While the American media focus on Iran and sometimes on North Korea, Pakistan is looking more and more like the next danger zone. The Pakistani government recently appeased the Taliban by allowing them to enforce "Islamic" law in various parts of the country. Realizing the danger of allowing the Taliban to take over an entire state, various countries pledged billions of dollars to Pakistan to bolster faith in the state's existing government. Will it work? My guest writer, Javed Ellahie, a local Pakistani-American attorney, does not believe so.
I asked Mr. Ellahie for his input on the situation after watching a chilling Frontline episode, "Children of the Taliban," which can be found here. Mr. Ellahie's response to me was not something I've seen in the mainstream media, so I asked his permission to share it. He agreed. His response is below.
U.S. Aid to Pakistan - Billions of Dollars in Paper Cannot Undo Billions of Dollars in Bombs
Pakistan is going through a very trying time. It is a country that lives in a part of the world where China, Russia and India were the neighborhood bullies. With the rise of Al Qaeda and the tit-for-tat response of “take no prisoners” by the U.S., the whole neighborhood has gone bully-whack.
Pakistan’s frontier province has always been a no-man’s land. Pakistan’s control consisted on having the tribal chiefs on her side. This could continue as long as Pakistan was the toughest kid on the block. Now, the tribal chiefs have taken on the Americans and no longer need to bow to Pakistan or anyone else. They believe that they control their own destiny and Pakistan is nothing but a pet of the U.S.
While the U.S. has announced billions in aid, it will go to waste. U.S. Aid is channeled through consultants and corrupt politicians. By the time it gets to the target, it is worth no more than a piece of shrapnel that started as a million dollar cruise missile and now lies in between the blown out limbs of the unsuspecting as they slept in their two dollar mud house.
Pakistan's civil movement holds promise, but it must not be directed at fighting a battle which, by its continuation, will destroy the country. Its energy must be channeled into efforts towards building a civil and just society in Pakistan. The best the U.S. can do is not to send billions into Pakistan but to leave and let Pakistanis and the frontier men run their own lives.
The U.S. and Pakistan's bombing of the tribal areas destroys the village where these fearless frontier men have dwelled for hundreds of years. Having lost their homes, these proud, angry mountain men, whose pride demands that every death be avenged, are descending to the valleys and cities of Pakistan and exacting revenge. How can you convince them that it is wrong to brazenly kill innocent civilians when they themselves have witnessed the wholesale deaths of their innocent family members by unseen (cowardly) drones?
The people of Afghanistan did not consider the U.S. its enemy--Al Qaeda did. By attacking an entire swath of Afghanistan, the U.S. now has made an entire population its enemy and turned ordinary Afghans (and now frontier Pakistanis) into Taliban.
by Javed Ellahie, Esq.
One may call my colleague a cynic. Yet, his plea for the world to let Pakistan alone must appeal to anyone who believes in a nation's right to control its own destiny. In addition, outside interference may encourage more support for the Taliban. It is hard to see how anyone can join such a backwards, violent group. I only understood it after watching the Frontline episode I mentioned above, "Children of the Taliban." I strongly encourage my readers to watch the episode, which can be found on PBS's website.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 20, 2009
The Banality of Evil: It Could Happen in America
I recently had lunch in a restaurant and started chatting with three women near my table. I ordered too much food and offered them some of mine, and they invited me to sit with them. After they found out I was a lawyer, they asked me some questions about a fire in their apartment, and I tried to help them out. (They did not have renters' insurance.) At some point, the conversation moved into religion after they asked about my ethnicity.I know lots of Mormons, lots of Catholics, and lots of people of other faiths who take their religion seriously. I may not agree with everything my friends say, but I respect their beliefs. I am very thankful to live in a country where reasonable people can agree to disagree, and where I can ignore ignorant bombasts. I've never had substantive discussions with fundamentalist Christians before, and after some time, it became apparent all three women were very conservative and very religious Republicans.
These women looked like your average Californians. One was 22 years old, half-white, half-Mexican, and had some streaks of red dyed into her hair. The other was a 26 years old light-skinned African-American. Her father was a pastor. The last woman was a 30 years old Jamaican-American married to a Laotian with a 8 years old daughter. As far as Americans go, this was a pretty diverse group of people.
We talked about George W. Bush, and all three of them liked him. They said you could not blame all of America's problems on one man. I agreed, saying that it was the entire Bush administration that created major problems, including unnecessarily invading Iraq. (I should have mentioned the compliant Democrats, too.) They said they supported President Obama, and even though they did not vote for him, he was now their president and they would try to support him, too. I thought their attitude was very honorable.
On Iraq, I said it was tragic that 100,000 innocent civilians and 3000+ Americans had died. The women responded that Iraq was not a mistake. I confirmed that they understood Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Trying to come to a middle ground, I said that perhaps at the time of the invasion, some evidence justified going into the country, but now, it's clear Iraq was never a threat to us. Assuming the only justified war is a defensive war based on defending your people and your country, the Iraq war was unjustified. I asked them again if they agreed invading Iraq was a mistake, based on current information. They still said Iraq was not a mistake.
I then said the war created more enemies. When an errant missile blows up your village, are you going to be pro-American or anti-American? In response to this, one of the women told me, "Why are you hating America? You're here now." I was stunned. I knew some people equated patriotism with total acceptance of everything about one's country, good or bad, but I didn't realize how ingrained this blind allegiance could be. I also didn't realize how many Americans felt that any dissent was somehow unAmerican. It is useful to remind ourselves that America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, was an act of dissent against America's occupiers, the British.
Thomas Jefferson, for example, said the following:
What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?
Most codes extend their definitions of treason to acts not really against one’s country. They do not distinguish between acts against the government, and acts against the oppressions of the government. The latter are virtues, yet have furnished more victims to the executioner than the former, because real treasons are rare; oppressions frequent. The unsuccessful strugglers against tyranny have been the chief martyrs of treason laws in all countries.
John Adams, if alive today, might have said the following about President G.W. Bush:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Alexander Hamilton, on fighting against one's own government (Hamilton is arguing for federalism, but he implicitly accepts the notion that Americans can use self-defense against their own government when it betrays them):
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
In short, dissent is American--blind patriotism is not.
On invading Iraq, the women said that we went there to help them. "They [Iraqis] asked for our help." Again, I was stunned. I thought we invaded Iraq to protect Americans from being attacked on American soil and to force the terrorists to fight "over there." In other words, assuming a finite number of terrorists, if we concentrated the war against them in the Middle East, they would have to expend resources fighting there and would be diverted from spending time plotting against Americans on American soil. No one said anything in response. I had in front of me three normally functioning people who believed that causing the deaths of 100,000+ civilians was our way of helping the Iraqis, and also, that they had asked for it.
The only time I got their attention was when I mentioned the 3000+ Americans who died. I told them why they would want to put Americans' lives at risk when it was clear now Iraq was never a threat to Americans. 100,000+ human beings didn't seem human to them because they lived in a different place, spoke a different language, and believed in a different religion--but mentioning 3000+ Americans made the death toll seem more real to them.
I tried a different approach: I asked them if they had to do it all over again, knowing what they know now, would they still have invaded Iraq? I was essentially asking them whether they'd save the lives of 3000+ Americans and 100,000+ Iraqis. After all, we know now that neither Iraqis nor Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to America. We know now that the war cost trillions of unnecessary dollars, which has reduced our ability to fight the current recession. The women said they would go to war again if given the chance.
That's when it hit me: normal people will believe and do terrible things, as long as they don't see the direct consequences of their beliefs. Like Germans in 1941 who silently accepted their government's gassing of millions of Jews, my American Christian companions believed that their government was doing the right thing to protect them. Most Germans never saw someone getting gassed and then having their teeth pulled. Most Americans have never seen a bomb land on a village, causing a child's family to be wiped out, severed limbs falling everywhere. It's almost like death has become so routine, our brains digest images as if they were from a Hollywood film (with a happy ending, of course). Even thinking about severed children's limbs, I think of an American film, and then of a PBS documentary showing dead children. Even in my own mind, an imaginary death takes precedence over real ones. So when I mentioned a child dying to my lunch companion, she immediately had to block the image by changing the subject into whether I loved America. The real image interfered with her idea of being involved in a just war. It was her own self-defense mechanism.
Blind patriotism makes no room for mistakes--these women were convinced that our country could do no wrong. After the WMD argument was destroyed and the connection to 9/11 absent--what else could they think of to justify their support of the war, but to assign an altruistic motive to the deaths of 3000+ Americans and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians? Their limited viewpoint--the one where 100,000 people were too far away to be real, and yet real enough to ask for "help"--could not handle any unfavorable information. Their mental paradigm required them to believe that their government, as an extension of themselves, was unable to do anything wrong. I've concluded that the most dangerous people are blind patriots. Whenever you refuse to call the unnecessary deaths of 103,000+ human beings a mistake, there is evil there somewhere. And it's utterly, tragically banal.
After my conversation with these women was finished and they had left, another woman told me she had overheard our conversation. Years ago, she had been in a U.N. refugee camp on the border of Cambodia and Thailand. In the camp she was in, Thai troops would come and shoot anyone who didn't have an ID. With only three or four U.N. personnel there to supervise the camp, these executions occurred on a more than rare basis.
She said that some Americans don't get it. The U.S. military, during Nixon's time, bombed Cambodia, which led to the Khmer Rouge, the opposition political party, becoming popular and gaining power (A similar course of events happened with the Nazi Party in Germany). See "Operation Menu," Nixon's 1969-1973 bombing campaign. As we now know, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge wiped out Cambodia, which, up to that point, had been a peaceful nation for centuries. Like the Iraqis, the U.S. government saw the people of Cambodia as nothing more than faceless pawns in a grander scheme. I am sure the American government wanted to help Cambodians, too.
Few people will kill another human being without some kind of greater ideal at work; however, it is the duty of responsible, educated people to remember the ravages of war and to demand that an actual threat exists before advocating war. Americans used to be responsible. When we found out about Nixon's bombing campaign, which killed 100,000+ Cambodians, protests broke out all over America's college campuses. College students died at Kent State. Even Congress acted, passing the Cooper-Church Amendment, which was supposed to limit Nixon's activities. (It did not. Like Bush II, Nixon did what he wanted to do, critics and other government branches be damned.)
Today, Americans have either forgotten history or are willfully ignoring it. My three companions, like the young students in the 1960's, should have been protesting the war once they realized Iraq posed little threat to the United States. Yet, even with the benefit of hindsight, they are willing to allow the deaths of 100,000+ civilians and 3000+ American soldiers. These are normal, sane Americans. They go to church, believe in God, and have families. They will not commit any crimes. They are some of the most dangerous people in America today.
We are so fortunate to live in a country with two vast oceans to protect us against invasion and with two allies as neighbors. We should not spoil our good fortune by allowing average or bloodthirsty Americans to dictate foreign policy. The reality of war--with its torn limbs, dead dreams, and dead bodies--will never fully register as long as most Americans continue to view executions on a big screen instead of next door. Our fortunate distance between death and reality should cause us to be more, not less, wary whenever our leaders argue that 100 or 100,000+ people need to die so that we can be safe.
Furthermore, it is every non-native American's duty to try to interact more with native-born Americans in a respectful manner. Most Americans have not traveled outside of North America. Therefore, the only avenue most Americans have to interact with other cultures is through non-native American residents. It is our duty to try to humanize other cultures for native-born Americans. It is our duty to reach out. It is our duty not to be banal.
Civilizations die from suicide, not by murder. -- Arnold J. Toynbee
Bonus: more here.
John C. Goodman on Health Care
John Goodman (Imprimis, 3/09) delivers a common sense speech about America's financial obligations:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=03
He starts off with a bang:
The first of the Baby Boomers started signing up for early retirement under Social Security last year. Two years from now they will start signing up for Medicare. All told, 78 million people are going to stop working, stop paying taxes, stop paying into retirement programs, and start drawing benefits. The problem is, neither Social Security nor Medicare is ready for them. The federal government has made explicit and implicit promises to millions of people, but has put no money aside in order to keep those promises. Some of you may wonder where Bernie Madoff got the idea for his Ponzi scheme. Clearly he was studying federal entitlement policy.
It gets better--well, actually it gets worse:
The Trustees of Social Security estimate a current unfunded liability in excess of $100 trillion in 2009 dollars. This means that the federal government has promised more than $100 trillion over and above any taxes or premiums it expects to receive. In other words, for Social Security to be financially sound, the federal government should have $100 trillion—a sum of money six-and-a-half times the size of our entire economy—in the bank and earning interest right now. But it doesn’t. And while many believe that Social Security represents our greatest entitlement problem, Medicare is six times larger in terms of unfunded obligations.
How much do we owe? Mr. Goodman answers that, too:
[I]f the federal government suddenly closed down Social Security and Medicare, how much would be owed in terms of benefits already earned? The answer is $52 trillion, an amount several times the size of the U.S. economy.
52 trillion dollars. Look at that number again. Fifty two trillion dollars, with a "t."
What makes Mr. Goodman different from most writers is that he actually offers solutions. That's the second part. You can click on the link below for his full speech:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=03
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=03
He starts off with a bang:
The first of the Baby Boomers started signing up for early retirement under Social Security last year. Two years from now they will start signing up for Medicare. All told, 78 million people are going to stop working, stop paying taxes, stop paying into retirement programs, and start drawing benefits. The problem is, neither Social Security nor Medicare is ready for them. The federal government has made explicit and implicit promises to millions of people, but has put no money aside in order to keep those promises. Some of you may wonder where Bernie Madoff got the idea for his Ponzi scheme. Clearly he was studying federal entitlement policy.
It gets better--well, actually it gets worse:
The Trustees of Social Security estimate a current unfunded liability in excess of $100 trillion in 2009 dollars. This means that the federal government has promised more than $100 trillion over and above any taxes or premiums it expects to receive. In other words, for Social Security to be financially sound, the federal government should have $100 trillion—a sum of money six-and-a-half times the size of our entire economy—in the bank and earning interest right now. But it doesn’t. And while many believe that Social Security represents our greatest entitlement problem, Medicare is six times larger in terms of unfunded obligations.
How much do we owe? Mr. Goodman answers that, too:
[I]f the federal government suddenly closed down Social Security and Medicare, how much would be owed in terms of benefits already earned? The answer is $52 trillion, an amount several times the size of the U.S. economy.
52 trillion dollars. Look at that number again. Fifty two trillion dollars, with a "t."
What makes Mr. Goodman different from most writers is that he actually offers solutions. That's the second part. You can click on the link below for his full speech:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2009&month=03
One of the Best Films Ever Made
I've just seen a wonderful Swedish film, Pelle the Conqueror. In 1988, it won an Academy Award for best foreign language film. The following year, it won a Golden Globe.
Pelle tells the story of two Swedish immigrants, an old father and his young son, who immigrate to Denmark around 1900. Like many immigrants, they dream of a better life, but are met with obstacle after obstacle. The world will not allow the father even the smallest of victories--whether it's a second job offer, a home to sleep in with coffee on Sundays, or the power to protect his son from bullies. Yet, somehow, the film manages to avoid being overly sentimental. If you're looking for a classic tale of a father and his son, you should not miss this film.
Pelle tells the story of two Swedish immigrants, an old father and his young son, who immigrate to Denmark around 1900. Like many immigrants, they dream of a better life, but are met with obstacle after obstacle. The world will not allow the father even the smallest of victories--whether it's a second job offer, a home to sleep in with coffee on Sundays, or the power to protect his son from bullies. Yet, somehow, the film manages to avoid being overly sentimental. If you're looking for a classic tale of a father and his son, you should not miss this film.
Esther Ting
I didn't know Esther Ting. I don't usually read the obits, but this one caught my eye, and by the time I was done reading it, I was tearing up. Here is the obit:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mercurynews/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=126321830
A friend's posts on Esther:
http://salcha.tumblr.com/post/96331972/in-loving-memory-of-esther-ting
http://salcha.tumblr.com/post/97737651/esther-ting
According to the above link (posted by Esther's friend on April 17, 2009), Esther died from a drug-related heart attack:
Now many of you are all wondering, how did Esther pass? What happened? Where, when, who..and so on...Wednesday April 8th, Esther overdosed on drugs which led to a heart attack. From what I heard from the nurse, she told me that they were able to resuscitate her, but her heart failed again and that’s when she passed.
Why would the world take a woman a few weeks before her 19th birthday? This makes no sense. It just makes no sense. May God help her family and those who were fortunate enough to know her.
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mercurynews/obituary.aspx?page=lifestory&pid=126321830
A friend's posts on Esther:
http://salcha.tumblr.com/post/96331972/in-loving-memory-of-esther-ting
http://salcha.tumblr.com/post/97737651/esther-ting
According to the above link (posted by Esther's friend on April 17, 2009), Esther died from a drug-related heart attack:
Now many of you are all wondering, how did Esther pass? What happened? Where, when, who..and so on...Wednesday April 8th, Esther overdosed on drugs which led to a heart attack. From what I heard from the nurse, she told me that they were able to resuscitate her, but her heart failed again and that’s when she passed.
Why would the world take a woman a few weeks before her 19th birthday? This makes no sense. It just makes no sense. May God help her family and those who were fortunate enough to know her.
NYT Immigration: "Remade in America"
The entire NYT series on immigration--called "Remade in America"--is fascinating. The link is below:
http://projects.nytimes.com/immigration/
Here's a so-so link linking countries and occupations:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/07/us/20090407-immigration-occupation.html
Some interesting points: Iran is under Asia rather than Middle East; and sales-related professions seem to be the most popular occupation.
http://projects.nytimes.com/immigration/
Here's a so-so link linking countries and occupations:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/04/07/us/20090407-immigration-occupation.html
Some interesting points: Iran is under Asia rather than Middle East; and sales-related professions seem to be the most popular occupation.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
NYT Immigration Chart
I am having way too much fun with this NYT immigration chart:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html
You can get stats based on year (as far back as the 1800's!) and country.
Thanks to the NYT's Matthew Bloch and Robert Gebeloff.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/03/10/us/20090310-immigration-explorer.html
You can get stats based on year (as far back as the 1800's!) and country.
Thanks to the NYT's Matthew Bloch and Robert Gebeloff.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Amica and Renter's Insurance
So it's 2AM on Saturday morning, I've just finished watching a terrible movie (Love, Honour and Obey, a BBC flick that came out in 2000), and I remember that a friend of mine told me to get renter's insurance.
Not being a materialistic type of person, I don't own that much expensive stuff, so I never bothered with renter's insurance. Well, as it turns out, renter's insurance is helpful because it also contains other components, like liability insurance. As my friend said, if you are walking and you accidentally bump an old lady into the street, causing her to die, your personal assets are at risk. That's where renter's insurance apparently comes in, to protect your personal assets. (Note: I do not own a home; otherwise, homeowner's insurance may have covered me.) It all seems counter-intuitive, but I guess it makes sense in the crazy world of insurance.
My friend recommended buying renter's insurance from my auto insurer to get a discount, but I decided to go with a different company. My auto insurer is Progressive, and they're not known for anything other than auto insurance. He also recommended buying an umbrella policy, but I forgot about that.
Anyway, I go online to find a good insurance company, and I stumble upon this website:
http://insurancenewsandviews.blogspot.com/
http://insurancenewsandviews.blogspot.com/2009/02/best-home-insurance-companies-usaa.html
I find that Chubb and Amica have good rankings (I'm not eligible for USAA, and Erie reminds me too much of a Civ Pro case), and I go with Amica. I log onto their website and use Amica's "live chat" feature. I get this great customer service rep who guides me through the process. Throughout the whole exchange, I am thinking, "This is great. It's almost 3:00AM right now, and this guy is alert and on the ball." Because of the time difference, I thought maybe the customer service rep was in India. At the end of the whole thing, I ask where he's from. Turns out he's from Spokane, WA.
Here's the exchange:
Matt: Given the time diff, I assume you're in India. What part of India are you in?
Matt: Gu[j]arat?
Joseph N.: Spokane, WA.
Matt: Oh, wow.
Matt: Very cool.
Joseph N.: We do it the hard way, graveyard, old fashioned right?
Matt: No wonder your English was perfect :-)
Matt: Damn good customer service, buddy.
Joseph N.: Thank you! We have people for you 24/7, so if you ever want to look at switching your auto let us know ;)
Joseph N.: I appreciate it!
Matt: Don't stay up too late. Have a good night.
Matt: Bye.
Joseph N.: You as well, goodbye.
I've always wondered if outsourcing customer service results in less overall quality. Of course, it depends on the individual, but perhaps there's something to be said for encouraging live, domestic customer service. I ended up buying the policy. I pay by credit card on Monday.
Oh, I learned a new word, too: "binding." A verbal confirmation of insurance coverage is called "binding"--as in, "I can bind the policy effective today." Who knew?
I am off to bed.
Update: the NYT just had an interesting article on insurance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/your-money/life-and-disability-insurance/18wealth.html
Not being a materialistic type of person, I don't own that much expensive stuff, so I never bothered with renter's insurance. Well, as it turns out, renter's insurance is helpful because it also contains other components, like liability insurance. As my friend said, if you are walking and you accidentally bump an old lady into the street, causing her to die, your personal assets are at risk. That's where renter's insurance apparently comes in, to protect your personal assets. (Note: I do not own a home; otherwise, homeowner's insurance may have covered me.) It all seems counter-intuitive, but I guess it makes sense in the crazy world of insurance.
My friend recommended buying renter's insurance from my auto insurer to get a discount, but I decided to go with a different company. My auto insurer is Progressive, and they're not known for anything other than auto insurance. He also recommended buying an umbrella policy, but I forgot about that.
Anyway, I go online to find a good insurance company, and I stumble upon this website:
http://insurancenewsandviews.blogspot.com/
http://insurancenewsandviews.blogspot.com/2009/02/best-home-insurance-companies-usaa.html
I find that Chubb and Amica have good rankings (I'm not eligible for USAA, and Erie reminds me too much of a Civ Pro case), and I go with Amica. I log onto their website and use Amica's "live chat" feature. I get this great customer service rep who guides me through the process. Throughout the whole exchange, I am thinking, "This is great. It's almost 3:00AM right now, and this guy is alert and on the ball." Because of the time difference, I thought maybe the customer service rep was in India. At the end of the whole thing, I ask where he's from. Turns out he's from Spokane, WA.
Here's the exchange:
Matt: Given the time diff, I assume you're in India. What part of India are you in?
Matt: Gu[j]arat?
Joseph N.: Spokane, WA.
Matt: Oh, wow.
Matt: Very cool.
Joseph N.: We do it the hard way, graveyard, old fashioned right?
Matt: No wonder your English was perfect :-)
Matt: Damn good customer service, buddy.
Joseph N.: Thank you! We have people for you 24/7, so if you ever want to look at switching your auto let us know ;)
Joseph N.: I appreciate it!
Matt: Don't stay up too late. Have a good night.
Matt: Bye.
Joseph N.: You as well, goodbye.
I've always wondered if outsourcing customer service results in less overall quality. Of course, it depends on the individual, but perhaps there's something to be said for encouraging live, domestic customer service. I ended up buying the policy. I pay by credit card on Monday.
Oh, I learned a new word, too: "binding." A verbal confirmation of insurance coverage is called "binding"--as in, "I can bind the policy effective today." Who knew?
I am off to bed.
Update: the NYT just had an interesting article on insurance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/your-money/life-and-disability-insurance/18wealth.html
Friday, April 17, 2009
Blog Referral
I'm still recovering from tax day, so not much writing for me today. But here's a blog I just found:
http://undomesticmama.typepad.com/the_undomestic_mama/
It's mainly about econ, of course.
http://undomesticmama.typepad.com/the_undomestic_mama/
It's mainly about econ, of course.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Susan Boyle
Susan Boyle's excellent rendition of a Les Miserables song has made her popular beyond her wildest imagination. It strikes me as odd why no one is mentioning the sad lyrics to her song. I've included the lyrics below. If one reason for Ms. Boyle's excellent performance is that the lyrics hold some truth for her, then I would feel quite sad. Having said that, I hope Ms. Boyle wins.
Lyrics to "I Dreamed a Dream"
I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving.
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used
And wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung
No wine untasted.
But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
As they turn your dream to shame.
And still
I dream he'll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms
We cannot weather...
I had a dream my life would be
So different form this hell I'm living
so different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed
The dream I dreamed.
___________
Another singer of the same song is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt-IBJpEMzA
Lyrics to "I Dreamed a Dream"
I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving.
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used
And wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung
No wine untasted.
But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
As they turn your dream to shame.
And still
I dream he'll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms
We cannot weather...
I had a dream my life would be
So different form this hell I'm living
so different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed
The dream I dreamed.
___________
Another singer of the same song is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt-IBJpEMzA
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Shareholder Communications: Kudos to Dominion
Writing shareholder communications is a thankless task. Most shareholders throw away the reports, and even the ones who keep them won't read the fine print. This apathy results because most companies do a terrible job communicating with their small shareholders. With the exception of Berkshire Hathaway (aka Warren Buffett), no company seems to invest much time in producing creative or thoughtful shareholder communications. I know this because I read all my annual reports. I don't claim to understand everything I read, but I love reading them. Here are some highlights so far:
1. GE's 2008 annual report was excellent. Mr. Immelt continues to do a great job re-building his own and his company's reputation. When Mr. Immelt states, "I assure you that we will work hard to restore your trust, and we will continue to work hard to build GE for the long term," I believe him. Here are some other notable sections from the letter:
On government's expanding role: The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.
On Wall Street: The financial industry will radically restructure. There will be less leverage, fewer competitors, and a fundamental repricing of risk. It will remain an important industry, just different.
On America's future: I run a global company, but I am a citizen of the U.S. I believe that a popular, thirty-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. In the end, our businesses, our government, and many local leaders lost sight of what makes a nation great: a passion for innovation.
You can read the full letter here.
2. Other companies also took their duty to communicate to shareholders seriously. Kudos to Dominion Resources, Inc. (D) for its transparent, detailed 2009 proxy statement. I've always believed companies should be as transparent as possible when it comes to compensation and other issues, and Dominion did a fantastic job this year. It even managed to do a decent job defending the indefensible--supplemental executive pension plans. You would think after being paid millions of dollars, executives could manage their retirements without further shareholder assistance, but most companies pay executives millions of dollars after their executives leave.
Dominion stated that much of its executive compensation is based on long-term goals, so it needed an extra carrot to attract top performers. In addition, it argued its supplemental pensions are tied to restrictive covenants such as non-competes, dissuading retired executives from working for competitors. (Some states, such as California, won't enforce non-competes, but Dominion isn't a California corporation.) Elsewhere in the report, Dominion supported its arguments with charts showing that most of its executives' compensation was tied to long-term goals rather than base salaries. I'm not saying I was convinced, but at least I can clearly understand Dominion's point of view.
So far, only Dominion and Walmart have caught my eye when it comes to outstanding shareholder reports. They deserve recognition for their outstanding work.
Dominion isn't perfect. Page five of its "2008 Summary Annual Report" has a picture of a television screen showing what appears to be a generic basketball game. No one but a huge basketball fan would notice anything unusual about the picture, and even then, you'd need a magnifying glass to notice anything non-generic. Now, I happen to be a huge basketball fan, and I recognized Grant Hill and Joe Dumars from their Detroit Pistons days. What's the problem? Grant Hill hasn't played for Detroit since 2000. Joe Dumars hasn't played for Detroit since 1999. That means Dominion used a picture that is at least nine years old. Do'h!
1. GE's 2008 annual report was excellent. Mr. Immelt continues to do a great job re-building his own and his company's reputation. When Mr. Immelt states, "I assure you that we will work hard to restore your trust, and we will continue to work hard to build GE for the long term," I believe him. Here are some other notable sections from the letter:
On government's expanding role: The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.
On Wall Street: The financial industry will radically restructure. There will be less leverage, fewer competitors, and a fundamental repricing of risk. It will remain an important industry, just different.
On America's future: I run a global company, but I am a citizen of the U.S. I believe that a popular, thirty-year notion that the U.S. can evolve from being a technology and manufacturing leader to a service leader is just wrong. In the end, this philosophy transformed the financial services industry from one that supported commerce to a complex trading market that operated outside the economy. Real engineering was traded for financial engineering. In the end, our businesses, our government, and many local leaders lost sight of what makes a nation great: a passion for innovation.
You can read the full letter here.
2. Other companies also took their duty to communicate to shareholders seriously. Kudos to Dominion Resources, Inc. (D) for its transparent, detailed 2009 proxy statement. I've always believed companies should be as transparent as possible when it comes to compensation and other issues, and Dominion did a fantastic job this year. It even managed to do a decent job defending the indefensible--supplemental executive pension plans. You would think after being paid millions of dollars, executives could manage their retirements without further shareholder assistance, but most companies pay executives millions of dollars after their executives leave.
Dominion stated that much of its executive compensation is based on long-term goals, so it needed an extra carrot to attract top performers. In addition, it argued its supplemental pensions are tied to restrictive covenants such as non-competes, dissuading retired executives from working for competitors. (Some states, such as California, won't enforce non-competes, but Dominion isn't a California corporation.) Elsewhere in the report, Dominion supported its arguments with charts showing that most of its executives' compensation was tied to long-term goals rather than base salaries. I'm not saying I was convinced, but at least I can clearly understand Dominion's point of view.
So far, only Dominion and Walmart have caught my eye when it comes to outstanding shareholder reports. They deserve recognition for their outstanding work.
Dominion isn't perfect. Page five of its "2008 Summary Annual Report" has a picture of a television screen showing what appears to be a generic basketball game. No one but a huge basketball fan would notice anything unusual about the picture, and even then, you'd need a magnifying glass to notice anything non-generic. Now, I happen to be a huge basketball fan, and I recognized Grant Hill and Joe Dumars from their Detroit Pistons days. What's the problem? Grant Hill hasn't played for Detroit since 2000. Joe Dumars hasn't played for Detroit since 1999. That means Dominion used a picture that is at least nine years old. Do'h!
Government in Action
I don't know how I missed this tragically funny story about American immigration agents spreading the love, Homeland Security-style:
http://www.startribune.com/local/11592171.html
Erkki Maattanen, a filmmaker for Finnish Public Television who accompanied the musicians on the September trip, said his questioners seemed to think the entourage was smuggling drugs or intending to work without a permit. "I kept trying to tell them why we were here, but they'd just yell, 'Shut up!"' he said.
Ladies and gentlemen, your taxpayer dollars are hard at work.
Hat tip to http://thisiswhyiloveminneapolis.com/
http://www.startribune.com/local/11592171.html
Erkki Maattanen, a filmmaker for Finnish Public Television who accompanied the musicians on the September trip, said his questioners seemed to think the entourage was smuggling drugs or intending to work without a permit. "I kept trying to tell them why we were here, but they'd just yell, 'Shut up!"' he said.
Ladies and gentlemen, your taxpayer dollars are hard at work.
Hat tip to http://thisiswhyiloveminneapolis.com/
Guantanamo Redux?
Wait, didn't we vote for change?
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_appeals_bagram_detainee_ruling.php
I'm not going to say, "Meet the new boss--same as the old boss"--at least not yet. There appears to be a fine legal distinction involved in the appeal, but my spidey-sense is tingling.
Check out the April 15, 2009 Tom Toles cartoon for more.
http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/obama_appeals_bagram_detainee_ruling.php
I'm not going to say, "Meet the new boss--same as the old boss"--at least not yet. There appears to be a fine legal distinction involved in the appeal, but my spidey-sense is tingling.
Check out the April 15, 2009 Tom Toles cartoon for more.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Boston Globe's Big Picture
This link contains many interesting pictures and is regularly updated:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
If a picture says a thousand words, there's lots of reading there, bub.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/
If a picture says a thousand words, there's lots of reading there, bub.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Pete Murphy is Wrong about Immigration
Pete Murphy and I had are having another short discussion on immigration, this time on his blog. We've had this debate before, and I went back for Round 2. See below (comments section):
http://petemurphy.wordpress.com/the-case-against-immigration
Here are my responses to Mr. Murphy's anti-immigration views:
1. I agree that California is a fiscal disaster. That's because California spends most of its tax revenue on education. In addition, the salaries, medical costs, and pension obligations of public sector employees--officers, firefighters, teachers, etc.--create a significant impact on CA's budget. Illegal immigration is a convenient scapegoat for CA's refusal to cut spending across the board. See this PDF file for more information:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
It shows that education is the #1 spending item in CA, by far; then comes health and human services; then jails (CA jails too many nonviolent criminals). Some illegal immigrants may receive health and human services, but until we receive a breakdown of how much money or services is given to illegal immigrants, blaming them for CA's budget crisis is, at best, resorting to speculation, and at worst, scapegoating. Keep in mind also that immigrants pay sales taxes.
2. As for your dismissal of the idea that you might be deporting our next generation of ideas, you don't have any statistics supporting your view. My previous posting had a link showing that at least 1/2 of the companies in Santa Clara County were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. If we accept your philosophy of slow growth, San Jose, S.F., L.A., and N.Y. all disappear as we know it.
Gone are also Google (Russian immigrant), eBay (Iranian French immigrant), Sun (Indian immigrant), Intel (Hungarian), and so on. Basically, if we followed your advice 20 years ago, we'd be decades behind in technological progress.
3. You want America to look like Indiana--a nice place, certainly, with good schools, low population growth, and ample land. But let's not confuse economic growth with other amorphous variables, such as happiness or quality of life. It is clear that more immigration leads to more jobs and more overall income. If that wasn't the case, immigrants and younger Americans would not be flocking to the larger cities. Your distinction that per capita income declines as more people gather in a particular place isn't significant in a globalized world where companies can ship jobs anywhere. There must be a reason companies and their employees stay in a particular city, even as per capita income declines. If declining per capita income was a problem, intelligent Americans would be flocking to smaller or low growth cities. They are not.
I am actually in agreement with you re: your main thesis. If you want a slower pace of life and a more close-knit community, lower growth policies and protectionism are conducive to those goals. Thank goodness we live in a country where you can freely move to Indiana, Montana, or another state where the majority population agrees with your slow growth philosophy. That's the beauty of America--there's somewhere pleasant for everyone.
However, advocating protectionism and closed borders would involve a serious reversal of American dominance and prestige. Other countries would start creating jobs and companies at our expense, immigrants would start going elsewhere (like to Canada and Australia), and America would fall decades behind in job growth. A reversal of overall growth, if accepted, may lead to future generations of Americans moving to Canada, Australia, India, China, and Singapore to find jobs or deciding not to work at all (e.g., Japan's "hikikomori"). We take for granted that much of the educated world speaks English, knows about the Simpsons, and drinks Coke. The minute we stop creating jobs and attracting foreign talent, we make it harder for future Americans to succeed in the global marketplace.
In short, be careful what you wish for. We owe much of America's progress--and almost all of its technological progress--to immigrants. Societies that fall behind the global race rarely catch up.
http://petemurphy.wordpress.com/the-case-against-immigration
Here are my responses to Mr. Murphy's anti-immigration views:
1. I agree that California is a fiscal disaster. That's because California spends most of its tax revenue on education. In addition, the salaries, medical costs, and pension obligations of public sector employees--officers, firefighters, teachers, etc.--create a significant impact on CA's budget. Illegal immigration is a convenient scapegoat for CA's refusal to cut spending across the board. See this PDF file for more information:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/BudgetSummary/SummaryCharts.pdf
It shows that education is the #1 spending item in CA, by far; then comes health and human services; then jails (CA jails too many nonviolent criminals). Some illegal immigrants may receive health and human services, but until we receive a breakdown of how much money or services is given to illegal immigrants, blaming them for CA's budget crisis is, at best, resorting to speculation, and at worst, scapegoating. Keep in mind also that immigrants pay sales taxes.
2. As for your dismissal of the idea that you might be deporting our next generation of ideas, you don't have any statistics supporting your view. My previous posting had a link showing that at least 1/2 of the companies in Santa Clara County were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. If we accept your philosophy of slow growth, San Jose, S.F., L.A., and N.Y. all disappear as we know it.
Gone are also Google (Russian immigrant), eBay (Iranian French immigrant), Sun (Indian immigrant), Intel (Hungarian), and so on. Basically, if we followed your advice 20 years ago, we'd be decades behind in technological progress.
3. You want America to look like Indiana--a nice place, certainly, with good schools, low population growth, and ample land. But let's not confuse economic growth with other amorphous variables, such as happiness or quality of life. It is clear that more immigration leads to more jobs and more overall income. If that wasn't the case, immigrants and younger Americans would not be flocking to the larger cities. Your distinction that per capita income declines as more people gather in a particular place isn't significant in a globalized world where companies can ship jobs anywhere. There must be a reason companies and their employees stay in a particular city, even as per capita income declines. If declining per capita income was a problem, intelligent Americans would be flocking to smaller or low growth cities. They are not.
I am actually in agreement with you re: your main thesis. If you want a slower pace of life and a more close-knit community, lower growth policies and protectionism are conducive to those goals. Thank goodness we live in a country where you can freely move to Indiana, Montana, or another state where the majority population agrees with your slow growth philosophy. That's the beauty of America--there's somewhere pleasant for everyone.
However, advocating protectionism and closed borders would involve a serious reversal of American dominance and prestige. Other countries would start creating jobs and companies at our expense, immigrants would start going elsewhere (like to Canada and Australia), and America would fall decades behind in job growth. A reversal of overall growth, if accepted, may lead to future generations of Americans moving to Canada, Australia, India, China, and Singapore to find jobs or deciding not to work at all (e.g., Japan's "hikikomori"). We take for granted that much of the educated world speaks English, knows about the Simpsons, and drinks Coke. The minute we stop creating jobs and attracting foreign talent, we make it harder for future Americans to succeed in the global marketplace.
In short, be careful what you wish for. We owe much of America's progress--and almost all of its technological progress--to immigrants. Societies that fall behind the global race rarely catch up.
Pensions
If you're into pension reform, this book might be interesting:
http://www.amazon.com/US-Pension-Reform-Lessons-Countries/dp/0881324256
I haven't read it, so if you do, let me know if it's worth a look-see.
http://www.amazon.com/US-Pension-Reform-Lessons-Countries/dp/0881324256
I haven't read it, so if you do, let me know if it's worth a look-see.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Intel's Founder on America's Future
Fantastic article from the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html
“We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak,” said Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel.
I've sued Intel before, so I don't agree with everything it says or does, but Mr. Barrett knows of what he speaks. The fact that politicians are not heeding intelligent entrepreneurs like Mr. Barrett means our political system is broken. Politicians seem to be incapable of educating their constituents about the benefits of immigration. Part of the problem is that media outlets, which used to have substantive political discussions, such as FDR's fireside chats, have moved away from being an educational tool. In addition, the media's shock-value brand of journalism has diluted America's capacity for intelligent analysis.
When the Internet came on the scene, it seems that traditional media outlets ditched intelligent commentary and analysis in favor of "Do whatever it takes to look at me" journalism. Prior to the Internet, for example, reality television--where a loudmouth or superficial person was vaulted to celebrity status--was a small portion of mainstream media. (MTV's "The Real World" was really the only major reality show for years.) In contrast, today's media items are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (e.g., Octo-mom) to attract readers. In an age of video games, the Internet, text messaging, and numerous other entertainment options, mainstream media resorted to bottom-feeding to get eyeballs. As a result of so much information--most of it devoid of any real analysis--the public gets little news that has any real substance. If you assume that mainstream media is an important pillar in keeping a country on the right path, the media's declining standards should frighten you.
Speaking of pillars, the New York Times has been a beacon of light throughout America's history. It was responsible for the seminal case of NYT vs. Sullivan, which affirmed a newspaper's right to publish controversial new reports without fear of litigation. Here is one of my favorite parts of the opinion:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Now ask yourself: are Octo-mom, Madonna's adoption efforts, and Lindsey Lohan's romantic exploits what America's founders contemplated when they talked about our duty to have "robust" political discussions? To wit: the top stories on Yahoo's main portal right now are about a ship captain's rescue; Obama's dog; Lohan's hair; and cable TV bills. Go back and re-read Mr. Barrett's comment above.
Oh, the decline of an empire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/business/12immig.html
“We are watching the decline and fall of the United States as an economic power — not hypothetically, but as we speak,” said Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel.
I've sued Intel before, so I don't agree with everything it says or does, but Mr. Barrett knows of what he speaks. The fact that politicians are not heeding intelligent entrepreneurs like Mr. Barrett means our political system is broken. Politicians seem to be incapable of educating their constituents about the benefits of immigration. Part of the problem is that media outlets, which used to have substantive political discussions, such as FDR's fireside chats, have moved away from being an educational tool. In addition, the media's shock-value brand of journalism has diluted America's capacity for intelligent analysis.
When the Internet came on the scene, it seems that traditional media outlets ditched intelligent commentary and analysis in favor of "Do whatever it takes to look at me" journalism. Prior to the Internet, for example, reality television--where a loudmouth or superficial person was vaulted to celebrity status--was a small portion of mainstream media. (MTV's "The Real World" was really the only major reality show for years.) In contrast, today's media items are designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (e.g., Octo-mom) to attract readers. In an age of video games, the Internet, text messaging, and numerous other entertainment options, mainstream media resorted to bottom-feeding to get eyeballs. As a result of so much information--most of it devoid of any real analysis--the public gets little news that has any real substance. If you assume that mainstream media is an important pillar in keeping a country on the right path, the media's declining standards should frighten you.
Speaking of pillars, the New York Times has been a beacon of light throughout America's history. It was responsible for the seminal case of NYT vs. Sullivan, which affirmed a newspaper's right to publish controversial new reports without fear of litigation. Here is one of my favorite parts of the opinion:
Those who won our independence believed . . . that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law - the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed."
Now ask yourself: are Octo-mom, Madonna's adoption efforts, and Lindsey Lohan's romantic exploits what America's founders contemplated when they talked about our duty to have "robust" political discussions? To wit: the top stories on Yahoo's main portal right now are about a ship captain's rescue; Obama's dog; Lohan's hair; and cable TV bills. Go back and re-read Mr. Barrett's comment above.
Oh, the decline of an empire.
Law Enforcement Deporting U.S. Citizens
American law enforcement appears to be intentionally deporting U.S. Citizens:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mistaken_for_illegal_i
I am too stunned right now to have any intelligent comments.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/mistaken_for_illegal_i
I am too stunned right now to have any intelligent comments.
Michael Lewis on Iceland and its Financial Collapse
Why you never, ever want to tick off a great writer--especially not someone as good as Michael Lewis:
Maybe because there are so few Icelanders in the world, we know next to nothing about them. We assume they are more or less Scandinavian—a gentle people who just want everyone to have the same amount of everything. They are not. They have a feral streak in them, like a horse that’s just pretending to be broken.
Lewis castigates the entire Icelandic male race in explaining the country's financial collapse. You can read the full Vanity Fair article here.
Maybe because there are so few Icelanders in the world, we know next to nothing about them. We assume they are more or less Scandinavian—a gentle people who just want everyone to have the same amount of everything. They are not. They have a feral streak in them, like a horse that’s just pretending to be broken.
Lewis castigates the entire Icelandic male race in explaining the country's financial collapse. You can read the full Vanity Fair article here.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
NYT on Law Firms Coping with the Recession
The NYT (April 4, 2009, Adam Cohen) had an article on the legal profession and the recession:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em
For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt...
More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.
Astute readers can see that the high debt load and the length of most legal study programs are related. The third year of law school is usually unnecessary, unless students participate mainly in clinics or other programs that provide practical experience. My third year, I worked part time in a law firm. By year three, most law students are finished with their core bar classes and are spending most of their time looking for jobs or working. How much are they paying for this privilege of looking for work, interning for free, or working part-time? About $40,000 for some private law schools.
I have always said big law firms were pyramid schemes. At some point, all pyramid schemes collapse under their own weight. You can only get so top-heavy before something gets crushed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/opinion/02thu4.html?em
For years, law school tuition rose along with big-firm salaries. Between 1990 and 2003, the cost of private law schools rose at nearly three times the rate of consumer prices. The average graduate now leaves with more than $80,000 in debt...
More schools may follow the lead of Northwestern, the first top-tier law school to offer a two-year program.
Astute readers can see that the high debt load and the length of most legal study programs are related. The third year of law school is usually unnecessary, unless students participate mainly in clinics or other programs that provide practical experience. My third year, I worked part time in a law firm. By year three, most law students are finished with their core bar classes and are spending most of their time looking for jobs or working. How much are they paying for this privilege of looking for work, interning for free, or working part-time? About $40,000 for some private law schools.
I have always said big law firms were pyramid schemes. At some point, all pyramid schemes collapse under their own weight. You can only get so top-heavy before something gets crushed.
Reason #3745 to Be a Libertarian
This video makes my blood boil. Bruce Babbitt is an idiot. First, he talks about retaliating against an employee for creating more transparency into his department; then, he refuses to answer any questions about how his department is using taxpayer funds. Didn't we fight a war to get away from people who acted like high and holy kings?
Update: Babbitt has not been Secretary of Interior since 2001. It's an old video.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Molly Ivins on Camille Paglia
I have to confess, I like reading Camille Paglia. When it comes to sheer entertainment value, she can't be beat. Molly Ivins on Camille Paglia is hilarious:
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.
Ouch. If newspapers want more readers, they need more writers like Mike Royko and Molly Ivins. May they rest in peace.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~erich/misc/ivins_on_paglia
One fashionable line of response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I missed them in her oceans of swill.
Ouch. If newspapers want more readers, they need more writers like Mike Royko and Molly Ivins. May they rest in peace.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
My Call on Wells Fargo Stock Was Accurate
On February 25, 2009, Wells Fargo (WFC) stock was selling for $13.44/share. I wrote an article where I praised WFC as undervalued:
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/treasury-on-wells-fargo.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/122533-wells-fargo-should-emerge-from-this-crisis-stronger
At the time, President Obama had said that the government would continue to do whatever it took to support banks. Recently, the government allowed banks to use more flexible accounting to value certain assets.
Today, Wells Fargo stock reported better-than-expected earnings. WFC closed at $19.61/share, a 46% increase.
Personally, I bought Wells Fargo on margin all the way down to the single digits and sold at around $14/share. If I had Warren Buffett's money, I would have held on, but I couldn't handle having so much stock on margin. As it stands, I ended up losing some money on the WFC trades because I started buying shares at around $20/share.
It remains to be seen whether my most recent prediction--that the S&P will go to around 950--will come true. At this time, I continue to believe the S&P will rise to somewhere around 920 to 950.
http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2009/02/treasury-on-wells-fargo.html
http://seekingalpha.com/article/122533-wells-fargo-should-emerge-from-this-crisis-stronger
At the time, President Obama had said that the government would continue to do whatever it took to support banks. Recently, the government allowed banks to use more flexible accounting to value certain assets.
Today, Wells Fargo stock reported better-than-expected earnings. WFC closed at $19.61/share, a 46% increase.
Personally, I bought Wells Fargo on margin all the way down to the single digits and sold at around $14/share. If I had Warren Buffett's money, I would have held on, but I couldn't handle having so much stock on margin. As it stands, I ended up losing some money on the WFC trades because I started buying shares at around $20/share.
It remains to be seen whether my most recent prediction--that the S&P will go to around 950--will come true. At this time, I continue to believe the S&P will rise to somewhere around 920 to 950.
Government Deficits Do Matters
Fun stuff from the Peterson Institute:
http://www.owenandpayne.com/why_you_owe.php
Each American now owes 184,000 dollars because of America's deficits.
http://www.owenandpayne.com/why_you_owe.php
Each American now owes 184,000 dollars because of America's deficits.
SJ Merc on San Jose's Budget Issues
John Woolfolk talks about San Jose's budget problems:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12058054?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com ["Top SJ management agrees to pay freezes and cuts."]
I am curious to see how cities expect to get more revenue. It doesn't seem like anyone has the stomach for layoffs and other spending cuts. Thus, Californians should expect higher taxes in some form unless they accept the fact that government has expanded too much over the last ten years. Cutting back on government unfortunately means laying off some government employees and/or reducing pension and COLA contributions. When times are flush again, we can afford to be generous.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12058054?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com ["Top SJ management agrees to pay freezes and cuts."]
I am curious to see how cities expect to get more revenue. It doesn't seem like anyone has the stomach for layoffs and other spending cuts. Thus, Californians should expect higher taxes in some form unless they accept the fact that government has expanded too much over the last ten years. Cutting back on government unfortunately means laying off some government employees and/or reducing pension and COLA contributions. When times are flush again, we can afford to be generous.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Silicon Valley Income Statistics
According to the WSJ (2/17/09, B4, article by Pui-Wing Tam), 42% of households in Silicon Valley earned more than $100,000/year. "Meanwhile, the percentage of households earning less than $35,000 a year reached 20%, up from 19% in 2002."
I hate these kinds of statistics--the term, "households," is so vague. It could be one person earning $101,000/year, or two adults earning $51,000/year. Still, it looks like the recession may not affect Silicon Valley as harshly as other locations. I don't see housing prices dropping severely (not any more than they already have, I mean). Despite the recent condo construction, Santa Clara County doesn't have an oversupply of housing.
Also, the new developers don't seem to have thought things through. Most of the new condos are in downtown San Jose, which won't attract families. If they were trying to cater mainly to singles and young adults, they made a mistake. Most singles won't be able to pay a high price for housing because of two reasons: one, young singles have only one income; and two, they are not in their peak earning years and probably have student loan debt.
I hate these kinds of statistics--the term, "households," is so vague. It could be one person earning $101,000/year, or two adults earning $51,000/year. Still, it looks like the recession may not affect Silicon Valley as harshly as other locations. I don't see housing prices dropping severely (not any more than they already have, I mean). Despite the recent condo construction, Santa Clara County doesn't have an oversupply of housing.
Also, the new developers don't seem to have thought things through. Most of the new condos are in downtown San Jose, which won't attract families. If they were trying to cater mainly to singles and young adults, they made a mistake. Most singles won't be able to pay a high price for housing because of two reasons: one, young singles have only one income; and two, they are not in their peak earning years and probably have student loan debt.
Racial Divide?
Here's an interesting political map about Obama's and McCain's voters, when divided by race:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-did-white-people-vote.html
I enjoyed reading the comments. One comment pointed out that the map lacks a control. Without comparing the Obama/McCain map with the Kerry/Bush election, one can't reasonable conclude anything significant. Chances are, the maps might be similar for both elections, meaning there was no racial pattern in the 2008 election.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/03/how-did-white-people-vote.html
I enjoyed reading the comments. One comment pointed out that the map lacks a control. Without comparing the Obama/McCain map with the Kerry/Bush election, one can't reasonable conclude anything significant. Chances are, the maps might be similar for both elections, meaning there was no racial pattern in the 2008 election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)