It Helps To Have A Little Perspective

Of course, there are worse governments and institutions around.

The Danes Are Coming!

I've been following the furor surrounding the purchase of US port management by a company owned by the government of Dubai. I admit to being a little mystified. Folks must be getting upset because the ... Dubaiians? Dubia? Dubians? anyway, because they're muslims.

Just like Rising Sun, I think this drama completely misses the point. We shouldn't be asking ourselves whether a Middle Eastern company has the right to manage some of the United State's largest ports, we should be asking ourselves why the government contracts out port management and inspections in the first place.

This isn't the only case of the government's outsourcing control of critical elements of our infrastructure. Take the Wackenhut Corporation. Who, you ask? The Wackenhut Corporation is the american subsidiary of Group 4 Securicor, the second largest security company in the world.

Group 4 Securicor is a Danish company (Denmark has 270,000 muslims) that is based in England (1.6 million muslims). They hire American citizens of all backgrounds (America has 7 million muslims). Wackenhut is a large private security and investigation company. They've got many contracts with different levels of the US government: they secure transportation hubs, ROTC bases, schools and other government buildings and every nuclear facility in the United States.

Now, I know some people who work for Wackenhut. They seem honest enough; in fact, many are ex-US military. I'm sure they do a fine job doing what they do and the facilities they guard are appropriately secure. (And they're not the only contractor providing security services to the US government - check out the competition.)

What does this have to do with the people of Dubai and US port authority?

One of the basic responsibilities of the federal government is to provide for the protection and maintenance of its facilities, borders and arsenals. Frankly, the fact that Party of National Defence surrendered the US Government's monopoly over armed force is an irony that I do not enjoy.

Not that I doubt the good will of Mike Chertoff and the boys over in the Department of Homeland Security, but unfortunately we've got rent-a-cops running half of the show. I feel like a Dane watching Fortinbras march up. Where's Jack Bauer when you need him?

Untitled

Now this is one video that I never want to see. 'Kid Rock' and 'sex tape': now that's a combination that makes my skin crawl.

It's Official!

I received the promotion - I'm now a Senior Resource! No snipes about getting older--

Deliverance, Utah-Style

Whoah. Just, whoah.

Necessary Evil

Unions are an unfortunate reality in today's world. They're expensive and inefficient. After all, every union member pays for a superstructure - advocates & lobbyists - that takes a bite straight from the paycheck. Contracts also strictly limit the interactions between management and worker, often preventing efficiency in the name of jobs, adding costs to the employer.

Oftentimes they also foster an 'us against them' mentality of worker vs. management when it would be more effective to have a 'both of us against the competition' attitude.

That being said, stories like this really turn my stomach. As I said, unions are an unfortunate, but still necessary, evil today. If companies would only stop "illegally intimidating, firing, threatening and spying on workers", the union movement would simply dissolve

Such corporate behaviors are simply shortsighted. Happy and healthy workers are productive. Scared and angry employees are likely to turn on their bosses.

Want to learn more?

Strange Bedfellows

The son and confidant of a megalomaniac tyrant comes out in support of the democracy that the son of the man who worked for the man who killed his sister is trying to build.

The point? Perhaps none.

At this rate, I fully expect the US and North Korea to come together in 2006 to support the demilitarization of China.

NAR Sleeps, Uneasily and With Foreboding

Another example of the Internet as a 'disrupting' technology. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has had a love-hate relationship with the online world since its rise in the late 90's.

On the one-hand, NAR has lobbied heavily against so-called 'discount realtors', which are primarily based online. They've spent millions to pass laws (or prevent laws from being passed) that support their substantial control on home sales.

NAR has tried to also co-opt the informational power of the Internet via websites like www.realtor.com, which (according to some studies) 75% of home buyers now visit before making a purchase.

There have been some disturbing developments of late in Realtor-land, however. The first is the rise of www.redfin.com, which is one of the first true independant online brokers. They offer to reduce the 6% realtor commission by splitting part of it with the seller. Another new site, www.zillow.com has opened a massive database of comparable home prices. The consumer now has the ability to pull up lists of comparable home prices based on address or geographic area as well as estimated real estate values. Real estate comparison shopping!

Perhaps more disturbing are sites like www.fsbo.com and www.forsalebyowner.com. These sites promise to do away with realtors completely by enabling sellers and buyers to communicate directly.

While I'm sure that Realtors will still be in business many years in the future, these developments may challenge current business models and, gradually, chip away at the standard commission rates.

Common Ground

Finally, the US and Iran have found something they can agree on!

You know, we've been on the other side of the table from Iran a lot in the recent past. We invaded Iraq, and Iran opposed it. Now that we're trying to stabalize Iraq, Iran has decided to send spies and explosives to Shia groups. The US supports Israel's right to exist; Iran supports their own right to destroy it.

Talk about po-tay-to and po-tah-to! Iran even thunders about its right to possess nuclear weapons while the US opposes autocratic, brutal theocracies having nukes (ourselves excepted of course).

On one subject, however, Iran and the US speak with a united voice: ban the queers from speaking at the UN. As an American, I'm glad to see the US standing shoulder to shoulder in solidarity with elightened regimes like China, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe in muzzling the voices of almost half a billion people worldwide.

Perhaps now we can start talks on eliminating women's rights, and overturning centuries of scientific progress?

Oh wait - as in so many things, the US government is ahead in those fields, too.

Not Evil, But Not Above a Little PR

Google has taken quite a bit of flack lately for its decision to 'censor' its Chinese website (purging search results of rows of tanks sitting in Tiananmen Square, for example). I'm not here to comment on the relative merits of that decision (or how Google is just the latest example in a long line of compromises that western businesses have made to do business with the Middle Kingdom).

Rather, there's another article that caught my attention. Apparently Google has removed a specific BMW page from its search results because it redirected searchers to another page with flashier advertising.

The article strikes me not for being significant, but for being incredibly banal. I can only imagine that this same scenario plays out hundreds of times per day with companies that are far less well-known. So why did Google kick out a press release on action with BMW now?

Perhaps the company that has famously ignored the whims of the stock market is trying to burnish its image. As the old saying goes: 'If you're going to bow to the Chinese, you can at least stick it to the Germans.'

Why Apologize?

You're damn skippy.

No, that doesn't make sense - it doesn't have to. As a 21st century Shakespeare might have said: 'the link's the thing'!

Why Is Israel Helping Hamas?

I've read several articles about how Israel is going to withhold tax payments and customs revenues when the Hamas group assumes control of the Palestinian goverment. I think this is just going to strengthen Hamas and their support among Palestinians.

The strength of Hamas among Palestinians is derived from three sources: their armed strikes against Israel, their reputation of being relatively incorruptible, and their vast network of charity hospitals, orphanages and schools.

Look at where Hamas is strongest - the poverty-stricken refugee camps of Gaza. In these areas, people depend almost entirely on Hamas for safety, security and their personal welfare. Hamas educates their children, takes care of the sick and the elderly and provides the only social stability in the squalid camps.

When Israel freezes millions of dollars in Palestinian revenue, it's only going to harden the common people's attitudes further against Israeli society. It also gives Hamas a perfect excuse for when their government fails to improve the lot of the Palestinians. Finally, it makes them even more dependent on Hamas for their social services, employment and safety.