While listening to the audio version of this Economist article, I learned about a recently new Facebook called 1,000,000 People Against the NYC MTA Fare Hike.  & over @ Reason, I learned about this article, written by a guy paid to write about economics, describing to his readers how his stupid decisions are not his fault.

This is almost too much stupidity for me to handle in a single day.  The audacity of FB posters and the economics writer believing with sincerity that tax payers should be helping them out is disgusting, bankrupt, and morally indefensible.

From Facebook:

Marc Silverman (New York, NY) wrote at 11:28am on May 11th, 2009

The MTA are a Bunch of Thieving MOFO’s!

SuetShan StreetCred (New York, NY) wrote at 3:34pm on May 14th, 2009

Give us a break! We cannot afford paying more. Can’t have rice and beans everyday either.

Wilson Fisk (Westchester, NY) wrote at 1:49am on May 15th, 2009

I’m in this group now too, so make it 1,000,001 people against the fare hikes. Now I know they’re gonna say this is just another mo-fo’ b*tching about the fare hikes ’cause he ain’t got nothing else better to do or because he’s cheap or because he’s just ain’t trying to pay more for his metro card and all of those are correct. However those aren’t the main reasons I joined this group. My uncle works for the MTA and he’s always talking about he’s under paid, the trains and busses always come on the craziest schedule ever, they’re always dirty as the projects staircases- the other day I had to sit next to a roach on the train– he was going to visit heis mother for mother’s day, she lived in queens. They’re gonna raise prices and cut services- I hear, I mean WTF!!! What the hell do they do with all the CREAM they don’t pay the workers top dollar for thier services, they don’t pay for extra workers to help clean the busses, trains, stations and to give us more service. It’s like WTF!!!

Angelica Valle (Baltimore, MD) wrote at 11:44am

I had to leave Ny because I couldn’t afford the $2 fare hike. Now I can’t even move back if the fare goes up to $3…wtf.. I mean I could scrape up $4 but six its ridiculous!! I could pay it but why should I have to!!!

Muneeb Aleem Qureshi (CUNY Hunter) wrote at 2:11pm yesterday

WTF is wrong with MTA?, i mean i can afford to pay that much but I feel bad for those people who can’t, their screwed

Charles Lenchner (New York, NY) wrote at 4:22pm on May 14th, 2009

Please help us do something about the crazy rents going up all the time! http://apps.facebook.com/c auses/283193. Support stronger rent laws that protect affordable housing and prevent rents from going up faster than anything else….

Being one of many to watch the Obama speech at Notre Dame, I didn’t know what to expect, but was pleasantly surprised by the substance of the speeches given by both Obama and his introductory speaker Father Jenkins.

As most of you likely know the highlights, I’ll be brief as possible.  Father Jenkins basic speech was about the fact that the President was very gracious to accept the offer to speak at a university where everyone involved was aware there would be controversy.  Stating very eloquently he spoke of the controversy surrounding the event, reaffirmed the fact that the university & the Church itself differ greatly on the abortion issue from Obama, but noticed one key thing.  That while all the media consistently focused on why Notre Dame had offered the President the speaking engagement, no one really gave serious attention that Obama accepted, knowing the hostile environment.

& of course as Obama is known for, the speech was eloquent, well written, and well said.  He spoke of the need for people with potentially irreconcilable differences to at least enter into dialogues to find common ground to move forward.  He was shouted down a few times from audience members who were booed and quickly removed, but he continued forward.  He admitted the obvious differences in opinions, admitted the controversy.

But he also noted that while those differences are strong, both sides should recognize that no one went into their decisions on where to stand lightly.  & that both he and the church agreed that a reduction in the number of women seeking abortions should be a priority for all of us.

He stated firmly, that the Church itself had views consistent with a very sincere and heart felt view about the sanctity of life, but that the family with a child suffering from childhood diabetes also took a very long and hard look at stem cell research.

He spoke of working with several Chicago churches for improvement projects in the south side of Chicago, noting at the time he wasn’t very reverent.  But during that work, and specifically the passion to do good deeds and the compassion of which the Archbishop displayed, he was moved to begin his own search for the truth.

He urged his audience, that today we are looking at a world that is set with challenges, but those challenges also bring us amazing possibilities.  That this generation will need to help us heal world wide differences and work to restore the ethics we seem to be missing from many aspects of life.

Lastly he spoke about the fact that we need to do this all while maintaining a sense humility. That self righteous indignation might be heart felt, but that we truly don’t know the exact path, so being humble is a requirement.  He spoke about serving others as the highest calling, but since the largest questions we seek are unknowable; we should ensure our doubts temper any indignation.

All of these ideas are well worth thinking about, things for which we should all strive, and very laudable goals.  To help others in our communities and our lives to make things a little better than when we got there.

The only issue I would have with the whole speech is the discussion in reference to humility.

First – I truly believe that any good leader needs humility.  That the ego & confidence it requires to lead people, especially attempting to lead an entire country, should always be tempered with the knowledge that we are all by definition fallible.  And this fallibility should keep us humble and open to others.

The issue is that he doesn’t seem to follow this advice very well.  He did self admit his fallibility of course, but his recent actions ranging from the economy, the bailouts, the firing of CEOs & boards, the new regulations on the environment, the budget, and everything else he seems to demonstrate his firm belief of his correct path, and seems to display little humility in pushing his way towards his vision.

We all have virtues we should be following more closely than we do and this speech might have been highlighting a personal struggle.  However his current actions don’t appear to display a man struggling with humility and failing, but a man that believes in himself to a degree that prevents him from being humble.

As Benjamin Franklin once said when asked about his list of 12 virtues he was trying to perfect in his life time, (paraphrase) “If I ever perfect humility, I feel that being proud of it will negate the virtue.”

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but regardless of what you believe about Mr. Obama, or whether he is speaking to something he might strive for, but might never attain, I think it’s well worth watching.

Obama’s Speech

There’s an article well worth reading at the Economist discussing the Obama’s administration flagrant dismissal of current bankruptcy laws (here).

…Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed…

..The Treasury has also put a gun to the heads of GM’s lenders. Unsecured creditors owed about $27 billion are being asked to accept a recovery rate of 5 cents, says Barclays Capital, whereas the health-care trust, which ranks equal to them, gets 50 cents as well as a big stake in the restructured firm. If creditors refuse to co-operate, the government will probably seek to squash them using the same fast-track legal process…

Since Obama, and his proponents, call him a Constitutional scholar I assume it would be nothing new to him to understand how in our history bankruptcy laws came to be.

During the time of the founding fathers, they left an oppressive country to find freedom.  One of the key pieces of oppression they wanted to stamp out in the New World was debtor’s prison and debt inheritance; where one bad decision could affect generations of family members.

They learned by the errors of the Old Country, that not only did the old way overly favor the creditors, but it also slowed down investment and innovation.

It’s pretty easy and intuitive to understand why this would be.  Anyone taking a loan today to start a new business knows the worst possible result will be bad credit for a limited time and potential seizure of assets to pay back creditors.  This is obviously a lot less intimidating for entrepreneurs than the potential consequences in the Old Country freeing up more people to push for more success.

Creditors also know how to manage their risk based upon the current laws.  For instance, secured creditors get first shot at monetary recover, lowering their risk, while unsecured creditors have a higher risk and are further down the line.

& all of this worked.  The brilliance is not only in how & why the laws were fashioned over time, but also the consistency to which these laws were implemented.

In our own history, many success stories of pioneers in this or that industry had all been bankrupt at one time or another.  Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Benjamin Franklin, and many others, whose innovations we might have never have seen under old bankruptcy standards.

The founding fathers even found it so important, they codified the ability to enact uniform bankruptcy laws in  Article One, Section Eight of the United States Constitution.  While they did still hold to debtor’s prison for a little while, it was stamped out completely in mid 1800′s. (though today for various debts you can still be jailed, such as debts acquired through fraud or failing to pay child support)

Now we have POTUS playing politics with the rule of law.  Ensuring money goes to unions before secured creditors, the same unions who are using that money to buy up assets of the companies they helped to bankrupt.

As has been a constant refrain of mine in this blog over the past few weeks (or is it 100 days?), when the ends justify the means, where does one stop.

First, a quick disclaimer.  I am not a normal reader of Time Magazine, due to articles such as the one I’ll discuss below, but I do not generally blame the media overall for their consistent coverage of non-events.

Of course one might argue that the media has a moral responsibility to report real events,  but I’ve given up on the idea that almost anyone will do anything for any reason other than their personal gratification, especially as it relates to media figures in general.

Either way – In the most recent issue of Time, they proposed a list of people titled The World’s Most Influential People (complete list here).

In just a quick cursory glance at who the editors of Time believe are influential you will notice that 20 of those listed, or for the non-mathematically inclined among us, 20% of the list is, made up of artists and entertainers.

Now, as is true in a mainly free market, the issues with having this many entertainers is not only an editorial decision, but an economic one as well.

As our culture continues to consume crap such the most recent missing rich white girl, celebrity adoptions, and zoo births, someone will continue to supply it for a price.

I just wonder if any of the consumers or producers of this information realize what a short sighted list this truly is?

As I quietly asked myself, how many actors during the time of Shakespeare’s writings are still remembered today?  How many violinists playing for Mozart?  How many athletes from the Olympic games?

Here you can read where the UAW will own 55% stake in Chrysler after the bankruptcy process dealing with creditors is complete.  This is one of the most morally bankrupt positions in corporate America since Enron.

Basically, the UAW who made billions from dues paid by Chrysler (and others) through their employees, is letting that company go under when it’s obvious they could help them.  Instead of helping however, they’ve decided to enrich themselves by using money they got from Chrysler and other auto companies to buy up just the assets that are profitable.

This is happening at the exact same time our President is forcing secured creditors (those who should be first in line for any monies) to take less money on the dollar than the UAW itself.

I guess in the “new” America, with all it’s hope and change, things like the rule of law, rights, and freedoms are just pretty words.  When the end justifies the means, there become no means you aren’t willing to go through to get to your goal.

This weekend during a radio address, Obama used his time to tell us all about the plight Americans have in dealing with credit card companies.

WaPo Article:

President Obama used his weekly radio and Internet address to reiterate his call for credit card reform, saying the nation can no longer tolerate an “anything goes” mentality by the credit card companies…

It seems he has lost the understanding that when two entities enter freely into a contract, capitalism ensues and the government should only need to be involved in a very limited fashion which is to ensure the contracts are followed.

But, when there is blame to go around, we know Obama will blame business first:

“Americans know that they have a responsibility to live within their means and pay what they owe. But they also have a right to not get ripped off by the sudden rate hikes, unfair penalties, and hidden fees that have become all-too common in our credit card industry,” he says in the address. “You shouldn’t have to fear that any new credit card is going to come with strings attached, nor should you need a magnifying glass and a reference book to read a credit card application.”

I’m unsure of all these “stings attached” and “hidden fees” on the dozens of cards I’ve had in my lifetime, but maybe I’ve just been lucky.

One thing I do know is that not one single American has had to consult accountants, lawyers or specialized software in order to sign up, receive, and use a credit card.

I  however know of only 2 people who are brave enough to figure their taxes without any professional help.

So I ask you Mr. President, with all due respect, could we possibly use some of this same logic on the tax code and governmental problems with hidden fees, unfair penalties, and sudden rate hikes?

Great Quote:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill

Jon Stewart & Cliff May debate torture – Stewart calls Truman a war criminal.

Bill Whittle on PJTV dsicusses the acutal history during the A-bomb use.

An article written by columnist David Harsanys subtitled, The dangers of making historical comparisons.

Yet another police raid gone bad.

In an effort at thought control, many organizations these days use speech codes to cloak their true ambitions and the world of US Colleges is no different.

As reported by FIRE (articles here, here, and here), colleges everywhere & the NCAA believe without question they are entitled to police not only campus speech, but student speech on Facebook and in other public venues as well.

According to the actions of several universities, the mere act of one student placing text someplace that might offend another student, is grounds for disciplinary action.  & apparently, this is also regardless of any potential facts.

@ The University of Chicago:

…On January 19, 2009, University of Chicago student Andrew Thompson posted a photograph “album” on his personal Facebook page. The title of the album was “[Name of ex-girlfriend] cheated on me, and you’re next!” Some of the photographs in the album were of Thompson’s ex-girlfriend, and dozens of the photographs were not. On January 19 and 20, a number of people other than Thompson posted comments about the allegation of cheating. One person wrote, “Seriously though, what a f***ing whore” (language redacted).

On January 20 at about 9:00 a.m., Thompson’s ex-girlfriend sent Susan Art, Dean of Students in the College, an e-mail claiming that the album’s title and the third-party comments on the title constituted “libel.” The woman stated that Thompson had refused to change the title of the album upon her request and asked Art “if this could be removed quietly and quickly from the internet.”

At 2:00 p.m., Art e-mailed Thompson, revealing the entire content of the ex-girlfriend’s e-mail, and demanded the censorship of Thompson’s album:

[Name of ex-girlfriend] has brought to my attention that you have posted her name on [F]acebook and that this has drawn some critical comments from others.  I am writing to ask you to remove her name and remove the pictures you have posted of her.  We have an expectation that members of the University community treat each other “with dignity and respect.”  This kind of post is disrespectful.  I know you think it is a joke, but it is very upsetting to her.

Can you let me know when her name and her pictures are removed from your [F]acebook page?

I expect this to happen right away.

Very shortly afterward, Thompson complied with Art’s censorship demands, but he resisted the idea that a University of Chicago dean could censor his protected speech. On January 21, he asked her by e-mail, “Can the university really regulate internet speech?  I did not say anything subjective or false, so I don’t see how I can be forced to do this…”

In a very troubling response e-mailed to Thompson later that day, Art essentially declared that the university’s Student Manual [of] University Policies and Regulations permits censorship of “disrespectful” speech:

Every member of the University – student, faculty, and staff – makes a commitment to strive for personal and academic integrity; to treat others with dignity and respect; to honor the rights and property of others; to take responsibility for individual and group behavior; and to act as a responsible citizen in a free academic community and in the larger society. Any student conduct, on or off campus, of individuals or groups, that threatens or violates this commitment may become a matter for action within the University’s system of student discipline….

& this is not an isolated incident.  Colleges and universities all over have speech codes to regulate hurtful or offensive speech, as if kind and benevolent speech was in need of protection in the first place.

Even the beloved Professor Noam Chomsky said, “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.”

I think that sums up current academia policies and actions well – they don’t believe in freedom of anything, only in the control of everything.