Archive for the ‘Citizen’ Category
Tuesday, October 25th, 2005
Robert C. Martin, an author and software engineering guru, has kicked a hornet’s nest with his posting entitled Terrorist Trap. In the posting, he posits that the war in Iraq is a trap to attract terroists away from the U.S. and to eliminate them. One of the many rebutals is that this has actually created more terrorists citing an article by a PhD. at Stanford about the situation molding a man.
I don’t know if the war in Iraq was meant as a trap for terrorist, but I do believe that Sadam Hussein sponsored terrorist and was creating or seeking to create Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which he would have used on his neighbors and/or sold to terrorist groups. I hear the Left screaming, “The 911 commission said Hussein wasn’t involved!” True, it also said that he was involved in other terrorist activities. Officials in his government met with leaders of Al Qaeda. He gave money to Palestinian homicide bombers. Also the 911 commission is another beauracratic farce. They didn’t call a group to testify that identified the 9/11 leader a year before the incident. Then the Left screams, “But there were no WMDs!” Well, he did gas Kurds in 1989. And artillery was found with nerve gas. Was Iraq an “eminent threat?” Yes! Eminent means outstanding or high ranking, not immediate as many on the Left seem to define it.
As for the notion that by going to Iraq the U.S. has created terrorists, I wouldn’t doubt that there are a few people who became terrorists because of U.S. actions but that’s hardly a justification for not going. Those few people who turn into threats are outweighed by an entire nation that is becoming a democracy in a region sorely in need of an example of what prosperity a democracy can bring. Further, saying that fighting terrorsim breeds terrorism so we shouldn’t do it is like saying police shouldn’t fight crime because average people will get mad at the police and become criminals.
Posted in Citizen, Uncategorized | No Comments »
Wednesday, October 19th, 2005
The Merc is reporting on the possibility of lowering of the amount of interest a homeowner can deduct on a mortgage. Currently, you can deduct the interest on the first $1.1 million of your mortgage. The proposal is to lower that limit to $312.895. In most of the country, this isn’t of much concern as the median home price in the U.S. is $208,300 as reported by Money Magazine. However, in Silicon Valley the median home price is $705,000. Even with 50% down, your above the proposed cap!
I’m not an economist, so I don’t know what the exact effects will be. My guess is that housing prices around here drop pretty significantly. As for how low, and what other ripples might occur (exodus from the state, companies moving), that I don’t know.
Another deduction that might go away and affects everyone is the deductibility of state and local taxes. If you’ve ever done your taxes, you know that you get to deduct the state and local taxes you paid from your federal taxes. Why all these proposals? To simplify the tax code of course. Yes changing a ceiling from $1.1 mil to $313K is a lot simpler. And having less deductions simplifies things too! They really should just eliminate the mortgage deduction all together if their goal was to simplify things. I have an idea why don’t they have fewer federal programs and a smaller Federal Government, that would simplify things a lot more than these changes.
Posted in Citizen | No Comments »
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
Eric Dauster at the Bayosphere has some pretty good thoughts on Corporate Social Responsibility. He opens with this:
Naturally, everyone would like to see corporations show a greater degree of support for social issues. Since a lot of revenue flows through major corporations it’s easy, for example, to suggest that corporations should demonstrate a higher Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) through charitable and philanthropic means.
Which has me ready for a round of corporate bashing. You see, Mr. Dauster would classify me as unnatural. I wouldn’t like to see corporations show a greater degree of support for social issues. What sense does it make for Microsoft to be involved in farm workers rights?
But then he turns things around and hits the nail on the head:
After all, is it reasonable to expect that a corporation can answer to any master other than their bottom line profits? Think about it — how can there be more than one “bottom line”? Even if social good is part and parcel to the core mission of an organization, the bottom line will always be the bottom line, and that bottom line is profits. Executives will choose profit over social good, time and time again. It’s their job.
In most parts of the country, this is obvious, but in the Bay Area, this is revolutionary thinking. A business exists to make … profits! Not change the world, but make profits.
Mr. Dauster goes on to say that the way to make corporation more socially responsible is to have good social responsibility increase the bottom line profitability. He doesn’t give any specific ideas about how to do this, and my opinion is that it may not be possible. However, the important point is to note that thinking about an issue like corporate social responsibility is more productive than feeling that corporations are evil and should be boycotted unless they support your agenda.
Posted in Citizen | No Comments »
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
The general affinity of Silicon Valley and Americans of Japanese descent with the Democrat Party has always confused me. This subject came to mind after hearing of the death of Jack Herzig, a lawyer who was instrumental in gaining redress for Japanese-Americans (JA) interned during World War II.
Franklin Roosevelt, the President who interned the JA, is a Democratic icon. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the internment. We traditionally have a long memory over honor and those that dis us (Kev, I can throw some slang in too :-), and yet, this hasn’t translated to a distrust of the Supreme Court or Democrats. My guess is that the Vietnam/Watergate Era was key.. The distrust that the JA had for the U.S. Government was embodied by a Republican, Richard Nixon. While Watergate was Nixon’s own doing, JAs seem to forget that John Kennedy, another Democrat icon, and Linden Johnson kicked things off in Vietnam.
Silicon Valley is another story. Most preach a life based on meritocracy and questioning the rules. While I can see how questioning rules would seem counter to Republicans, Democrat policies don’t lend themselves to a meritocracy. My guess again would relate back to the Vietnam/Watergate era for basically the same reasons as JAs in that Republicans are identified with mistrust in the U.S. Government.
These two groups, both of which I belong to, have very fundamental beliefs in self-reliance and personal responsibility which are anathema (that means reviled/shunned, Kev) to Democrats in my mind. If you believe I am wrong, please explain why the Democrats’ answer to any problem is a government program or more government spending. It is my belief that it is the desire to appear like a nice person that drives both of these groups to Democrats, not necessarily a belief in their policies. Who wouldn’t want to be associated with a political party that believes in protecting the environment, caring for the poor and elderly, and educating our children unless of course the method by which they were achieving these goals was to restrict private property rights, take money from working people, and indoctrinate.
Posted in Citizen | No Comments »
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
The U.N. Security Council is expected to pass a resolution condemning the attacks in London. Resolution? Expected? WTF, this is wrong on so many levels.
1. These guys need a resolution to say they condemn the action? If you have to say your against these actions, does that mean someone might have thought you were for them? If a family member gets mugged, do you put out a resolution that you are against mugging?
2. They need to meet to do this? I guess they don’t want to use a form letter, but c’mon. If they have to have a meeting so they can word the resolution as to not offend people, what are they trying to say?
3. These resolutions are sooo effective. Similar ones were made after September 11 and the Madrid bombings. I’m sure this one will do just as much to stop terrorism.
Posted in Citizen | No Comments »
Sunday, September 11th, 2005
Here’s the press release for a guy trying to have Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s house taken using the same logic that was upheld in “Kelo vs. City of New London.” The claim is that a hotel on Souter’s property would generate “greater tax revenue or other economic benefit” than Souter’s residence.
To some extent, this looks like a play for publicity. The guy is pushing a TV show about individuals challenging government. However, I’ll bite and follow where this goes. The premise that someone try to do this to the Justices that made this ruling is the ultimate, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” The ultimate outcome is unlikely to be that Souter’s house is seized, but I hope the Justices get some clue as to how some their rulings are an affront to the Constitution.
Posted in Citizen | No Comments »
Subscribe via RSS