Monday, November 16, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Saturday, January 31, 2009
And away we go...
Just read a story on Boston.com about how credit card companies have started a massive reduction in available credit. Essentially, the long and short of it is that to reduce the debt on their books and to lessen the chance that in these economic times someone may use a credit card with a large balance to cover expenses that they can't cover otherwise, they are starting to reduce the credit limits of many of their customers' cards.
I have two problems with this:
1. Many of these banks are the very same banks which received bailout funds from the government which was partially targeted with the purpose of easing their lending standards; not tightening them. This was supposed to increase the flow of credit, thus increasing the public's spending power and helping the economy to recover. This action is effectively the exact opposite of that.
2. A reduction in the balance of one of your credit cards could negatively impact your credit rating. Ultimately, if you have less credit available, you are therefore using more of your available credit when you carry any balance. Since the ratio of used vs. available credit is a factor in your credit rating...you see where I'm going.
I think it's the exact wrong thing to do right now, especially given that these institutions were just standing in front of the government, hats in hand, asking for money. Money that was supposed to help them increase the flow of commerce. Shame on them for taking it and then turning around and essentially exacerbating the problem. And shame on the government for this "blank check" that they've essentially written. Ultimately, the complete lack of oversight and control over how the money is used completely pulls the teeth right out of the bailout.
I have two problems with this:
1. Many of these banks are the very same banks which received bailout funds from the government which was partially targeted with the purpose of easing their lending standards; not tightening them. This was supposed to increase the flow of credit, thus increasing the public's spending power and helping the economy to recover. This action is effectively the exact opposite of that.
2. A reduction in the balance of one of your credit cards could negatively impact your credit rating. Ultimately, if you have less credit available, you are therefore using more of your available credit when you carry any balance. Since the ratio of used vs. available credit is a factor in your credit rating...you see where I'm going.
I think it's the exact wrong thing to do right now, especially given that these institutions were just standing in front of the government, hats in hand, asking for money. Money that was supposed to help them increase the flow of commerce. Shame on them for taking it and then turning around and essentially exacerbating the problem. And shame on the government for this "blank check" that they've essentially written. Ultimately, the complete lack of oversight and control over how the money is used completely pulls the teeth right out of the bailout.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The NFL sucks
Wow. So here I sit having just watched Brett Favre destroy the Pats chance to get into the playoffs and I wonder how it is justified that the Patriots, probably the hottest team in the league right now, are NOT going to the playoffs. Hell, a team that they just blew off the field two weeks ago is hosting a playoff game and yet the Pats will watch from home. It's pathetic.
Friday, December 26, 2008
A fine...for that?
Apparently, the NFL has fined Wes Welker $10,000 for "unsportsmanlike conduct" with respect to his creation of a snow angel after his touchdown during the Patriots recent demolishing of the Arizona Cardinals.
Are you kidding me? $10,000 for making a snow angel? This has gotten out of hand.
Wes Welker is one of the most stand-up guys in the league. The man recently nearly had his head torn off by a (very) borderline hit and later had nothing whatsoever bad to say about the defender. Besides which, I don't even think he meant to do it in the first place. If you watch the tape, he actually slips and falls after the touchdown and then sort of goes into the snow angel thing seemingly trying to cover up that he just fell. Fining him for unsportsmanlike conduct for this is ridiculous. Especially given that the last $10,000 fine that was handed down by the league was for throwing snowballs at fans.
So, as far as the NFL is concerned:
Assaulting fans with large balls of ice: $10,000.
Falling down and trying to cover it up by performing a brief post-touchdown snow angel: $10,000.
Unbelievable.
Are you kidding me? $10,000 for making a snow angel? This has gotten out of hand.
Wes Welker is one of the most stand-up guys in the league. The man recently nearly had his head torn off by a (very) borderline hit and later had nothing whatsoever bad to say about the defender. Besides which, I don't even think he meant to do it in the first place. If you watch the tape, he actually slips and falls after the touchdown and then sort of goes into the snow angel thing seemingly trying to cover up that he just fell. Fining him for unsportsmanlike conduct for this is ridiculous. Especially given that the last $10,000 fine that was handed down by the league was for throwing snowballs at fans.
So, as far as the NFL is concerned:
Assaulting fans with large balls of ice: $10,000.
Falling down and trying to cover it up by performing a brief post-touchdown snow angel: $10,000.
Unbelievable.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Christmas...and Eartha Kitt has passed...
Well, here I sit, with my shiny new Eee PC. I love the little thing. I'm still getting used to typing on it...the keyboard is REALLY small. It's serviceable, though and I think I'll get used to it. I think I'm going to use this thing all the time...it's perfect for surfing while you're watching the tube.
That's only part of the reason that I'm updating the ol' blog after all this time. The other reason is to say Rest In Peace to the singer of one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time. Eartha Kitt passed away today, of all days, at the age of 81. She was famous for singing "Santa Baby". Ironic that she would pass today of all days. She had been battling colon cancer for a long time.
Here's to hoping that there's a sable under her tree wherever she is.
That's only part of the reason that I'm updating the ol' blog after all this time. The other reason is to say Rest In Peace to the singer of one of the greatest Christmas songs of all time. Eartha Kitt passed away today, of all days, at the age of 81. She was famous for singing "Santa Baby". Ironic that she would pass today of all days. She had been battling colon cancer for a long time.
Here's to hoping that there's a sable under her tree wherever she is.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Media bias...
...I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out the fact that the RNC is going on today (started yesterday actually) and no one seems to care. Mind you, I'm leaning towards the Obama side now, but still...the lack of coverage for the Republican National Convention has been almost comical in that it is the exact opposite of what happened for the DNC. That was covered like Paris Hilton was having Tom Cruise's illegitimate love child on the stage or something.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
How the F&*K is this news?
This is worthy of the front page of ESPN??? Really?? There's nothing else to talk about? I can't believe that there is a story entitled "Favre sends text message to Packers GM" on the front fucking page. That's unbelievable. For a second, I thought I was looking at CNN.com...their lead story was about an album that came out 30 fucking years ago.
Honestly. I mean, come on.
Honestly. I mean, come on.
Wait...he did what now?
Well, he seems to be at it again...but this is old/new news at the same time. We've all heard of the legislation which President Bush is trying to push through Congress with respect to the creation of special "tribunals" to try cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. Apparently, buried within the deep recesses of this bill is a provision which would pardon, retroactively mind you, any American national from any crime relating to the torture or interrogation of detainees as well as the ordering thereof.
You see ever since the Supreme Court found that, contrary to what President Bush and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales believed, the rules of the Geneva Convention DID apply to the handling of terrorist detainees, and therefore so did the War Crimes Act of 1996; this administration has made it one of its top priorities to try to gut that aforementioned legislation.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 made it a felony to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva convention. With the Supreme Court ruling, this administration was suddenly not only facing the prospect of being in violation of the Convention, but now being in violation of federal law. This, obviously, would not do.
So, the President has reacted in a way in which I have come to expect this President to react in; by trying to ram poor legislation with hidden provisions through a favorable Congress before the winds of change bring a new Congress which would not accept such a provision. This, to me, is despicable and against everything that this country and our Constitution stands for. This man took an oath to uphold the Constitution and this country's laws; obviously with his hand behind his back, fingers crossed. Congress should not allow him to simply change them when they do not suit his needs.
I guess that's the saddest thing about this whole story to me. It's one thing for a President to be corrupt and then to be let off the hook by a colleague. (See Nixon, Richard and Ford, Gerald). It's another thing entirely to watch the entire system of checks and balances put forth by our forefathers crumble before your very eyes because Congress, like this President, is corrupt to the point of ineffectiveness.
You see ever since the Supreme Court found that, contrary to what President Bush and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales believed, the rules of the Geneva Convention DID apply to the handling of terrorist detainees, and therefore so did the War Crimes Act of 1996; this administration has made it one of its top priorities to try to gut that aforementioned legislation.
The War Crimes Act of 1996 made it a felony to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva convention. With the Supreme Court ruling, this administration was suddenly not only facing the prospect of being in violation of the Convention, but now being in violation of federal law. This, obviously, would not do.
So, the President has reacted in a way in which I have come to expect this President to react in; by trying to ram poor legislation with hidden provisions through a favorable Congress before the winds of change bring a new Congress which would not accept such a provision. This, to me, is despicable and against everything that this country and our Constitution stands for. This man took an oath to uphold the Constitution and this country's laws; obviously with his hand behind his back, fingers crossed. Congress should not allow him to simply change them when they do not suit his needs.
I guess that's the saddest thing about this whole story to me. It's one thing for a President to be corrupt and then to be let off the hook by a colleague. (See Nixon, Richard and Ford, Gerald). It's another thing entirely to watch the entire system of checks and balances put forth by our forefathers crumble before your very eyes because Congress, like this President, is corrupt to the point of ineffectiveness.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
You know what I hate?
...sitting on the toilet at work and finding that the seat is warm.
That sucks.
That sucks.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Bruins...
Well...I just watched my Bruins go down in flames against easily my least favorite team (and fans) in the NHL, the Montreal Canadiens. It was a difficult game to watch; the Bruins never really had anything going. But the thing is, I'm not as upset about it as I thought I'd be. How can that be? Well, I look at it like this: the Bruins have a very young team. This is the first playoff experience for a lot of these guys. They'll take this experience, tuck it under their belts and come back next year with a vengeance. If they hadn't learned the hatred of the Canadiens and everything comes with them...they have now.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Is San Francisco Chinese soil?
It seems to me that the countries through which the Olympic torch is traveling are giving WAY too much leeway to these Chinese government agents who are traveling with the torch. I read a story last week about a woman who was "handled roughly" in England by several of the agents when she tried to interrupt the torch parade with a Free Tibet sign. Of course, by "handled roughly", I mean tackled and pinned to the ground until the procession had passed.
There was quite a bit of (deserved) criticism of the English government for allowing these agents to essentially assault an English citizen, on English soil, for saying something that the Chinese government did not agree with.
Well, it happened again...this time in San Francisco. And this time, American police helped.
According to this story, Majora Carter, a torch bearer in the San Francisco procession, apparently hid a Tibetan flag inside her sleeve. As she ran with the torch, she pulled the flag from her sleeve, exercising her right to free speech. The flag (and the torch) were quickly snatched from her by the Chinese guards running alongside and she was pushed into the crowd by the San Francisco police officers who were also along the route. The two other gentlemen that she was running with later decried her actions, saying that she "dishonored herself and her family" and that the act was "disgusting and appalling".
Now, it could perhaps be said that the timing was in poor taste. However, there are a few things that bother me about this story:
1. This woman has a right to speak her mind. It's right there in the Constitution. Unless there was some sort of treaty with China whereby the ground surrounding the torch temporarily became Chinese territory, it would seem to me that that right was suppressed; which is against the law.
2. The response to her actions was overwhelmingly negative; which baffles me. To say that she brought "dishonor to herself" by standing up and exercising her right to criticize what she sees as an oppressive, overstepping government if foolish. I, for one, think it is dishonorable, not to mention un-American to decry an individual for speaking their mind. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
3. What does it say about the English and American governments when they are not only allowing Chinese authorities to enforce their will upon their citizens on their own soil, but they are helping them do so? I'll tell you what it says; it says that the era of Western dominance is over. The English and American governments rely upon China too much at this point. The dollar is declining world-wide at a rapid pace. The American economy is no longer the number one economy in the world. It's not even number two. China and India have taken those spots. England and America live on Chinese imports.
China knows this. They understand completely the economic power that they now wield worldwide. No government is really willing to stand up to China because of this and as a result, China has seemingly grown indignant with the rest of the world. Any time they are questioned on their human rights violations, past and present, they always say something like "that is an internal matter".
Now, someone reading this might think that I am completely anti-China. This is not the case at all and is not what this is about. I believe that China is an important country rich with and extremely diverse and interesting history. I do, however, feel that the current government is an oppressive, choking regime who is riding to the top of economic superiority on the broken backs of its mostly poverty-ridden populace. I feel that the Chinese government still has a long way to go on human rights.
What this is really about is the seeming willingness by my and other governments to allow their citizens rights to be suppressed by agents of the Chinese government simply because they have said something that the Chinese government doesn't like. That may fly on Chinese soil, but around these parts...not so much.
There was quite a bit of (deserved) criticism of the English government for allowing these agents to essentially assault an English citizen, on English soil, for saying something that the Chinese government did not agree with.
Well, it happened again...this time in San Francisco. And this time, American police helped.
According to this story, Majora Carter, a torch bearer in the San Francisco procession, apparently hid a Tibetan flag inside her sleeve. As she ran with the torch, she pulled the flag from her sleeve, exercising her right to free speech. The flag (and the torch) were quickly snatched from her by the Chinese guards running alongside and she was pushed into the crowd by the San Francisco police officers who were also along the route. The two other gentlemen that she was running with later decried her actions, saying that she "dishonored herself and her family" and that the act was "disgusting and appalling".
Now, it could perhaps be said that the timing was in poor taste. However, there are a few things that bother me about this story:
1. This woman has a right to speak her mind. It's right there in the Constitution. Unless there was some sort of treaty with China whereby the ground surrounding the torch temporarily became Chinese territory, it would seem to me that that right was suppressed; which is against the law.
2. The response to her actions was overwhelmingly negative; which baffles me. To say that she brought "dishonor to herself" by standing up and exercising her right to criticize what she sees as an oppressive, overstepping government if foolish. I, for one, think it is dishonorable, not to mention un-American to decry an individual for speaking their mind. As Evelyn Beatrice Hall once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
3. What does it say about the English and American governments when they are not only allowing Chinese authorities to enforce their will upon their citizens on their own soil, but they are helping them do so? I'll tell you what it says; it says that the era of Western dominance is over. The English and American governments rely upon China too much at this point. The dollar is declining world-wide at a rapid pace. The American economy is no longer the number one economy in the world. It's not even number two. China and India have taken those spots. England and America live on Chinese imports.
China knows this. They understand completely the economic power that they now wield worldwide. No government is really willing to stand up to China because of this and as a result, China has seemingly grown indignant with the rest of the world. Any time they are questioned on their human rights violations, past and present, they always say something like "that is an internal matter".
Now, someone reading this might think that I am completely anti-China. This is not the case at all and is not what this is about. I believe that China is an important country rich with and extremely diverse and interesting history. I do, however, feel that the current government is an oppressive, choking regime who is riding to the top of economic superiority on the broken backs of its mostly poverty-ridden populace. I feel that the Chinese government still has a long way to go on human rights.
What this is really about is the seeming willingness by my and other governments to allow their citizens rights to be suppressed by agents of the Chinese government simply because they have said something that the Chinese government doesn't like. That may fly on Chinese soil, but around these parts...not so much.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
I hate when the Sox are on "Sunday Night Baseball"
As I sit here and suffer through the color commentary and "analysis" from Jon Miller and Joe Morgan, I am constantly reminded why I hate when the Red Sox are playing on "Sunday Night Baseball". I mean Jon Miller just busted out with this little gem: "The Yankees [are] playing without Big Papi, David Ortiz [who's] been given the night off tonight."
Really, Jon? The Yankees are playing without him? Was there a trade? I would have thought someone would have reported something like David Ortiz going to the Yankees. Oh, that's right...I remember...you're a fucking moron. Had me going for a second there...my b.
Really, Jon? The Yankees are playing without him? Was there a trade? I would have thought someone would have reported something like David Ortiz going to the Yankees. Oh, that's right...I remember...you're a fucking moron. Had me going for a second there...my b.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Old
I'm not sure that I'm ready to live in a world in which The Doors are "oldies" and Guns 'n' Roses are "classic rock".
Argh.
Argh.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Wow...almost a month?
OK, now that's just foolish. I haven't had anything to say in almost a month? Really? Why? I guess maybe it's been a pretty busy couple of weeks...things have been pretty quiet news-wise...baseball's started back up.
Actually, that last one should be making me blog more. I tend to watch the game while surfing the web these days; at least once the kids have gone to bed. (What can I say...I guess maybe I've got Adult ADD or something.) So, I should be able to be posting something. Hopefully in the coming days and weeks, I will.
Actually, that last one should be making me blog more. I tend to watch the game while surfing the web these days; at least once the kids have gone to bed. (What can I say...I guess maybe I've got Adult ADD or something.) So, I should be able to be posting something. Hopefully in the coming days and weeks, I will.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Slainte!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)