Wednesday, June 30, 2004

WSJ.com - Cubicle Culture

I wonder if management is smart enough to realize people (such as myself) leave on the dot because we are so good at our jobs, and so underutilized, that there is nothing to do but leave as sson as professionally acceptable?

I guess I could also wonder if management is attentive enough to even know that workers are under-utilized? If they are not, it would help explain a lot.

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

WSJ.com - What Would Adam Smith Say?

Claiming this regulation would effect shareholder returns is poppycock.

"Forcing the boards of these firms to elect less qualified chairmen will lower the returns of these firms, lower returns in the industry as a whole, make mutual funds a less attractive investment choice, and penalize investors whose savings are in these institutions and who find mutual funds the preferred choice for their 401(k)s."

So the reg will make these fiduciaries intentionally hire less qualified candidates? Puh-leaze. And how exactly will these chairmen lead to lower returns when it is the Pm and his or her team of analysts who make the decisions on what to buy or sell?

There are a lot of cows on tha farm. So many that there is a need for many bulls. And where there are a lot of bulls.....

How Will the Left Lie Now?

Another NYT/CBS poll, another rant. This one centers on a few internal poll questions that do not make the article. (And they don’t make the article because, even relative to regular poll questions, these questions are eye-glazingly dull for the non-polling aficionado.)

The first question of complaint is the percent of pollees who claim they will “definitely” vote in November 2004. It is 85%. In 2000 when the Right was as passionately fired-up to rid the political scene of the Clinton stain, 50% of registered voters went to the polls. There is reason to believe, despite Gore’s precipitous fall from sanity, to believe the Left is any more fired-up. If so, then, clearly, there is a disconnect. (Love all those commas?)

So 85% say they will “definitely” vote (I’ll use quotes because “definitely” seems to mean something other than the traditional Webster’s definition of the word), but only 78% said they were registered to vote. What’s going on? Likely the pollees are trying to please the poller by saying what they think the poller wants to hear or what the polleee believes society says they should do.

In the poll, 70% of pollees say they voted in 2000. According to the poll, 78% were registered. Connecting these two answers means the percent that voted (assuming being registered is the only way to vote) was actually 90%. Seems we are moving farther and farther away from what we actually do know - the percentage of registered voters who actually voted in 2000.

With such disparities between reportedly likelihood of voting and the actual percent of people who voted, there does not seem to be any way to read these polls with the air of authority in which they are reported. All we can successfully glean is what the reporting agency wants us to believe. The NYT titled the article, “Bush’s Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point, New Survey Finds.”

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Which lies do these statistics support?

Another poll, another rant. This one centers on a couple internal poll questions that do not make the article.

The first is the number of voters who claim they will definitely vote. It is 85%. In 2000, 50% of registered voters voted. Clearly, there is a disconnect.

So 85% say they will definitely vote, but only 78% said they were registered to vote. Certainly, the pollees are trying to please the poller by saying what they think the poller wants to hear or what the polleee believes society says they should do.

In the poll, 70% say they voted in 2000. Again, 78% were registered. This means that the percent who voted (assuming being registered is the only way to vote) was actually 90%. Seems we are moving farther and farther away from what we actually do know. (The percentage of registered voters who voted in 2000.)

With such disparities between reportedly likelihood of voting and the actual percent of people who voted, there does not seem to be any way to read these polls with the air of authority in which they are reported.

Monday, June 28, 2004

FT.com Home UK

Is there a reason why the press doesn't follow-up on these sorts of things unless they are part of the day's momemtum (bad Bush, slovenly propagandist, naked iraqi torture?)

Saturday, June 26, 2004

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > Kerry's Campaign Has Soared From Poorhouse to Penthouse

As with any article on CF, one must remember Moveon.org, ACT, and other liberal interest groups that run ads in the exact same markets at complementary times to the Kerry campaign. Looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but it is a giraffe!

Interesting tidbit. All this CF crap about Kery having less money arbitrarily chooses March to begin counting for Kery but uses Bushes entire time to compare spending and raising. However, HTH in April and May, Kerry, not including the liberal shadow groups, spend 67MM and Bush $53 MM. There are lies, damned lies and statisitcs.

Even CF is not immune.

Hey is John Ross the previous internet coordinator for Moveon.org?

Since money raised over the internet uses credit cards, is Kerry contributing to the debt burden of average Americans?

The New York Times > Technology > For Liars and Loafers, Cellphones Offer an Alibi

Unless the NYT does not consider Mohammed Ata to be a "liar" or a "loafer" then.....

This morning's NYT has a front-page below the fold article on cellphones being used to establish alibis.

(I assume alarms are ringing.)

If they are not, then quickly recall the rationale used to dismiss the Ata/Czechoslavakia sighting.

Since this was an obvious connect the dots, I expected an acknowledgement in the body of the article. (Conveniently located in the Business section.)

But nothing.

After yesterday's admittance by NYT to having documents showing contacts between AQ and Saddam's Iraq and now today's cellphone alibi article, is it any wonder that conservatives see the NYT as a liberal organ of mistruth?

Friday, June 25, 2004

Clinton Book Weighs Failures and Successes (washingtonpost.com)

Can someone re-perjure themselves?

Cheney Dismisses Critic With Obscenity (washingtonpost.com)

I like Cheney more. A lot of those anti-Bush, pro-Europena Democratic elitist should be told a lot worse than that.

"Senator Kennedy, ever flee the scene and have someone die?"

"Senator Kerry, how many war crimes, and which ones and in great detail, did you commit back in Vietnam?"

"Senator Leahy, In addition to fucking yourself, how stupid do you feel about leaving all you memos regarding judicial strategy on a shared computer? And by the way, isn't it easy to be a champion of minorities when the state you represent doesn't have any?"

"Congreesswoman Murray, have you received the OK to send your children to Osama Bin Laden's DayCare Center yet? And by the way, are you the stupidest fuck on the West Coast?"

"Congressman McDermott, what is in the water in Washington? How many people did you think you've help kill by shilling for Saddam Hussein, you fat fuck?"

"Congressman Waxman, did you ever fulfill your fantasy of fucking President Clinton in the ass? God you couldn't be more gay for him, you coke-cottle glasses mole!"

Thursday, June 24, 2004

When An Increase is Really a Cut

All the peripheries of my intellect, the term "baseline budget" occasionally popped into view. I never paid it much heed except in the sense that is contributed to ever-increasing government spending.

I just read an article from Club for Growth bogeyman, Stephen Moore. Normally, I don't pay much heed to what he says. Not because I am for higher taxes and consider him garlic to my tax vampirism as Socialists do, but because he is a vocal advocate for lower taxes.

"What?" you say. "You're against tax increases yet ignore someone who lives and breathes tax cuts in all shapes and forms?" Yes. I do so because Mr. Moore is that four-letter word. He is an "advocate" and those types of people always distort.

Now back to baseline budgeting. With it, next year's budget automatically increases by inflation and anticipated increases in program participation i.e. a new $100 million program to teach disadvantaged kids their colors is passed at the behest of Senator Do-More-Harm-Than-Good. As a result of demographic "studies", the crack interns in this Senators office have also supplied statistics that show that the rate at which disadvantaged kids are not learning their colors is growing at 5% per year. So that 5% and the rate of inflation conspire to guarantee than next year's program is not $100 million dollars but $108 million.

This time you ask, "So?” Sew the holes in your underwear! The rotten do-more-harm-than-gooders are going use that $108 million as the baseline budget to determine whether the programs is being cut. So if Senator Do-A-Little-Less-Harm suggests that next year's program only be $105 million (still an increase from the previous year's budget), the Senators who do more harm cry, "You're stampeding over poor kids' right to learn their colors by cutting this program!"

Next thing you know, the p.r.whores back pedal because, God dammit if they're going to be seen trampling on kids' rights, poor kids at that, to learn their colors on the government dime!

Sadly, this occurs all the time. Remember when the Republicans tried to slow the growth of Medicare back in 1995? It is the exact same thing.

Just something to keep in mind once politicians get around to reforming the entitlement spending. Remember baseline budgetting and tell your local politician to stop being a politiican and be honest!

Wednesday, June 23, 2004

With the release of the 9/11 Commission report and former President Clinton’s autobiography, My Life, the airwaves are thick with “lies”. If it is not the Chairman of the 9/11 Commission publicly announcing that their report does support the Administration’s foes accusation that it is lying about contacts between Saddam Hussein’s’ Iraq and Al Qaeda, it is the former POTUS admitting to dissembling before a grand jury because Ken Starr was so mean.

While it is axiomatic that politicians do not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, we have not developed a way to measure whether one politician bends the truth more than another one. Where is the John Bogle (the founder of Vanguard Funds and a relentless advocate of passive indexing) of the political world?

This advocate can develop an index that measures the amount of lying done throughout the political “market”. From this, a daily “return” can be calculated. We can then compare the amount of lying a politician does against this passive “return” to determine whether a particular politician is more of a liar than the typical one (deserving of the moniker “liar”) or less of one (deserving of the descriptor “honest”).

Without such a standard, I know President Bush will be labeled a “liar” by the Democrats, and former President Clinton as one by the Republicans, but will I ever know who is the true “liar” amongst his peers?

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore. By Christopher?Hitchens

A colleague of mine said Moore was right.

I say that because I am tempted to believe that no one is so mind-numbingly fucking stupid as to think Moore is any more respectful of facts than he is of his own appearance.

Unfortunately, I am wrong. There are lots of mind-numbingly fucking stupid people, and to make it worse, most of them get to be on TV and reveal their mind-numbing stupidity to the world! What does that say about television!

Stem Cell Questioning is Key

So depending on how a poll words a question on stem cells will give polar-opposite results.

Advocate is a four-letter word.

WSJ.com - Divided We Fall

Very well said. The What-iffing going on is contemptable.

Drug Lobbyists Lie!

Why am I not surprised that activist groups distort and lie? I am surprised that the public doesn't realize this.

A generally accepted belief is that politicians lie. Yet when a pol says something is free, we think he is telling the truth.

Go figure.

I wonder how much pollees try to to answer questions in ways that do not reflect poorly on them. A couple poll-specific issues are the percent who say they are following the POTUS race closely (80%) and the defintion of "registered voters".

With 50% registered voter turnout, how likely is it that 80% of pollees are following this race closely?

And with registered voters as those who profess to be, how likely is it that pollees know the great civic duty of US citizenship is the right to vote and therefore do not wnat to appear ungrateful by not being registered?

As a whole, this poll seems fatally flawed on methodological bases. This won't stop the media from drumming it into the collective conscious as if there were not serious questions about its validity.

Bush Loses Advantage in War on Terrorism (washingtonpost.com)

There you go again. After three months of relentless pounding on Bush via Abu Ghraib and Fallujah, poll results amongst registered voters reflect the views being concocted by the media.

I am not surprised. What I do find fault with is the methodological switch from likely voters to registered voters. I understand registered voters to be more Democrat-leaning and therefore this switch directly benefits the Democrat-side of any question/issue.

I wonder why this switch was made.

Monday, June 21, 2004

The New York Times > Health > In New Tests for Fetal Defects, Agonizing Choices

My disgust is papable, and completely unexpected. To quote, Mrs. Hoffman, ""I don't look at it as though I had an abortion, even though that is technically what it is. There's a difference. I wanted this baby."

See she and her husband decided the quality of the child's lif and that of their family would be too compromised, so in an act of kindness to the baby, she terminated the pregnancy.

It was for the good of the unborn baby. An act of kindness!

Disgusting. Not to mention that mental gymnastics she's turning trying to make pretend she did not do what she did.

The New York Times > Health > In New Tests for Fetal Defects, Agonizing Choices

Happy Father's Day from The New York Times! On a day when we celebrate fathers, NYT runs an article on selective abortion.

I know it is about pre-natal screening for genetic defects, but the entire article uses that premise to illustrate parents-to-be decision whether to have an abortion if their child is not perfect.

Normally, I would leave this discussion untouched upon, but I was disgusted to see the picture of Kate Hoffman, 7 months pregnant or so, gracing the front page. See she decided that child number 4 who would have been born with Down's Syndrome was not worth carrying so she aborted it.

If I keep my lip curled any longer it may freeze like that! Shameful, but in a society where being pro-abortion is the easy position, I am not surprised this action is not disdained.

Why? Because the article goes also introduces a woman who became pregnant with her 4th girl and aborted it because she wanted a boy. An Upper East Sider, of course!

What about the doctor? Well, he performed the abortion because it is not his place to do anything. What kind of person chooses to be that amoral?

Or the 35-year-old psychologist who is infuriated that someone would even suggest that she not terminate a Down's Syndrome child?

Unbelievable. Me! Me! Me!

Michael Rubin on Iraq on National Review Online

I wish I could read this in my local paper , The Journal News. Is it so hard to inform readers how the press gets their local info in Iraq?

I've always questioned who theIraqis are who understand English?

Region reacts to ex-president on '60 Minutes'

There has been so much hoopla surrounding My Life that I wanted to put my $0.02 in.

Why? He's a former POTUS and is therefor forbidden to disclose vital government info. He's got problems with the truth anyways. What makes anyone think he'd contribute to the debate anything more than is already there?

At 954 pages, I doubt anyone will read it. That leads me to ask who is buying these 1.5 million copies?

It has been panned in the NYT.

I read books of that length and no no one lese who does.

Just some thoughts.

And a final one, why won't he just go away?

WSJ.com - Inside Air America's Troubles: Optimism and Shaky Finances

So Air America was set-up by conmen. Lying Liars is not only applicable to Republicans, is it Mr. Franken?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

9/11 Panel's Findings Vault Bush Credibility To Campaign Forefront (washingtonpost.com)

The 9/11 report casts doubt on the veracity of the Bush Administration? Not exactly. The Kery campaign and its surrogates certainly do, but the the report itself.

If the party of It Depends What the Defintion of Is Is applied the same semantic hair-splitting to it as it does to the Clinton Administration, Bill O'Reilly would be writing a book about the lying liars who accused the Republicans of being lying liars.

The New York Times > Washington > Campaign 2004 > G.O.P. Offensive Puts Small Dent in Kerry's Image

While this article alludes to the problems 43 has had since April (Fallujah, Abu Ghraib) it never coherently makes the point that his numbers are shockingly good in light of the NON-STOP coverage of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib.

Tuesday, June 01, 2004


On the way to Home Depot yesterday afternoon, my wife noticed the price of regular gas at the Exxon at the bottom of the hill – $2.42 per gallon! As the kids were safely restrained in their car seats, she exclaimed, “Holy crap!” in lieu of a more profane interjection. She had not filled the gas tank in a couple weeks and was clearly shocked by the current price. (Whether or not she hadn’t filled the tank within a couple weeks is up for debate. After all, her power of recall can suffer random acts of disability as our two children can scream Einstein into a single digit IQ.)

What is alarming is not so much the rapid rise in the price per gallon, but the realization that our 10 gallons-a tank Honda Civic costs more than $20 to fill. Now, the extra $5 it takes to fill the tank and drive to Meriden, CT for a visit with the grandparents will not break the bank. Nor will it cause us such hardship that The New York Times would select us for an article on how hard the increases in gas have affected our lives. (See today’s FPBF article)

And it is that article that has spurred this missive. This type of article is a staple of NYT reporting – The Man on the Street article (MOS). In it, the Times takes a particular view, such as Bush is having problems with his base or the cost of gas causing people to stop eating or some other unsubstantiated opinion which often dovetails nicely with the Left’s thinking at the moment, and finds some people to quote for the article. By doing this, the unsubstantiated opinion is lent credence. After all, it must be true if it is worthy of publication in the Paper of Record.

Other than the sampling malfeasance practiced regularly by one of the alledged pillars of journalistic integrity, and it is a big gripe of mine, is the missed opportunity to explain in further detail why the unsubstantiated opinion arose. In particular, the FPBF (Front Page Below the Fold) article does not mention why prices are so expensive. The article offers perfect segues into a more-fleshed out position as when the average price of regular is cited with the caveat that prices are more expensive in California and New York. “Why?” I ask but there is no answer.

Or an explanation why, apparently, once a summer holiday rolls around, the gas stations are caught off-guard by the demand for gas. Are gas station owners so bereft of IQ points (screaming kids maybe?) that they don’t notice the spike in demand around the holidays? (I seriously doubt this and here is an expose waiting to happen. “Gas Stations owners pad pockets around the holiday season because drivers are so stupid as to think the demand for gas at this time is not anticipated”)

And now, another leap! Maybe we don’t see this type of expose because the Left desires higher gas prices as a deterrent to gas consumption. But you ask, “How could that be? John Kerry is assaulting President Bush for doing nothing about this regressive attack on the poor!” Well, that certainly shows the Left is aware that rising gas prices negatively affect consumers. It also amply demonstrates the problem the Left has in gaining adherents. Its message is inherently contradictory. On one hand, it derides anything that effects the “poor” disproportionately than the “rich” while at the exact same time espousing solutions to environmental degradation that exactly impose this regressivity. Is there any difference between a market-based rise in gasoline and the imposition of a gas tax that raises it price to a level that will deter driving? There is not. The end is the same. Only the means differ. And if it does deter driving, wouldn’t that directly cause the hardships quoted in the NYT MOS article on gas prices? More elderly shut-ins without human contact because other elderly volunteers can no longer afford gas to put in the cars to deliver those Meals on Wheels.

From “Escort-ilac”, a reference to my 44 MPG first car, to a “Holy Crap!’ from my wife to a critique of a staple of NYT reporting to an explanation of why the Left is losing the ideological battle, you get it right here!

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?