I'm going to switch it up a little and tell you about a concert of Armin Van Buuren that I attended in Chicago. I was looking forward to the evening for several months, I was heavily disappointed by circumstances beyond my control.
While the Armin wanna-be was warming up the crowd, my wallet misteriously "disappeared" from within my coat pocket. Of course, when this happened at the start of the evening, my night was severly dampened, as well as made $150 more expensive than I would have preferred. The atmosphere was great, everyone seemed really excited when Armin took over the DJ booth, yet a few things could have been improved. The music volume was excessive to say the least and was possibly controlled by a deaf person. Yes, I understand that concerts have loud music, but I should at least be able to hear my own voice! Also I would have really liked to avoid the two days of constant ringing in my ears that were to follow that memorable night.
Vision (the club that hosted the concert), was packed, which unfortunetly meant that I got to know and smell the crowd a lot more than I would have liked. Another major gripe was the smoking in the bathroom, although Chicago has passed a non-smoking ordinance the laws of the state apparently do not apply to Vision, judging by the smoke cloud in the men's bathroom that most certaintly cut my life expectancy by several weeks.
Overall I'm not sure how much of my displeasure was brought out by the "loss" of my wallet, but I do believe the concert could have been better. That being said, Armin is the best DJ in the world.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
AIG!!! AIG!!! AIG!!!
There has been much controversy over the past few weeks about the AIG bonuses. If I didn't know any better I would have thought that solving the bonus "fiasco" is somehow more important than tackling our troubled economy. I mean seriously is it productive for our politicians to spend time pinpointing who is at fault for $160M in bonuses delivered to a bailed out company, or should they inquire why the company required billions upon billions of dollars of bailout money?
It's like giving a homeless person a $100 to get some food and then getting pissed off when he buys chewing gum for a quarter. It just doesn't make sense (Afterall giving money to the homeless is silly, since it discourages them from working and they are going to spend the money on drugs anyway). Not to mention the fact that everyone is way too quick to finger point at the big bad corporate execs receiving their undeserved bonuses.
First off, unless someone does a study of each bonus recipient and performs their performance evaluation, they don't know if a specific individual is responsible for AIG downturn. No one can make blanket statements that all AIG executives were active in bringing down the insurance giant.
Secondly, companies use bonuses as a form of compensation in order to attract the top talent. If the government wants a failing company to become even more incompetent, it should just start regulating compensation and hiring policies. It's a well known fact that nothing attracts top talent more than the government oversight, regulation and low levels of compensation, just look at our federal government employees.
Thirdly, the bonuses were part of the employment contract of these individuals, and taking away their compensation isn't exactly just. Top executives routinely receive most of their compensation through bonuses, so taking away their bonuses is taking away the compensation that AIG employees depend on.
But if the government really wants to get its $160M back, I have a solution. I propose that members of Congress start looking within themselves for cost saving measures. Some members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, who is a multimillionaire and the wealthiest member of Congress still receive six digit gov't paychecks and benefits. If we take away all forms of compensation and benefits from nationally elected officials I'm sure we can save around $160M. Our Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents should not be motivated by compensation to run for office, and my guess is very few of them are. They are more likely to be tempted by "other" forms of compensation that they receive while in office, which eclipse their meager federal salary and benefits. I also think that stripping Members of Congress of compensation, would follow the same logic used to strip AIG executives of their bonuses. AIG executives failed AIG, and our Congress failed the American people, so why should our Congress deserve compensation?
It's like giving a homeless person a $100 to get some food and then getting pissed off when he buys chewing gum for a quarter. It just doesn't make sense (Afterall giving money to the homeless is silly, since it discourages them from working and they are going to spend the money on drugs anyway). Not to mention the fact that everyone is way too quick to finger point at the big bad corporate execs receiving their undeserved bonuses.
First off, unless someone does a study of each bonus recipient and performs their performance evaluation, they don't know if a specific individual is responsible for AIG downturn. No one can make blanket statements that all AIG executives were active in bringing down the insurance giant.
Secondly, companies use bonuses as a form of compensation in order to attract the top talent. If the government wants a failing company to become even more incompetent, it should just start regulating compensation and hiring policies. It's a well known fact that nothing attracts top talent more than the government oversight, regulation and low levels of compensation, just look at our federal government employees.
Thirdly, the bonuses were part of the employment contract of these individuals, and taking away their compensation isn't exactly just. Top executives routinely receive most of their compensation through bonuses, so taking away their bonuses is taking away the compensation that AIG employees depend on.
But if the government really wants to get its $160M back, I have a solution. I propose that members of Congress start looking within themselves for cost saving measures. Some members of Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi, who is a multimillionaire and the wealthiest member of Congress still receive six digit gov't paychecks and benefits. If we take away all forms of compensation and benefits from nationally elected officials I'm sure we can save around $160M. Our Congressmen, Senators, and Presidents should not be motivated by compensation to run for office, and my guess is very few of them are. They are more likely to be tempted by "other" forms of compensation that they receive while in office, which eclipse their meager federal salary and benefits. I also think that stripping Members of Congress of compensation, would follow the same logic used to strip AIG executives of their bonuses. AIG executives failed AIG, and our Congress failed the American people, so why should our Congress deserve compensation?
Sunday, March 15, 2009
The birth of Hamasastan
So its been a while since my last entry, and I realize I need to stay more consistent with my posts, but here I go.
I don't mean to gloat but I just want to point out that I pretty much nailed the analysis and the outcome of Israel's endeveour into the armpit of the world. Although Israel's casualty toll was not as high as I anticipated (thankfully!) the benefits of Israel's incursion are still unclear. It is true that currently fewer rockets are flying towards Israel from the world's largest and most densely populated sewer, but I am saddened to say that this is a temporary occurance. Within hours of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza, tunnels were being rebuilt on the Egyptian border and weapons smuggling resumed. At the end of the day, Israel spent vast resources and suffered a further tarnishing of its image in order to successefully empowered Hamas, who are now in charge of distributing international aid. Even though some organizations are trying to bypass Hamas this task is close to impossible.
On a positive note Lieberman happens to agree with my resolution of the conflict, and I am exploring potential legal remedies for his blatant plagarism of my political platform.
I don't mean to gloat but I just want to point out that I pretty much nailed the analysis and the outcome of Israel's endeveour into the armpit of the world. Although Israel's casualty toll was not as high as I anticipated (thankfully!) the benefits of Israel's incursion are still unclear. It is true that currently fewer rockets are flying towards Israel from the world's largest and most densely populated sewer, but I am saddened to say that this is a temporary occurance. Within hours of Israel's withdrawl from Gaza, tunnels were being rebuilt on the Egyptian border and weapons smuggling resumed. At the end of the day, Israel spent vast resources and suffered a further tarnishing of its image in order to successefully empowered Hamas, who are now in charge of distributing international aid. Even though some organizations are trying to bypass Hamas this task is close to impossible.
On a positive note Lieberman happens to agree with my resolution of the conflict, and I am exploring potential legal remedies for his blatant plagarism of my political platform.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
If I was a Prime Minister na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na
Israel is currently in the midst of a ground invasion of Gaza. I believe that this is a huge mistake for several reasons. Israel is needlessly risking the lives of 20,000 soldiers during the invasion and there is no clear goal or defined success.
The reason behind sending Israeli soldiers into Gaza is mainly to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties as a result of a prolonged air strike campaign. If I was an Israeli I would be outraged that my government values the lives of Gazan civilians more than the lives of their own citizens. Unfortunately it is to be expected that the invasion of Gaza by a large military force will yield high casualty rates amongst Israeli soldiers. I would understand a large scale invasion if Israel was going in to overthrow an unpopular government or had the slightest chance of changing the reality on the ground. But I predict that this exercise will do nothing for Israel's strategic benefit. I envision Israel going in, suffering casualties and high amount of international condemnations, and succeeding in stopping or significantly diminishing the amount of rockets fired for a short time, several months perhaps. But as soon as Israel leaves, Hamas will fill the vacuum and emerge more powerful than ever. Several years from now, Israel will look back on this venture as pointless since it's likely to find itself in the same predicament as before it took action.
I do have an alternative plan. Israel needs to seize all attacks for 48 hours and give all Palestinian civilians time to flee to Egypt. At the end of the 48 hours, I would like to see a sustained carpet bombing of Gaza, since everyone who stay will be fair game. Once there is a sustained amount of damage inflicted, tactical units of the Israeli forces will be allowed to enter Gaza to mop up any resistance. At the conclusion of the operation Israel will give the Egyptians a choice to either annex Gaza and take responsibility for all of its residents or turn Gaza into an uninhabited Demilitarized Zone. If Egypt accepts the proposal, Israel can pay the Palestinians some sort of compensation for their property, which would be substantially less expensive than the prospect of continued military hostility. By turning Gaza over to the Egyptians, Israel will solve two problems. They will no longer be dealing with a rogue state on their border, and will be able to hold the Egyptians accountable for any attacks. Secondly, the problem of a continuous Palestinian state would be solved.
My solution might not be the only correct way to resolve the situation, but what Israel is doing right now is nothing short of pointless. That being said, I wish for the Israeli soldiers to stay safe and Israel finding a bit more peace in 2009.
What would America, Russia, China, France, or UK do if this happened to one of their cities?......Well France would surrender, but what about the rest?
http://www.sderotmedia.com
The reason behind sending Israeli soldiers into Gaza is mainly to avoid Palestinian civilian casualties as a result of a prolonged air strike campaign. If I was an Israeli I would be outraged that my government values the lives of Gazan civilians more than the lives of their own citizens. Unfortunately it is to be expected that the invasion of Gaza by a large military force will yield high casualty rates amongst Israeli soldiers. I would understand a large scale invasion if Israel was going in to overthrow an unpopular government or had the slightest chance of changing the reality on the ground. But I predict that this exercise will do nothing for Israel's strategic benefit. I envision Israel going in, suffering casualties and high amount of international condemnations, and succeeding in stopping or significantly diminishing the amount of rockets fired for a short time, several months perhaps. But as soon as Israel leaves, Hamas will fill the vacuum and emerge more powerful than ever. Several years from now, Israel will look back on this venture as pointless since it's likely to find itself in the same predicament as before it took action.
I do have an alternative plan. Israel needs to seize all attacks for 48 hours and give all Palestinian civilians time to flee to Egypt. At the end of the 48 hours, I would like to see a sustained carpet bombing of Gaza, since everyone who stay will be fair game. Once there is a sustained amount of damage inflicted, tactical units of the Israeli forces will be allowed to enter Gaza to mop up any resistance. At the conclusion of the operation Israel will give the Egyptians a choice to either annex Gaza and take responsibility for all of its residents or turn Gaza into an uninhabited Demilitarized Zone. If Egypt accepts the proposal, Israel can pay the Palestinians some sort of compensation for their property, which would be substantially less expensive than the prospect of continued military hostility. By turning Gaza over to the Egyptians, Israel will solve two problems. They will no longer be dealing with a rogue state on their border, and will be able to hold the Egyptians accountable for any attacks. Secondly, the problem of a continuous Palestinian state would be solved.
My solution might not be the only correct way to resolve the situation, but what Israel is doing right now is nothing short of pointless. That being said, I wish for the Israeli soldiers to stay safe and Israel finding a bit more peace in 2009.
What would America, Russia, China, France, or UK do if this happened to one of their cities?......Well France would surrender, but what about the rest?
http://www.sderotmedia.com
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The problem with an auto bailout
The auto industry bailout has been floating around Washington for the past few months and while I understand the grave short-term consequences if the Detroit three fail, I do take some issue with the proposed bailout. Perhaps instead of a bail out the government can assist in a gradual phase out these companies in order to reduce a shock on the economy. But here are some other reasons why the bailout won't get results.
1. Bailing out companies that are not competitive is foolish- Ford, Chrysler, and GM have not been competitive in the United States for quite a few years and have steadily lost marketshare in the domestic market. Although these companies perform slightly better abroad, I think the decline of these once dominant companies in the United States is a tell tale sign that some major business restructuring needs to happen. Besides producing a sub-par product, the Big Three are forced to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda who do not have major union commitments inhibiting their business model.
2. American cars are Crap. I mean realistically are there any people in their mid 20's who would buy a new Buick or a Chrysler? Such individuals would be very hard to find, and no one is to blame except the car companies themselves. I really believe that the people who created the PT cruiser, Buick Rendezvous, and the Ford Taurus are heading straight for auto designer hell. Poor design and horrible quality has greatly tarnished the American car industry, and the bailout is unlikely to reverse the course.
3. From my understanding the bailout proposal stipulates that in exchange for funds, the Big Three have to commit to manufacturing more hybrid vehicles. Isn't that wonderful and honkey-dorey? What the gov't ignores is the fact that hybrid vehicles have actually hurt the Detroit automakers. It will be very hard for these companies to recover if they are forced to make unprofitable products.
1. Bailing out companies that are not competitive is foolish- Ford, Chrysler, and GM have not been competitive in the United States for quite a few years and have steadily lost marketshare in the domestic market. Although these companies perform slightly better abroad, I think the decline of these once dominant companies in the United States is a tell tale sign that some major business restructuring needs to happen. Besides producing a sub-par product, the Big Three are forced to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda who do not have major union commitments inhibiting their business model.
2. American cars are Crap. I mean realistically are there any people in their mid 20's who would buy a new Buick or a Chrysler? Such individuals would be very hard to find, and no one is to blame except the car companies themselves. I really believe that the people who created the PT cruiser, Buick Rendezvous, and the Ford Taurus are heading straight for auto designer hell. Poor design and horrible quality has greatly tarnished the American car industry, and the bailout is unlikely to reverse the course.
3. From my understanding the bailout proposal stipulates that in exchange for funds, the Big Three have to commit to manufacturing more hybrid vehicles. Isn't that wonderful and honkey-dorey? What the gov't ignores is the fact that hybrid vehicles have actually hurt the Detroit automakers. It will be very hard for these companies to recover if they are forced to make unprofitable products.
The true north strong and free, eh?
When most people think of Canada they think of the maple leaf, hockey, freezing cold, and unfortunate accents, and yet most Americans turn a blind eye to Canada's open hatred of America. While on vacation in Mexico (which was overrun by drunken Canadians seeking a to change their skin tone from ghost pale to polar bear white) I found it distasteful how quickly Canadians injected themselves into American politics. Within seconds of any conversation, the Canadians wanted to point out how much they hate America, why they would never move there, why our politicians (except The Chosen One) suck, and that 9/11 was a conspiracy.
It's quite bold for a country that is on the verge of a coup and a secession to preoccupy itself with the politics of its neighbor, insecurity perhaps?
Now I know Canadians have acquired a reputation for politeness, but this is far from polite. It irritates me that Canadians seem to think that they are somehow more enlightened than Americans. Much like Europeans, Canadians glow in the aura of false knowledge. Canadians and Europeans often act as if they know all there is to know about the United States and yet when you dig more than inch deep they reveal their true ignorance. Canadians like to tout the superiority of their universal healthcare system, and yet ignore the fact that their taxes are absurd. Canadians talk about how peaceful their country is, and ignore the fact that America has done their bidding for the last 80 years or so.
It is disgusting how Canadians use every opportunity to put down the United States, which is quite bold for a country that owes its independence and freedom to its proximity to the United States. Let's face it, if the US was not Canada's neighbor, Canadians would be speaking Russian by now.
In the context of global politics Canada should be seen and not heard. Canada don't make us make an Iraq out of you, we'll have the Quebecois fighting the Anglos within 3 weeks of an invasion. If the invasion does not pan out, we'll confiscate your 6 hockey teams and start breaking off pieces of the Stanley Cup until you cry for mercy.
It's quite bold for a country that is on the verge of a coup and a secession to preoccupy itself with the politics of its neighbor, insecurity perhaps?
Now I know Canadians have acquired a reputation for politeness, but this is far from polite. It irritates me that Canadians seem to think that they are somehow more enlightened than Americans. Much like Europeans, Canadians glow in the aura of false knowledge. Canadians and Europeans often act as if they know all there is to know about the United States and yet when you dig more than inch deep they reveal their true ignorance. Canadians like to tout the superiority of their universal healthcare system, and yet ignore the fact that their taxes are absurd. Canadians talk about how peaceful their country is, and ignore the fact that America has done their bidding for the last 80 years or so.
It is disgusting how Canadians use every opportunity to put down the United States, which is quite bold for a country that owes its independence and freedom to its proximity to the United States. Let's face it, if the US was not Canada's neighbor, Canadians would be speaking Russian by now.
In the context of global politics Canada should be seen and not heard. Canada don't make us make an Iraq out of you, we'll have the Quebecois fighting the Anglos within 3 weeks of an invasion. If the invasion does not pan out, we'll confiscate your 6 hockey teams and start breaking off pieces of the Stanley Cup until you cry for mercy.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Facebook Politics
The other day as I was perusing the Facebook status updates of my friends when I came across a political statement that I found rather ironic. This friend who shall remain nameless posted something to the effect that she would like all the angry Republicans to stick to their promise and move to another country in case of an Obama victory.
Ironically, the most famous example of such a threat was made by Alec Baldwin and his ex-wife Kim Bassinger during the 2000 campaign when the couple vowed to move to Canada if George W. Bush was elected president (a promise that unfortunately they did not keep and instead Alec took out a lot of anger on his 12 year old daughter who is a little pig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0-ZatDHug) However, for a conservative or a McCain supporter to make the same promise is entirely illogical. I will admit that I don't know whether the comment in question was addressed to anyone in specific, but I will explain why it makes no sense.
The liberal view of the US is that we are a fixer upper mansion and the rest of the world is made up of either shacks or small but cozy high tech new constructions. In case that the much needed home improvement is not made, liberals would eagerly move into the cool new constructions (i.e., France or Canada). As a result liberals have no issues making such dramatic statements as the one made by Baldwin in 2000.
Conservatives believe through thick and thin that the United States is the greatest country in the world. It may not be perfect, and from time to time they deal with a landscaper that they don't like (Obama), but at the end of the day they would rather live in the United States than anywhere else. Conservatives cannot identify any other country in the world that values the free market economics, social, and foreign policies more than the United States, and hence no alternative can possibly exist.
If indeed this comment was addressed to a specific McCain supporter, I would be curious to know what country did he foresee himself moving to in case of an Obama victory. Yes, Canada has a "Conservative" Prime Minister in Ben Harper now, but Canadian Conservatives are near equivalent of American Liberals (Canadian Liberals = Communists). Same logic can be applied to the European Conservative governments in Germany, Italy, and France. So unless this individuals just likes the sound of the label "Conservatives" and doesn't care about substance, none of these countries are a viable alternative.
On a lighter note: Hilarious video of the consequence of the Obama victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac
Ironically, the most famous example of such a threat was made by Alec Baldwin and his ex-wife Kim Bassinger during the 2000 campaign when the couple vowed to move to Canada if George W. Bush was elected president (a promise that unfortunately they did not keep and instead Alec took out a lot of anger on his 12 year old daughter who is a little pig http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J0-ZatDHug) However, for a conservative or a McCain supporter to make the same promise is entirely illogical. I will admit that I don't know whether the comment in question was addressed to anyone in specific, but I will explain why it makes no sense.
The liberal view of the US is that we are a fixer upper mansion and the rest of the world is made up of either shacks or small but cozy high tech new constructions. In case that the much needed home improvement is not made, liberals would eagerly move into the cool new constructions (i.e., France or Canada). As a result liberals have no issues making such dramatic statements as the one made by Baldwin in 2000.
Conservatives believe through thick and thin that the United States is the greatest country in the world. It may not be perfect, and from time to time they deal with a landscaper that they don't like (Obama), but at the end of the day they would rather live in the United States than anywhere else. Conservatives cannot identify any other country in the world that values the free market economics, social, and foreign policies more than the United States, and hence no alternative can possibly exist.
If indeed this comment was addressed to a specific McCain supporter, I would be curious to know what country did he foresee himself moving to in case of an Obama victory. Yes, Canada has a "Conservative" Prime Minister in Ben Harper now, but Canadian Conservatives are near equivalent of American Liberals (Canadian Liberals = Communists). Same logic can be applied to the European Conservative governments in Germany, Italy, and France. So unless this individuals just likes the sound of the label "Conservatives" and doesn't care about substance, none of these countries are a viable alternative.
On a lighter note: Hilarious video of the consequence of the Obama victory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3_95F5e-Ac
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)