections raises a red flag and all of the sudden mom and dad have to deal with federal agents calling their employers with some very pointed questions.

I have a feeling their opinions might change.