Here's a lovely Monday starter for you: "An audit has found some retired city employees in San Jose are receiving higher pension payments than they are entitled to, an error that would cost the city over a million dollars." For more, see HERE.
How the heck did this happen in the first place?
"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
Monday, January 4, 2010
Mike Pence: Understanding Republicans
Mike Pence delivered a speech on September 20, 2010 that perfectly summarizes the intelligent Republican's brain. I don't agree with everything in the speech, but if you are a Democrat or liberal, you should read the entire speech. It will give you excellent insight into why Republicans think the way they do (Hint: it's not because they are brainwashed by corporations). Below is my favorite excerpt:
Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.
The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.
The entire speech is here. I agree with much of what Mr. Pence says, but his failure to criticize George W. Bush for overreach casts doubt on Mr. Pence's sincerity. In reality, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, the issue of self-restraint usually arises when the "other guy" is in power.
Also, Mr. Pence's thoughts on the military strike me as immoral. He says that once we go to war, we ought to do whatever it takes to win. But what if the target country poses no threat to the U.S. or was invaded based on a false premise? Do we still crush the country? If so, how does he justify the certain civilian deaths that come with any war in the "shock and awe" age?
Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.
The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.
The entire speech is here. I agree with much of what Mr. Pence says, but his failure to criticize George W. Bush for overreach casts doubt on Mr. Pence's sincerity. In reality, whether one is a Democrat or a Republican, the issue of self-restraint usually arises when the "other guy" is in power.
Also, Mr. Pence's thoughts on the military strike me as immoral. He says that once we go to war, we ought to do whatever it takes to win. But what if the target country poses no threat to the U.S. or was invaded based on a false premise? Do we still crush the country? If so, how does he justify the certain civilian deaths that come with any war in the "shock and awe" age?
Random Thoughts on Oracle and Salesforce
Way back in 2008, Larry Ellison talked about a software sales slowdown: "Customers are signing up for fewer multiyear projects," he said, referring to software license renewals. (See SJ Mercury, 12/19/08, E1.) Oracle "draws roughly half its revenue from software license renewals. These [renewals] provide a strong and stable source of cash because the high cost of switching to a new vendor helps keep customers in Oracle's fold" (Id. at 4E). Since 2008, Oracle seems to be doing well and much better than its competitors.At the same time, Salesforce.com's Marc Benioff continues to nip at Ellison's heels. I've attended shareholder meetings at Oracle and Salesforce.com, and if you ever want to rile up either CEO, mention the other CEO to him. When I mentioned Oracle to Benioff, I received a very long speech about Oracle's allegedly "old-fashioned" way of doing business. Later, when I mentioned Benioff's comments to Ellison, Ellison cut me off and immediately started bashing Salesforce.com. I still remember one particularly memorable riposte: "Here's some advice to Salesforce--make money." [Salesforce.com has, shall we say, a more uneven earnings history than Oracle.]
Forget about Apple vs. Microsoft--the latest Silicon Valley soap opera is between Salesforce.com and Oracle. If someone manages to make peace between Ellison and Benioff, we should send him or her to make peace in the Middle East--it'll be a cakewalk after navigating these men's intelligence and ambition. I'd volunteer to mediate, but I'm afraid I'm not big enough to restrain the very tall Benioff if the mediation devolved into a fistfight. Benioff and Ellison should resolve to sit down together and hash out their differences in 2010--now that's a new year's resolution I'd like to see come true.
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any company or entity.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Reminder for Myself
Nothing to see here--my friends and I got together recently and I'm just publishing these numbers as a personal reminder:
Adam: 1267
Alex: 1200
Jamie: 1350
Jon: 1050
Matt: 1150
[Also, 20, minus 8 ones.]
Adam: 1267
Alex: 1200
Jamie: 1350
Jon: 1050
Matt: 1150
[Also, 20, minus 8 ones.]
Friday, January 1, 2010
Bruce Schneier: Levelheaded Wisdom
Bruce Schneier has done it again--he's delivered a concise, perfect-pitch summary of national security. See HERE for full article. My favorite part is below:
By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant "bring 'em on" rhetoric. There's a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats.
Oh, the genius. In a perfect world, Mr. Schneier would be in charge of the TSA.
By not overreacting, by not responding to movie-plot threats, and by not becoming defensive, we demonstrate the resilience of our society, in our laws, our culture, our freedoms. There is a difference between indomitability and arrogant "bring 'em on" rhetoric. There's a difference between accepting the inherent risk that comes with a free and open society, and hyping the threats.
Oh, the genius. In a perfect world, Mr. Schneier would be in charge of the TSA.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
John Lennon Interview
I just discovered an incredible interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono. More HERE.
TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
JL: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They've got cars and tellies and they don't want to think there's anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children f*cked up in school. They're dreaming someone else's dream, it's not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next.
As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: 'To each according to his need'. I think that would work well here. But we'd also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all.
We've got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it's false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.
The level of radicalism is unbelievable, isn't it? It actually makes me sad to think about modern day protests. There just doesn't seem to be a modern-day equivalent to John Lennon or Martin Luther King. Meanwhile, society seems more interested in reality television stars than substance, and the most vocal "believers" tend to be hardcore religious people. I keep thinking of Yeats' and his widening gyre...
TA: How do you think we can destroy the capitalist system here in Britain, John?
JL: I think only by making the workers aware of the really unhappy position they are in, breaking the dream they are surrounded by. They think they are in a wonderful, free-speaking country. They've got cars and tellies and they don't want to think there's anything more to life. They are prepared to let the bosses run them, to see their children f*cked up in school. They're dreaming someone else's dream, it's not even their own. They should realise that the blacks and the Irish are being harassed and repressed and that they will be next.
As soon as they start being aware of all that, we can really begin to do something. The workers can start to take over. Like Marx said: 'To each according to his need'. I think that would work well here. But we'd also have to infiltrate the army too, because they are well trained to kill us all.
We've got to start all this from where we ourselves are oppressed. I think it's false, shallow, to be giving to others when your own need is great. The idea is not to comfort people, not to make them feel better but to make them feel worse, to constantly put before them the degradations and humiliations they go through to get what they call a living wage.
The level of radicalism is unbelievable, isn't it? It actually makes me sad to think about modern day protests. There just doesn't seem to be a modern-day equivalent to John Lennon or Martin Luther King. Meanwhile, society seems more interested in reality television stars than substance, and the most vocal "believers" tend to be hardcore religious people. I keep thinking of Yeats' and his widening gyre...
Monday, December 28, 2009
Umar Abdulmutallab: Predictable Terrorist?
People are shocked--just shocked--that alleged terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab received excellent schooling and came from a well-off family. As I explained back in 2008, the most dangerous terrorists will be educated and more likely to be middle-class or rich than poor. See HERE for the post titled "Terrorism: The Unusual Suspects."
The most worrisome part? The alleged terrorist's own father alerted authorities to his son's possible extremism, and the son still managed to evade security checkpoints.
Don't you feel safe knowing the TSA is profiling people based on their passports (which causes my harmless grandmother to get advanced screening every time she travels), but the TSA can't seem to follow up on a direct tip?
In the spirit of Mastercard, I leave you with the following "commercial":
America's military-industrial complex: $626 billion
Having a parent feel loyal enough to alert authorities to his own son: $0 [Note: imagine if the U.S. had accidentally killed one of the parent's family members--would the father still do the same thing?]
Having a random passenger on a plane brave enough to physically handle a potential terrorist: $0
Percentage of military's budget that saved Americans from Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: 0%
Believing that killing poor people in the Middle East will make us safer: unknown cost
Keeping America safe while maintaining Constitutional principles: priceless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)