Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
Recent Comments:
Al-Jazeera Anchorwomen Quit After 'Offensive' Comments About Their Non-Conservative Clothing, Makeup, Uncovered Hair {Stylelist (Main)}
Jun 2nd 2010 10:30AM If Al-Jazeera wishes that to be the impression of their staff they leave to the world, then that is the impression of the news they leave of the world. Everyone will know their "spin".
They are in their rights. They are in their rights to impose dress codes, modes of behavior and carriage, it is their news show. If the philosophy they espouse is based on the most restrictive principles of their faith, then their viewers, both pro and con, will know it. If they seek to impart "impartial" news they may have to amend their style. If they wish to portray the "Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh" bend on the news, to one side over the other, they can have any style they want.
May Allah or whatever Deity that is the truth judge in truth. May Heaven help us all!
Laas Geel: Somaliland's ancient treasure {Gadling}
May 22nd 2010 9:36AM Man in times of abundance and joy produces things of art and beauty along with things of utility and purpose. These caves were homes and places of protection, so they made them places of memory and story, tales and legends. The art reminds me of the concept of cue-cards, reminders of the tales and stories of how the people got there.
If Somalia gets the combination of politics and commerce together, they might wind up with an interesting tourist trade that can change the view of History of the World (note the capitals) as opposed too the view of world history as taught in our schools.
Elena Kagan: No Friend of the Military {Politics Daily}
May 14th 2010 10:33AM Peter Beinart mad his comment about the Military and its role in our country. If the Military refuses the chance to serve to people with the skills they need to provide service to the country, negotiators, interpreters in some of these more esoteric languages, lawyers, researchers programmers, and the like because of a perception that their personal lives and personal differences are going impair their service to the country, then he may as well not have a Military at all. Elena Kagan was saying that if the Military is going to deny the chance to serve their country to people with a different lifestyle, then a College or University that is attempting to teach fairness to ALL its citizens, freedom to ALL its citizens, cannot welcome an organization, so close to the center of our freedoms to continue these policies. When their policies change toward the freedoms that are implied in the laws of the land and the Constitution, then they will be welcomed as representing the Country that owns and obeys those laws.
Many people serving, and complying with the current policy of "Don't ask, don't tell" are being outed by agencies (police, credit, corporate, non-military) that do not have such a policy and carry their local morality and prejudices to the Military. The Military, with such a policy, acts upon their current moral code and provides a "general discharge" (not an "honorable discharge" with all the rights and benefits) to those living the lie imposed on them by the Military. The officer being discharged did nothing wrong, but was discharged anyway.
If this is fairness under the LAW, then Mr. Beinart may have to look toward the talking heads on commercial radio and television for what it means to be an AMERICAN. Ms. Kagan made her point, and held her comment to those instituting the policy, not to those institutionalizing the policy. She hoped to narrow the focus and broaden the debate.
The Buck Stops Where? {AOL Autos - Marketing}
May 8th 2010 8:35PM Reminds me of the old Harley-Davidson motorcycles before the turnaround. GM NEEDS to get into the Quality Control habit. Maybe make fewer cars, and use the SATURN method of manufacture. ANYONE can shut down the build line. If a part is wrong, if a process is not right, the operator can pull a cord, ringing a bell and stopping the belts. In the SATURN plant, new employees were presented within their first couple of months a specifically bad part. If they stopped the line, they were thrown a party, and got an increase in their pay, because they caught the quality issue before it affected the product.
SATURN declined when they were folded into the "small car division" of GM.
Toyota got into trouble rushing cars into production. (They really do need to have their electronic and computer mediated systems analyzed for faults.)
GM should take lessons from those who took their place. WE own them, so we must DEMAND the best from them. (If we would contract them to build for the Military, they could earn OUR money back, because they would have to exceed Military specifications, and they could only take the REAL cost of production, not the obscene profits that other Military Contractors demand.)
Maybe in a year or two, I will consider a new GM vehicle, when GM gets its quality act into shape. If they do not, then they MUST BE DISSOLVED! They are no longer worthy of our attention as a car company or as a finance company. ("Once, GM was a car company that occasionally made loans, now we are a finance company that builds cars.")
The Buck Stops Where? {AOL Autos - Marketing}
May 8th 2010 8:04PM Maybe the Campbell-Ewald agency had become stale, saying the same thing to the same generation that has gotten older, and more cynical. The message might be the same, but told in a way that resonates with a new generation. How long has Campbell-Ewald run the GM ad campaign?
For some advertising campaigns, the span of the campaign is only a couple of years, for others it is decades. When the message gets stale, when the audience for that method of selling gets old, it may be time to change.
If the client lets the ad agency move its message within and outside the box, it may get what it asks for. If the agency does not respond beyond the needs of the client, and sell the client on this expansion of audience, then the client is within its rights to look for more. Maybe it will take more than one agency to sell GM in the near future.
Arizona's Ultra-Sensitive Non-Racial Sensitivity Training {Politics Daily}
May 1st 2010 9:03PM The one with the badge! He has the gun, armed and dangerous and full of his authoritative attitude. He is the one to stop, making the argument about "racial profiling".
If a person is here illegally (smuggled in), the employer, by the rights of their employment, is the sponsor and should be responsible for them and their actions for as long as it takes for them to earn the right (no other broken laws, no debts, continuous and documented residence)"guest-worker" status. They are here to work. If they are not employed by a person or business, then they can be tried, and extradited to their home country for further judicial handling, whatever that may be.
If the employer wants to avoid the expense of properly paying and covering the tax and sponsorship expenses, then the employer can just HIRE AMERICANS!
A Non-Judge for the Supreme Court? Most Americans Say 'No' {Politics Daily}
May 1st 2010 7:41PM The worship of the media darling talking heads, spouting fear of life and change are the ruination of the planet and society. They want a return (from the grave) of Ronald Reagan.
I see a non-judge Constitutional scholar (and there are plenty out there in the Colleges and Universities) as a Supreme Court Justice. Too many Judges were "elected" by districts to give a popular person a sinecure. Too many Judges were political appointees for political favors. They may have been lawyers, but what kinds of lawyers (or what kinds of sharks) were they?
Too many years of the same Congress and Executive (and the Executive has to follow the playbook as defined by the Legislature) brought us here. Give Obama a chance! But he needs to read Will Rogers from the 1920's.
A Non-Judge for the Supreme Court? Most Americans Say 'No' {Politics Daily}
May 1st 2010 11:52AM Maybe you remember "trickle down economics"? Well, the benefits have not trickled down to the citizens, but flowed overseas to fund businesses and governments that look like they are more corrupt than even our worst nightmares.
We no longer produce, we serve. We are becoming a nation of slaves, servants to those who have been graced with an audience and the money to get into the places where an audience can be arranged. Just try to talk directly to the President, your Senator, your Representative, or even your State Government officials.
When the money gets to the CITIZENS, who will consume, PRODUCE, and start new businesses with ideas that will make our NATION stronger and more independent of all the external interests that OWN THIS COUNTRY, we will have a more equitable tax structure, and our deficit will (because there will be more tax-payers, many more people contributing to the economy within the system) be reduced to manageable amounts. Growth will be accounted by even our worst nightmares.
A Non-Judge for the Supreme Court? Most Americans Say 'No' {Politics Daily}
May 1st 2010 11:29AM Amen to that. Just look at the way laws are written, "... of the Lawyers, by the Lawyers, for the Lawyers ...".
Laws written in "Plain English" need less interpretation, fewer lawyers, better lawyers and more compliant citizens. (One cannot comply with one does not understand.) A Supreme Court Justice who is not a lawyer, but familiar with legal language, is likely to write arguments in language "We, the People ..." can understand. Maybe even inspire writing arguments from the other Justices (and Laws from the Congress) the are easier to comply with.
A Non-Judge for the Supreme Court? Most Americans Say 'No' {Politics Daily}
May 1st 2010 11:18AM Judges are acquainted with the law as it stands and the community standards they worked with in their judicial careers. This may mean a reasonable judicial temperament and a familiarity of the practice of judicial manners. This may be good and appropriate, but it may allow for justices to finally feel they have a chance to direct the way laws are interpreted, aka, "judicial activism".
A non-judge constitutional scholar may curb some of the activist tendencies, and maintain the concept of the citizen, (human life-form with a limited life-span and limited personal means and voice)above the corporation (hive-mind, long lived, multi-generational device that has nearly unlimited resources and voice in influence, immortal beyond the existence of its membership).
Justices need not be part of the judicial system, but must know the Constitution of the United States, and all the interpretations that have come and gone. A non-judge Constitutional scholar might be a perfect choice fe of judicial manners. This may be good and appropriate, but it may allow for justices to finally feel they have a chance to direct the way laws are interpreted, aka, "judicial activism".
