There are very few things that I dislike when it comes to food or restaurants and buffets are close to the top of the list.
When I talk with friends about buffets most of them like them because they 'give us a choices that we cannot get any place else'. I am amazed that the surplus of choices argument can be used in this case.
Buffets cater to people who are either perpetually food dyslexic or have ADD. What difference does it make if you can get 15 types of desserts when all of them are made with high fructose corn syrup? Why would you want that to begin with? It is as if you were to make a choice between smoking cigarettes and driving drunk. They are all bad and they are not really rational 'choices', or are they?
Discernment, thoughtfulness, self-control, and rationality are opposites of food buffets and I like to hang around every single concept that opposes food buffets. If it were after me I would ban buffets tomorrow.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
No One is Telling the Truth When It Comes to Violating the Bill of Rights
As the days pass I read, hear, and see that the US government is literally collecting all our data without our permission. They claim it is for terrorism fighting reasons but I highly doubt that. The government appropriates more powers for its agencies ever single day. Perhaps we need a -legal?- revolution to wipe the slate clean and forever remove the government from our private lives.
I feel that the government's spying on us is highly unconstitutional and in spite of the fact that the government claims the indiscriminate data collection is 'legal' I think it is totally wrong and I doubt it is fully legal since everything seems to judged by secret courts. Aren't these called Kangaroo courts?
They claim that they only collect metadata from our phones, but that metadata is still data that belongs to me and I need to be informed that the government is looking at my personal metadata.
Why should we trust our government? I am staying as far away as I can from Google and other providers, including Facebook- and limit my communication to a bare minimum just because I do not want to leave too many electronic and data traces for others to collect without my approval.
I feel that the government's spying on us is highly unconstitutional and in spite of the fact that the government claims the indiscriminate data collection is 'legal' I think it is totally wrong and I doubt it is fully legal since everything seems to judged by secret courts. Aren't these called Kangaroo courts?
They claim that they only collect metadata from our phones, but that metadata is still data that belongs to me and I need to be informed that the government is looking at my personal metadata.
Why should we trust our government? I am staying as far away as I can from Google and other providers, including Facebook- and limit my communication to a bare minimum just because I do not want to leave too many electronic and data traces for others to collect without my approval.
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Our Government is Spying On All of Us, At Will
Not many decades ago, the US was a bastion of individual freedoms. We were envied and admired around the world for government transparency, open courts and laws, ability to petition the government, individual freedoms and privacy, and freedom of the press. Our rights were protected and defended by the US government. Individuals had equal rights with the government's.
I am reading today multiple pieces of news that confirm that the US government does not care about our privacy at all. Government agencies tasked with 'our national security' absolutely hate the idea that we have private lives and thoughts.
During the past decade the tables have gradually turned and the government has gained the upper hand. They can snoop on our entire communication portfolio 'as they see fit' and without shame or any court/independent supervision. Our rights have been flushed down the toilet by well funded government agencies and very lenient 'secret'/closed courts. How can such government practices be constitutional? Soviet Union used to do exactly such things and we were criticizing them. As we can read now, we are doing the exact same things, only amplified by many thousands of times in terms of magnitude (scale) and intensity.
How can we go around the world and tell -say- China or Iran that they are not respecting their citizens' human rights when we are as guilty of even more egregious abuses? Have we lost our sense of free Americans and have become immune to government's actions and abuses? How can we accept sheepishly what the government is doing when they violate our basic constitutional rights at privacy?
In the name of defending us from evil doers our government has become pure and distilled evil.
Some people will say that if we save a single life by allowing the government to spy on us then this is perfectly legit and we should mind our own business. I beg to differ with this train of thought as -daily- we lose hundreds of lives to gun violence, car crashes, and tobacco use and the government has never spied on us because we drive a car. Or has it?
I am reading today multiple pieces of news that confirm that the US government does not care about our privacy at all. Government agencies tasked with 'our national security' absolutely hate the idea that we have private lives and thoughts.
During the past decade the tables have gradually turned and the government has gained the upper hand. They can snoop on our entire communication portfolio 'as they see fit' and without shame or any court/independent supervision. Our rights have been flushed down the toilet by well funded government agencies and very lenient 'secret'/closed courts. How can such government practices be constitutional? Soviet Union used to do exactly such things and we were criticizing them. As we can read now, we are doing the exact same things, only amplified by many thousands of times in terms of magnitude (scale) and intensity.
How can we go around the world and tell -say- China or Iran that they are not respecting their citizens' human rights when we are as guilty of even more egregious abuses? Have we lost our sense of free Americans and have become immune to government's actions and abuses? How can we accept sheepishly what the government is doing when they violate our basic constitutional rights at privacy?
In the name of defending us from evil doers our government has become pure and distilled evil.
Some people will say that if we save a single life by allowing the government to spy on us then this is perfectly legit and we should mind our own business. I beg to differ with this train of thought as -daily- we lose hundreds of lives to gun violence, car crashes, and tobacco use and the government has never spied on us because we drive a car. Or has it?
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Just Got Back from Hawaii
Hawaii is a jewel of a state. I think it's a state that makes the US a complete nation. Continental US is tough, difficult, unpredictable, and requires quite a bit of imagination to get through the daily life.
Hawaii is relaxing and densely inviting, with beaches, mountains, and a culture that is totally foreign to us, the 'continentals'.
My wife and I only spent 2 weeks in Kauai and Hawaii (the Big Island) and were stunned at their beauty. Vegetation is awesome, scenery is incredible, and geology is alive. I am thrilled that Hawaii is an American state.
Hawaii is relaxing and densely inviting, with beaches, mountains, and a culture that is totally foreign to us, the 'continentals'.
My wife and I only spent 2 weeks in Kauai and Hawaii (the Big Island) and were stunned at their beauty. Vegetation is awesome, scenery is incredible, and geology is alive. I am thrilled that Hawaii is an American state.
Friday, April 26, 2013
I Love Grimm, the NBC Show
I watch Grimm, the NBC show, and I just love it. It has a 'je ne sais quois' that makes me daydream and fantasize of what I really am.
All of a sudden, my friends, co-workers, and neighbors seem like they could be characters in the show. The show is international, it is creative, and it is at the border between believability and incredibility.
It merges old Europe and present day, and it makes us feel like we are in the Wizard of Oz. Everyone of us are not at all what we think we are. Awesome show!
All of a sudden, my friends, co-workers, and neighbors seem like they could be characters in the show. The show is international, it is creative, and it is at the border between believability and incredibility.
It merges old Europe and present day, and it makes us feel like we are in the Wizard of Oz. Everyone of us are not at all what we think we are. Awesome show!
Monday, April 22, 2013
Boston Pipe Bombings, the FBI, and Our Constitution
It was absolutely awful and painful to see how 2 young immigrant brothers (Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) from Chechnya managed to create and effectively deploy 2 pipe bombs at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon. This has caused absolute mayhem for about 5 days in one of most influential large American cities.
3 people were killed and over 180 were injured. Only by a miracle there were just 3 deaths, given the middle-of-the-crowd placement of the home-made bombs.
The older brother was killed a few days after the attacks and the younger one was taken into custody, but not before being severely injured during apprehension.
Recent reports show that the older -Tamerlan - of the 2 brothers -who was 26- had been interviewed by the FBI a few years ago with the suspicion that he had been radicalized by Islamist groups from Russia. In spite of theses fears, the FBI apparently did nothing after the initial investigation.
We cannot rule out that the FBI bears at least some -non zero- responsibility for these actions, given that the agency knew at least about the possibility that the older brother was a potential terrorist. The FBI cannot blame budget cuts as it has received all the money they have asked for during the last 11 years (since 2011). No question about that. If it is not about the budget then it must be about their competence (or lack of it).
The younger of the 2, who is 19 -Dzhokhar-, is a naturalized American citizen.
I have heard and read comments that he should not be read his Miranda rights and I believe that this would be a grave mistake.
When he became an American citizen 'he swore allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands'. Meanwhile, during the naturalization ceremony, the US has also granted him rights that are bestowed on all Americans, rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The social contract we share as Americans cannot be ignored willy-nilly by the government as they see fit.
The beauty of the balance of powers in our country is that the government cannot acquire more powers from the individuals without preserving the individuals ability to defend fairly against such actions.
Even in cases such as the Boston bombings, the US government should ensure first that they have done EVERYTHING THEY COULD to avoid similar tragedies BEFORE showing to us that they have the power and the will to restrict our freedoms. Otherwise we will have a government that will show that they can react very well after the fact but this might be too late for us to obtain personal and collective security.
After all, what is the point of the government if it cannot defend us before an attack that could have been foretold?
3 people were killed and over 180 were injured. Only by a miracle there were just 3 deaths, given the middle-of-the-crowd placement of the home-made bombs.
The older brother was killed a few days after the attacks and the younger one was taken into custody, but not before being severely injured during apprehension.
Recent reports show that the older -Tamerlan - of the 2 brothers -who was 26- had been interviewed by the FBI a few years ago with the suspicion that he had been radicalized by Islamist groups from Russia. In spite of theses fears, the FBI apparently did nothing after the initial investigation.
We cannot rule out that the FBI bears at least some -non zero- responsibility for these actions, given that the agency knew at least about the possibility that the older brother was a potential terrorist. The FBI cannot blame budget cuts as it has received all the money they have asked for during the last 11 years (since 2011). No question about that. If it is not about the budget then it must be about their competence (or lack of it).
The younger of the 2, who is 19 -Dzhokhar-, is a naturalized American citizen.
I have heard and read comments that he should not be read his Miranda rights and I believe that this would be a grave mistake.
When he became an American citizen 'he swore allegiance to the flag and the republic for which it stands'. Meanwhile, during the naturalization ceremony, the US has also granted him rights that are bestowed on all Americans, rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. The social contract we share as Americans cannot be ignored willy-nilly by the government as they see fit.
The beauty of the balance of powers in our country is that the government cannot acquire more powers from the individuals without preserving the individuals ability to defend fairly against such actions.
Even in cases such as the Boston bombings, the US government should ensure first that they have done EVERYTHING THEY COULD to avoid similar tragedies BEFORE showing to us that they have the power and the will to restrict our freedoms. Otherwise we will have a government that will show that they can react very well after the fact but this might be too late for us to obtain personal and collective security.
After all, what is the point of the government if it cannot defend us before an attack that could have been foretold?
Monday, April 1, 2013
The Stockton Bankruptcy Effect
Today, a judge declared that Stockton can file for bankruptcy protection, in spite of creditors' vehement protests.
This case brings to the forefront the fact that bankers are fiduciary and equally responsible for the borrowers' ability to pay back the borrowed money. When I owe money to a financial institution it needs to factually endorse my ability to pay the loan -they granted- back.
In Stockton's case -and over many years- bond holders have agreed to provide loans -by buying the bonds the City issued- to the City of Stockton either 1) because they were lied to about Stockton's financial state or 2) because they were expecting to get a good return, regardless of Stockton's ability to pay the money back (they thought that Stockton could just increase local taxes at will).
Certainly, creditors cannot claim reason #1 above as they would look totally incompetent. As far as for reason #2 the City has the right 'to penalize' its creditors by, perhaps, not paying them back fully.
Cities should not be able to easily have access to credit unless they develop certain/new revenue streams able to pay for the loans at the time of loan engagement.
Creditors should not buy any municipal bonds until cities show clear ability to pay the loans back.
The Stockton bankruptcy effect dictates that the municipal interest rates will go up rather quickly, unless the Fed or Congress intervene. When municipal bond rates go up cities will first need to slow down their increasing costs (a majority of increases are retirement costs associated with their current and former employees) and the sooner that happens the less pressure we will see on new taxes.
Hopefully, the Stockton effect will encourage both creditors and cities to be more realistic in terms of expectations during the engagement and execution of financial transactions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with some large municipal bankruptcies and we need to see a few more of these before the municipal bond rates reflect the true difficult financial realities many cities, counties, and municipalities are facing.
Markets do reign supreme, after all, and creditors cannot be kept far away from their own mistakes.
Denver (MI), Jefferson County (AL), and San Bernardino (CA) are all coming up next.
This case brings to the forefront the fact that bankers are fiduciary and equally responsible for the borrowers' ability to pay back the borrowed money. When I owe money to a financial institution it needs to factually endorse my ability to pay the loan -they granted- back.
In Stockton's case -and over many years- bond holders have agreed to provide loans -by buying the bonds the City issued- to the City of Stockton either 1) because they were lied to about Stockton's financial state or 2) because they were expecting to get a good return, regardless of Stockton's ability to pay the money back (they thought that Stockton could just increase local taxes at will).
Certainly, creditors cannot claim reason #1 above as they would look totally incompetent. As far as for reason #2 the City has the right 'to penalize' its creditors by, perhaps, not paying them back fully.
Cities should not be able to easily have access to credit unless they develop certain/new revenue streams able to pay for the loans at the time of loan engagement.
Creditors should not buy any municipal bonds until cities show clear ability to pay the loans back.
The Stockton bankruptcy effect dictates that the municipal interest rates will go up rather quickly, unless the Fed or Congress intervene. When municipal bond rates go up cities will first need to slow down their increasing costs (a majority of increases are retirement costs associated with their current and former employees) and the sooner that happens the less pressure we will see on new taxes.
Hopefully, the Stockton effect will encourage both creditors and cities to be more realistic in terms of expectations during the engagement and execution of financial transactions.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with some large municipal bankruptcies and we need to see a few more of these before the municipal bond rates reflect the true difficult financial realities many cities, counties, and municipalities are facing.
Markets do reign supreme, after all, and creditors cannot be kept far away from their own mistakes.
Denver (MI), Jefferson County (AL), and San Bernardino (CA) are all coming up next.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)