Picture?

Picture?

Free Pizza Day

There's a new commercial that's on the air for some Pizza Chain. Here's a picture of it.



For those who haven't seen it, I'll summarize; It's Stupid.

But in order to appreciate my point, a more in depth summary is probably necessary. The guy who's not in a Pizza Delivery gets hit in the head with a ball from street Hockey (the game of champions). He falls down, and the pizza guy runs up (but doesn't drop his pizzas), to determine if normal guy has possession of his mental faculties. So he asks him what day it is. Normal guy says "Free Pizza day." Pizza guy says, "and the next day?" "Free Pizza Day." "Fascinating, and the day after that?" "Free Pizza Day" "Don't worry kids, your dad is going to be fine."

So you see, according to certain pizza chains, the only mental faculty they care about is your ability to buy their product. Why do I think this attitude might be elsewhere in the commercial world as well?

Schadenfreude

Well, it's no secret that Ann Coulter hates the New York Times. You have to sort of expect that. And so naturally she's overjoyed at the Blair fiasco. And she trots out the normal hobby horses that all conservatives are trotting out. For example, this proves that affirmative action fails, and should be abandoned. And the canard that "If mismanagement at Enron had been this clear-cut, the Times would be demanding the death penalty for Ken Lay." Of course, you can't expect the relatively privileged Ms. Coulter to understand the difference between thousands of people losing their life savings and their jobs, and a few stories at the Times being false.

What strikes me about Ms. Coulter's piece is it's viciousness. She talks about "Soviet Style Reporting." She calls both Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman liars (Her accusation against Krugman is particularly bizarre. Apparently he's a liar because he wrote articles predicting a quagmire in Iraq. Does she claim that anybody who's prediction turns out to be wrong is a liar?). And she states, "As this episode shows, the Times is not even attempting to preserve a reliable record of events. Instead of being a record of history, the Times is merely a "record" of what liberals would like history to be . . ."

Nothing like kicking someone when they are down, is there, Ms. Coulter?

Of course Ms. Coulter's own work has proven somewhat factually challenged, but I'm not going to call Ms. Coulter a liar. That's not my way.

On Afghanistan

Some of you might remember Afghanistan. It was the country we invaded because of September 11, before we invaded Iraq (because of September 11). For those interested in an update on how the country is doing, here's a nice description.

Hamid Karzai seemed like the perfect leader to head the transitional government of Afghanistan. He was well-educated and media-friendly, with family and extensive experience in the United States. He was a member of a key tribe of the country's Pashtun-speaking majority. He was duly installed as president in December of 2001, and began the job of constructing a post-Taliban nation.

Mr. Karzai is now in deep trouble. The post-Taliban era is on hold because the Taliban, apparently including their one-eyed leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, are still around. Taliban guerrillas killed more than 30 Afghan soldiers and a Red Cross worker last month, and Mr. Karzai appealed to neighboring Pakistan to crack down on cross-border marauding.

The Afghan President's so-called allies are at least as worrisome as his enemies. Warlords who helped U.S. forces oust the Taliban regime were rewarded with control over vast tracts of territory. They have their own armies and collect their own taxes, which Mr. Karzai has sought in vain to have remitted to the central government. In Herat province, on the Iranian border, governor Ismail Khan has reimposed Taliban-style restrictions on women, including -- according to a recent Newsweek account -- "forced virginity checks." In Kandahar, governor Gul Agha Shirzai is winning notoriety for his corrupt, eccentric ways.

Mr. Karzai holds sway over very little territory outside Kabul, the capital. Even there, he has been forced to make concessions. He welcomed Sima Samar, the courageous physician who became a symbol of women's resistance under the Taliban, into his government as women's affairs minister. They traveled to Washington in January of 2002, for George W. Bush's post-9/11 State of the Union address. But six months later, Mr. Karzai booted Dr. Samar out of the government at the insistence of Muslim leaders, after a false press report said she had rejected Islamic law.

William Safire on the New York Times

I haven't commented much on the Jayson Blair story--obviously the whole thing is reprehensible. But I find it equally reprehensible that conservatives are trying to turn this into proof that affirmative action doesn't work. The basic assumption, apparently, is that a white person could never get away with scamming the system this way.

William Safire made some good comments on the situation, coming from the unique perspective of being a Conservative who works for the New York Times.

"Then to the affirmative-action angle: See what happens, they taunt, when you treat a minority employee with kid gloves, promoting him when he deserves to be fired? Oh, we know your editors insist that "diversity" had nothing to do with it. But remember what Senator Dale Bumpers said about our impeachment of Clinton: "When you hear somebody say, `This is not about sex' — it's about sex." This is about diversity backfiring.

Here's my reply to their Kulturkampf: For exactly 30 years, I have been supported handsomely for disagreeing with The Times's editorial page, which is dovish on defense, leftist on economics and (with the exception of civil liberties) resolutely wrongheaded. Never have I been silenced, and conservative thinkers have an ever-fairer shake on the Op-Ed page.

As for news coverage being influenced by editorial policy, I evoke the name of my predecessor: that's a Krock. On occasion, a leftist slant on a story slips through the backfield, but with conservatives boring from within and fulminating from without, the news side soon straightens itself out. What is "fit to print" is the truth as straight as we can tell it, which is why Times people are so furious at this galling breach.

Now about the supposed cost of diversity: A newspaper is free to come down on the side of giving black journalists a break if its owners and editors so choose. What's more, this media world would also benefit from more Hispanics and Asians coming up faster."

Wise Words.

New Dollar Bill.

Apparently there's a new Twenty Dollar Bill coming out.



Great. Now the next step is to replace Andrew Jackson with Jimi Hendrix.

Your Government at Work

Went to the White House Website to see if they had posted President Bush's comments on the terror bombing in Saudi Arabia. Couldn't find anything on that subject, but I did find these comments at a photo op.

Q How's the game?

THE PRESIDENT: I need a lot of work.

Q Better than yesterday?

THE PRESIDENT: Equally as feeble. Equally as feeble. It's been a fabulous weekend here in Santa Fe. I'm now ready to get back to work. Got some travel to do tomorrow. Be talking to the country about the need for an economic stimulus package. And then we're going to go see, Tuesday afternoon, we're going to go to see some of the tornado sites. And it will give me a chance to tell the people who suffered great loss how much a lot of the nation prays for them and how we're concerned about them.

It's good that our President is focused on the things that really matter.

The Fourteenth Ammendment

Do you remember the 14th Ammendment? It was passed in the wake of the Civil War to declare African-Americans Citizens. Let's look at the first section of the Ammendment. (For those interested in a more complete version, here it is)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

However, this law has also been used to protect coorporate interests. In particular, the part which states, "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ." has been useful. You see, if a State passes a law saying corporation X has to improve worker's safety conditions, than, the argument goes, that State has violated the Corporations power over its property.

So, to make a long story short, Corporations are people, and thus the government cannot place any restrictions on their behaivior that they would not place on an individual. At least that's the argument.

This argument reached a certain level of absurdity lately, when Nike claimed the right to lie to its customers. The issue was reported on at Commondreams.org. "While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

"Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns."

Well, today Doug Bandow writes about World Com's current problems. Apparently, they are in danger of losing lucrative government contracts, because of their previous dishonesty. "Obviously, WorldCom is culpable for gross misconduct in overstating its earnings. The market rightly judged the company harshly. Credit dried up and suppliers cut shipments. So WorldCom went into Chapter 11.

However, today's WorldCom is not yesterday's WorldCom. CEO Bernie Ebbers, CFO Scott Sullivan and four others were immediately dismissed; inquiries by the Justice Department, the SEC and the media have identified no other miscreants. . . .

Corporate misbehavior needs to be punished and it has been in the case of WorldCom. The market forced the firm into bankruptcy; corrupt executives lost their jobs and have been prosecuted.

The company still might not survive. But government shouldn't make that decision. WorldCom's future should be left up to the marketplace."

As they say, you can't blame them for trying. If an individual in the United States is convicted of committing a felony, he loses the right to vote forever. He doesn't get to come back a year or two later and say to the judge, "Your Honor, I've been really good for the last couple of months, and I'd like my right to vote back." Why should WorldCom get that privilege?

More to the point, how do we, as Americans, know that World Com has changed?

Good news. I was just informed that the Supreme Court, in Marc Kasky v. Nike Inc., ruled against Nike, stating, "Our holding, based on decisions of the United States Supreme Court, in no way prohibits any business enterprise from speaking out on issues of public importance or from vigorously defending its own labor practices. It means only that when a business enterprise, to promote and defend its sales and profits, makes factual representations about its own products or its own operations, it must speak truthfully. Unlike our dissenting colleagues, we do not consider this a remarkable or intolerable burden to impose on the business community. We emphasize that this lawsuit is still at a preliminary stage, and that whether any false representations were made is a disputed issue that has yet to be resolved."

Momentary confusion

Was trying to get the logo up at the top--and I succeeded--don't know if i'm going to leave it like that or fiddle some more later--but for a day or so it looks ok.

What do you think?

New Logo

Just came up with a new logo here at Make me a Commentator!!! Hope you like it.



Maybe a little cheesy, but it's a better than nothing.

Bread and Circuses Redux

According to CBS radio news, apparently the plant in Omaha has since changed their plans. They are going to pay their workers for requireing them to go hear President Bush during a plant visit. So good for them.

Now More than Ever

Just a note to those visiting the site for the first time--remember to check out Empty Wallet Economics Explained there on the left. It's great.

And have a nice day.

Bread and Circuses

Workers at an Omaha plastics factory are getting a special treat next week. They get a chance to see our President speak, and a specially coreographed media event. Their work is generously shutting down the factory so that President can visit and drum up support for his tax cut, and is generously offering to open on Saturday so they can make up the hours they missed. Isn't that great?

Story here. Got it from Tom Tomorrow.

Are you Afraid?

I just read an interesting article by Chuck Colson on the culture of fear in the United States.

"Despite living in the "safest society in recorded history, many people feel as though they have never been more at risk."

Why? There are institutions in American life that have an interest in pointing out, if not exaggerating, the risks associated with everyday life. These include researchers, trial lawyers, environmentalists, and even the government.

The media, in its quest for viewers and readers, then hypes these risks—often without any qualification or real-world context. Since most people lack the necessary skills to make sense of these so-called threats, the result is a feeling of vulnerability that is out of proportion to any actual threat. And the government declares alerts over every indication of danger for fear of being criticized that it failed to warn people."

Well, Colson makes some good points. And as noted before we have an Administration that has every reason and desire to keep the American People afraid.