I love hearing about a fellow cheapskate:
"'Frugal' is not the right word for Bruce," suggested business professor Ed Westbrook, who befriended Lindsay. "He was real miserly."
And yes, those are affectionate words. Bruce Lindsey left millions of dollars to a small college. More below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090308/ap_on_re_us/university_donor
"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
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Ted Anthony on a "Numbed Nation"
The AP's Ted Anthony has written a haunting, beautiful article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/numbed_nation_analysis
Senseless violence: Two centuries from now, if we're not careful, it could be an epitaph for our era.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_on_re_us/numbed_nation_analysis
Senseless violence: Two centuries from now, if we're not careful, it could be an epitaph for our era.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Bill Maher's Religuous
I just saw Bill Maher's film, Religuous. I really liked it, although some parts came across as cheap. Michael Moore's films are much more polished, and Moore at least attempts to includes pieces of the other side (even if he leaves out a lot of information). But I suppose Maher, as a comedian, gets a pass, because he's doing it for comedy's sake. His main point is that non-religious persons need to fight against a rising tide of ignorance before its ill-advised passion overwhelms and destroys all of us.
While I enjoyed the movie, one "deleted scene" disturbed me. Maher meets Howard Bloom, who goes on a rabid rant against Muslims. Maher doesn't contradict Bloom and seems to agree that Islam is a) focused on taking over the world; and b) an inherently violent religion. Sadly, it was like watching Maher's version of Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.
Bill Maher and Howard Bloom are wrong for many reasons. First, they are on the wrong side of the economic tide. Muslims represent around one billion people and are therefore an ample source of trade. Increasing globalization--if done properly--will temper any cultural or religious issues. As Robert Wright points out in The Atlantic (April 2009, page 50), "When economics draws people of different ethnicities and cultures into mutually beneficial relationships, inter-ethnic and intercultural tolerance often ensues. (How many ethnic slurs are heard in transatlantic business class?)"
Second, to call Islam inherently violent means to ignore history and Quranic text. See The Atlantic (April 2009, page 52), which confirms that "the Koran's description of Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book'--adherents of Abrahamic scripture, like Muslims--seem[s] to provide a basis for tolerance." The Prophet Mohammad also stated, "There is no compulsion in religion." It's impossible to reconcile that statement with violence unless one is deliberately trying to be obtuse.
What about "jihad" and other scary-sounding names? That's something that happened after the Prophet Mohammad died. The concept of "jihad," didn't exist until the mid-seventh century, "after the death of of [Prophet] Muhammad." (Id.)
As for the modern-day war of words between Iran/Persia and Israel? That's brand-new and unprecedented. "In the case of ancient Israel, the empire in question was the Persian Empire, which Israel became a part of in the sixth century B.C. Previously, Israel's brushes with empires had been largely unpleasant. [You have to love the author's gift of understatement.] The Israelites were tormented by the Assyrians and, more famously, by the Babylonians, who forced Israel's elites into exile in 586 B.C. And the Hebrew Bible has the belligerent, xenophobic scriptures to show for these experiences...But after the Persians conquered the Babylonians and allowed the exiles to return home, Israel was on the inside, not the outside, of an empire, and a pretty congenial one--an empire that respected its subject's religious autonomy." (Id.)
What appears likely is that Islam's so-called inherent violence is a modern-day invention used to justify various agendas. First, countries need enemies to keep themselves sharp and moving--utopia is bad for progress. Second, the government, which includes the military, has no incentive to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to themselves; therefore, any enemy is useful to rally the troops and to justify increased revenue. In fact, an abstract enemy, like a "War on Terror," is better than a tangible enemy (i.e., Iraq), because people might actually protest if you haven't defeated a tangible enemy after several years. In addition, abstract enemies are perfect to keep the money spigot flowing, because in a perpetual war, spending has to continue infinitely. Anyone who says otherwise just isn't a patriot, right?
America's decision to allow excessive military spending, has real life consequences (aside from the foreign civilians dying in wars). If we believed we had no real enemy, would we really allow our representatives to spend trillions on defense instead of health care, parks, infrastructure, teacher salaries, and other domestic spending? Of course not. Our failure to protest our government's spending decisions is causing us to forgo substantial benefits at home.
By the way, Bill Maher has been absolutely wrong before. See this funny rant ("Ode to Government"), where Maher praises the Post Office, saying he'd love our country to be like the Post Office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/07/bill-mahers-ode-to-govern_n_172724.html
And then read this article, which will give you some insight into why the Post Office chief has said, "We are facing losses of historic proportion. Our situation is critical." (The Post Office lost lost $2.8 billion last year.)
Ouch.
While I enjoyed the movie, one "deleted scene" disturbed me. Maher meets Howard Bloom, who goes on a rabid rant against Muslims. Maher doesn't contradict Bloom and seems to agree that Islam is a) focused on taking over the world; and b) an inherently violent religion. Sadly, it was like watching Maher's version of Protocols of the Elders of Mecca.
Bill Maher and Howard Bloom are wrong for many reasons. First, they are on the wrong side of the economic tide. Muslims represent around one billion people and are therefore an ample source of trade. Increasing globalization--if done properly--will temper any cultural or religious issues. As Robert Wright points out in The Atlantic (April 2009, page 50), "When economics draws people of different ethnicities and cultures into mutually beneficial relationships, inter-ethnic and intercultural tolerance often ensues. (How many ethnic slurs are heard in transatlantic business class?)"
Second, to call Islam inherently violent means to ignore history and Quranic text. See The Atlantic (April 2009, page 52), which confirms that "the Koran's description of Christians and Jews as 'People of the Book'--adherents of Abrahamic scripture, like Muslims--seem[s] to provide a basis for tolerance." The Prophet Mohammad also stated, "There is no compulsion in religion." It's impossible to reconcile that statement with violence unless one is deliberately trying to be obtuse.
What about "jihad" and other scary-sounding names? That's something that happened after the Prophet Mohammad died. The concept of "jihad," didn't exist until the mid-seventh century, "after the death of of [Prophet] Muhammad." (Id.)
As for the modern-day war of words between Iran/Persia and Israel? That's brand-new and unprecedented. "In the case of ancient Israel, the empire in question was the Persian Empire, which Israel became a part of in the sixth century B.C. Previously, Israel's brushes with empires had been largely unpleasant. [You have to love the author's gift of understatement.] The Israelites were tormented by the Assyrians and, more famously, by the Babylonians, who forced Israel's elites into exile in 586 B.C. And the Hebrew Bible has the belligerent, xenophobic scriptures to show for these experiences...But after the Persians conquered the Babylonians and allowed the exiles to return home, Israel was on the inside, not the outside, of an empire, and a pretty congenial one--an empire that respected its subject's religious autonomy." (Id.)
What appears likely is that Islam's so-called inherent violence is a modern-day invention used to justify various agendas. First, countries need enemies to keep themselves sharp and moving--utopia is bad for progress. Second, the government, which includes the military, has no incentive to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to themselves; therefore, any enemy is useful to rally the troops and to justify increased revenue. In fact, an abstract enemy, like a "War on Terror," is better than a tangible enemy (i.e., Iraq), because people might actually protest if you haven't defeated a tangible enemy after several years. In addition, abstract enemies are perfect to keep the money spigot flowing, because in a perpetual war, spending has to continue infinitely. Anyone who says otherwise just isn't a patriot, right?
America's decision to allow excessive military spending, has real life consequences (aside from the foreign civilians dying in wars). If we believed we had no real enemy, would we really allow our representatives to spend trillions on defense instead of health care, parks, infrastructure, teacher salaries, and other domestic spending? Of course not. Our failure to protest our government's spending decisions is causing us to forgo substantial benefits at home.
By the way, Bill Maher has been absolutely wrong before. See this funny rant ("Ode to Government"), where Maher praises the Post Office, saying he'd love our country to be like the Post Office:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/07/bill-mahers-ode-to-govern_n_172724.html
And then read this article, which will give you some insight into why the Post Office chief has said, "We are facing losses of historic proportion. Our situation is critical." (The Post Office lost lost $2.8 billion last year.)
Ouch.
Friday, April 3, 2009
A Teacher Speaks Out
A local California schoolteacher has singled out excessive benefits as one reason for the her district's budget shortfall:
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11967689
Poor district leadership and an inadequate state budget are not the only reasons for East Side's problems. The sacred cow of the East Side Teachers Association is medical benefits that cost over $27.3 million a year. East Side is the only district of its size in Santa Clara County that pays 100 percent of employee benefits. Although admirable, this extracts an enormous financial toll. Add paid benefits for each member of the board of trustees and medical coverage for retirees under age 65, and the cost skyrockets.
Teachers' unions have set up a pyramid scheme where the older teachers reap the benefits of the system and leave scraps for incoming and younger teachers. It's time for a change, and unless more tenured union members are willing to cut their benefits or make sacrifices, children will continue to suffer.
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_11967689
Poor district leadership and an inadequate state budget are not the only reasons for East Side's problems. The sacred cow of the East Side Teachers Association is medical benefits that cost over $27.3 million a year. East Side is the only district of its size in Santa Clara County that pays 100 percent of employee benefits. Although admirable, this extracts an enormous financial toll. Add paid benefits for each member of the board of trustees and medical coverage for retirees under age 65, and the cost skyrockets.
Teachers' unions have set up a pyramid scheme where the older teachers reap the benefits of the system and leave scraps for incoming and younger teachers. It's time for a change, and unless more tenured union members are willing to cut their benefits or make sacrifices, children will continue to suffer.
About Me: Superstitious Version
The Mouth of Truth apparently has these things to say about me:
You sometimes can't enjoy close personal relationships.
You are extremely sensitive and have fine taste.
You are deeply mystical and intuitive by nature.
You are sometimes over idealistic and you should learn to be more cautious to avoid disappointment.
Your success will give rise to envy; keep a sharp look out for the traps set for you.
Be very careful: you could be caught off guard by misfortune.
Well, I'll be damned. That Zoltar-lookin' thing might have me spot-on. Also, I score highest in "Health"; lowest in "Luck."
You sometimes can't enjoy close personal relationships.
You are extremely sensitive and have fine taste.
You are deeply mystical and intuitive by nature.
You are sometimes over idealistic and you should learn to be more cautious to avoid disappointment.
Your success will give rise to envy; keep a sharp look out for the traps set for you.
Be very careful: you could be caught off guard by misfortune.
Well, I'll be damned. That Zoltar-lookin' thing might have me spot-on. Also, I score highest in "Health"; lowest in "Luck."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Krauthammer on the Disabled
I just re-discovered this little gem from Charles Krauthammer (SJ Merc, 7C, July 11, 1999):
To be sure, patronizing the disabled is not as offensive as...in-your-face mockery...But its effect is similar: to distance oneself, to give expression to the reflexive mixture of fear and pity that misfortune in others invokes in all of us.
Disability--like exile, the human condition it most resembles--neither ennobles or degrades. It frames experience. It does not define it.
In 1972, Mr. Krauthammer was paralyzed in a serious diving accident.
To be sure, patronizing the disabled is not as offensive as...in-your-face mockery...But its effect is similar: to distance oneself, to give expression to the reflexive mixture of fear and pity that misfortune in others invokes in all of us.
Disability--like exile, the human condition it most resembles--neither ennobles or degrades. It frames experience. It does not define it.
In 1972, Mr. Krauthammer was paralyzed in a serious diving accident.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Scott Herhold on Excessive Government Spending
The SJ Merc's Scott Herhold exposes some excessive government spending:
http://www.mercurynews.com/scottherhold/ci_12004635
The cost of all courtroom security in the county, which includes bailiffs, has grown from $17.2 million in 2000-01 to $30.8 million this year, an increase of 79 percent. Over those same eight years, inflation has been 21 percent.
Setting aside cost, the way courtroom security is handled makes no sense. When I walk into Santa Clara County's civil courthouses, I see four to five officers all within fifteen feet of each other. A violent person can use an automatic weapon to maim or kill all five officers, at which point he is in the courtroom ready to wreck more mayhem against defenseless lawyers and staff. Forget a gun--how about a homemade bomb? A violent person can waltz right into a courthouse with a homemade bomb and throw it within a vicinity of about forty people. I'm assuming the sheriffs and deputies aren't trained in dismantling bombs, so regardless of their salary, they're ineffective.
Basically, once a violent person is in a courthouse, it's too late. In order to justify having more than four officers at once, you need to set it up this way:
1. A security checkpoint must be maintained outside the courtroom, at least 100 feet away from the actual courthouse. Two officers would be in charge of this checkpoint, and both would be armed.
2. Two other officers--the second line of defense--would be inside the courthouse, ready to intervene if the first line of defense is dismantled. One officer would be at the entrance to the actual courthouse, while the other officer would be at the exit.
Doing it this way, the police can better justify paying officers lots of money to sit around and scan briefcases and small items. (So far, my most interesting experience with courtroom security has been when an officer confiscated my keychain bottle opener without telling me.)
Right now, courtroom security only protects us from stupid criminals. The smart criminals, if motivated, would have a field day in almost any courtroom in California, especially if two assassins/criminals work together (one slipping in from the exit door, which has no security checkpoint, while another comes through the front door).
Update: I forgot to mention that the Presiding Judge compared the highly paid and numerous officers to an insurance policy, i.e., you don't think you need all that coverage until you actually do. While that sounds reasonable, it doesn't really address the point of the SJ Merc article--namely, that taxpayers shouldn't be paying Cadillac rates for "insurance" when cheaper rates exist for the same or similar coverage elsewhere. It seems that we should either improve the actual security so taxpayers are getting their money's worth, or buy a cheaper "policy." We also shouldn't overpay for any service that is ineffective. If I was in charge of security, I would make improvements first in the family courts, then the criminal courts, and then the civil courts.
http://www.mercurynews.com/scottherhold/ci_12004635
The cost of all courtroom security in the county, which includes bailiffs, has grown from $17.2 million in 2000-01 to $30.8 million this year, an increase of 79 percent. Over those same eight years, inflation has been 21 percent.
Setting aside cost, the way courtroom security is handled makes no sense. When I walk into Santa Clara County's civil courthouses, I see four to five officers all within fifteen feet of each other. A violent person can use an automatic weapon to maim or kill all five officers, at which point he is in the courtroom ready to wreck more mayhem against defenseless lawyers and staff. Forget a gun--how about a homemade bomb? A violent person can waltz right into a courthouse with a homemade bomb and throw it within a vicinity of about forty people. I'm assuming the sheriffs and deputies aren't trained in dismantling bombs, so regardless of their salary, they're ineffective.
Basically, once a violent person is in a courthouse, it's too late. In order to justify having more than four officers at once, you need to set it up this way:
1. A security checkpoint must be maintained outside the courtroom, at least 100 feet away from the actual courthouse. Two officers would be in charge of this checkpoint, and both would be armed.
2. Two other officers--the second line of defense--would be inside the courthouse, ready to intervene if the first line of defense is dismantled. One officer would be at the entrance to the actual courthouse, while the other officer would be at the exit.
Doing it this way, the police can better justify paying officers lots of money to sit around and scan briefcases and small items. (So far, my most interesting experience with courtroom security has been when an officer confiscated my keychain bottle opener without telling me.)
Right now, courtroom security only protects us from stupid criminals. The smart criminals, if motivated, would have a field day in almost any courtroom in California, especially if two assassins/criminals work together (one slipping in from the exit door, which has no security checkpoint, while another comes through the front door).
Update: I forgot to mention that the Presiding Judge compared the highly paid and numerous officers to an insurance policy, i.e., you don't think you need all that coverage until you actually do. While that sounds reasonable, it doesn't really address the point of the SJ Merc article--namely, that taxpayers shouldn't be paying Cadillac rates for "insurance" when cheaper rates exist for the same or similar coverage elsewhere. It seems that we should either improve the actual security so taxpayers are getting their money's worth, or buy a cheaper "policy." We also shouldn't overpay for any service that is ineffective. If I was in charge of security, I would make improvements first in the family courts, then the criminal courts, and then the civil courts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)