Saturday, February 19, 2005

Lets Get Ready to Rumble...

Sometimes the British have it right. The London Times reports that 35 Greenpeace “activists” stormed the International Petroleum Exchange on the day that the Kyoto Protocol came into force. This supposedly involved a lot of planning on their part because they had 3 vans of “activists” standing by. What they were not prepared for was the aggression of oil traders who kicked and punched them back on to the pavement. A few quotes from some of the “activists” are hilarious.

“We bit off more than we could chew. They were just Cockney barrow boy spivs. Total thugs,” one protester said, rubbing his bruised skull. “I’ve never seen anyone less amenable to listening to our point of view.”

Another said: “I took on a Texan Swat team at Esso last year and they were angels compared with this lot.”

“They grabbed us and started kicking and punching. Then when we were on the floor they tried to push huge filing cabinets on top of us to crush us.”

“They followed the guys into the lobby and kept kicking and punching them there. They literally kicked them on to the pavement.”

Why doesn’t this happen more often? I am not advocating beating the crap out of protesters but if people just stood up to these “activists” they would not be so aggressive. The security guards at the International Petroleum Exchange did little to stop them so the traders took matters into their own hands. Why is it that protesters and “activists” feel they have a right to break in and disrupt business and claim it is their “right” to do this? There are always idiots that feel they can disrupt a speech or business to make “their point”. I am sure if something like this happen in the United States the “activists” would be portrayed as victims and charges would be pressed against the people who stood up to them. And don’t even think about all the civil charges…

Read the whole article here.

What Would Hootie Do...

I hope that Lawrence Summers sticks to his guns and refuses to step down. I find it amazing how narrow minded most college campuses are these days. He stated that his remarks were going to be controversial and thought provoking when he began. I guess its ok for some jerk like Ward Churchill to say controversial and outrageous things and try to pass them off as fact and have students and faculty defend him. Dr. Summers was speaking on the underrepresentation of women in the math and high tech fields. There is no denying that this is the case so why not discuss some of the reason why this may be so. Apparently to say that women may not have an aptitude in this area is a mortal sin. Of course all these women are saying that is has to be discrimination and wont even consider any other opinion. Who can honestly say there are no differences between men and women?

Summers also said “To take a set of diverse examples, the data will, I am confident, reveal that Catholics are substantially underrepresented in investment banking, which is an enormously high-paying profession in our society; that white men are very substantially underrepresented in the National Basketball Association; and that Jews are very substantially underrepresented in farming and in agriculture. These are all phenomena in which one observes underrepresentation, and I think it's important to try to think systematically and clinically about the reasons for underrepresentation.”

To the Left a person can not even discuss the obvious because they refuse to take off the blinders that a college campus puts on them. Dr. Summers gained notoriety a while back by offending a leading professor of black studies at Harvard, Cornel West, who promptly left and went to Princeton University. What was his offense? He told Dr. West to do what he was being paid to do – teach.
My suggestion to Dr. Summers is to do what Hootie Johnson did at Augusta Country Club last year. Tell all these whining feminists and neutered male students and faculty drop dead…

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Fixing Social Security...

The more I hear about Social Security needing to be reformed the more I agree something has to be done. I am leaning towards the idea of Personal Retirement Accounts but am leery of adding another layer to the already bloated federal bureaucracy. Which stock, bonds, and funds will be available to invest in? Unfortunately it will probably be to the companies with the best lobbyists.
I wouldn’t mind seeing the maximum limit increased some but I don’t know what sort of impact that will have on companies that pay half the social security tax for their employees. Right now it is set at $90,000. If it were raised to $125,000 it would mean $4900 more dollars to the system. The employer would pay half of this. I know some Democrats want to see the minimum go away entirely and they also want means testing. I wonder how well that would go over telling the people that are paying the most they will never see a dime in Social Security.
Social Security has worked well for generations of Americans, but 21st century demographics doom it to insolvency. What other organization would still be looking at a business plan that hasn’t changed in over 60 years and still be saying that no tweaking is needed other than the Federal government? As lawmakers work out the details of Social Security reform, they must bring future guaranteed benefits in line with what today’s and tomorrow’s workers can afford to pay. Lets hope we all can retire with some decent social security benefits…

Another Chance to Scream...

What affect will Howard Dean have on the Democratic Party? I guess only time will tell. I have to wonder about the selection of a very liberal New Englander. They just had one get beaten in the Presidential election and yet they go right back to that model again. Are some of the Democrats so isolated from the rest of the country that they really feel this is the way to go? Howard Dean is a man that lets you know where he stands. He is not a flip flopper like John Kerry and for this I respect him. Will he try to pull the party to the left at the same time Hillary Clinton is working toward the center? What will happen if she enters the Democratic primary? Will the DNC try and pull her to the left? Will more or less money flow in if she stays in the center? Will the Democrats care where she stands on issues and vote blindly for a Democratic candidate regardless of who is on the ticket? I also wonder if this new leadership in the DNC will help or hurt the Congressional and Gubernatorial candidates. In my opinion this is where the Democrats have taken their worst beatings. Even if Kerry had won he would have been looking at a big Republican majority in the Congress. We will just have to wait until the midterm elections in 2006 to see what the impact will be…