The Modern Corporate Workplace

As Boomers Retire

It's just not your father's old folks' home.

Saturday Mini-Review: Sin City and A Man for All Seasons

Sin City

From the first romantic scene, which shocks the viewer with its gratuitous and entirely uncalled-for violence, you are treated—if that is the word—to a long and disjointed sequence of ever more violent and disgusting episodes. None of them are enjoyable and the movie as a whole has nothing in particular to offer. The jury is in: there is no redeeming social value here, this movie is Not Worth Watching. I used to believe that every movie with Bruce Willis had at least some redeeming value. If I'd avoided this I would still harbor that pleasant delusion. Avoid it at all costs.

A Man for All Seasons

Now this is a great, if perhaps a little disingenuous, movie. If your boss flagrantly pursues a path you consider morally wrong, deeply morally wrong, how do you square your conscience? We've all been there, frequently on a daily basis. Much as we would all like to believe ourselves on the side of the angels, honesty dictates that we remember times when we unfortunately chose the path of corruption—after all, it wasn't that important a matter and we wanted to keep our jobs. But so thought many Germans in the Thirties, and we all tell ourselves that we have learned The Big Lesson—never again. But have we? Tell that to the 300,000 dead Iraqis, to the immense piles of Hutu and Tutsi corpses. What are you doing to stop genocide in Darfur today? Despite our fallen natures, sometimes the proper moral choice must be made and we must accept the inevitable consequences: loss of influence, loss of friends, loss of job, loss of life. So it happens to Sir Thomas More, but he remains undaunted and unbowed, though an entire country has caved cravenly to a mildly tyrannical master. Was his resistance and martyrdom worth it? Perhaps. What is certain is that Paul Scofield's performance in this movie is brilliant; watching and once more contemplating this perennial question is well worth the time invested.

They are starting to make Kennedy look sane

And that is no small feat. I want to see a solution to the illegal immigration issue myself, but that is going to require compromise, patience, and a certain amount of good faith.

Ranting, raving, attacking anyone who disagrees with you...even a little..engaging in reckless conspiracy theories and in general behaving in a way that reinforces every negative stereoype out there about the right will accomplish nothing...other than helping Hillary Clinton become the first woman President of the United States.

The Anchoress has a good post and is apparently taking heat for failing to toe the line as it were, read it all:

It’s all a plot and a conspiracy, you see…nothing could possibly simply be about stupid and lackluster career politicians trying to finally, finally, finally do something about an issue no one has wanted to touch for 30 years and doing it haphazardly, fearfully and imperfectly, and with the usual suspects trying to add their own flourishes, which must always be batted down, whether the issue is illegal immigration or almost anything else.

No, no. It’s a plot! It’s a conspiracy, meant to bring down America and put the conservatives in their place! To create a permanent underclass! To enlarge government, create more victims and raise our taxes! (what nonsense…we’re in a freaking war and spending more than ever, yet our revenues are growing thanks to the tax cuts…it’s funny how, when it suits a need, suddenly taxes will have to be raised…)

Maybe I should launch a conspiracy theory of my own…say…oh, something silly, like maybe this hysteria is just the conservatives doing everything they can to foment enough discord and discontent to create the “demand” for a third party candidate.

Which worked out so well for all of us in 1992. Hey, one conspiracy theory is as good as the next, isn’t it?

Now, I grant you, some of what is in this Senate immigration bill is objectionable and must be striken - it makes no sense at all for illegals to have better job-protection and benefits than American citizens. Social Security entitlements? I don’t think so. The idea of giving Mexico veto power over a fence or barrier idea is ludicrous.

But…for heaven’s sake, the thing is going to go to Congress, it’s going to get cleaned up and turned around - what has come out of the senate will not be the thing that (assuming anything actually gets passed) will be passed. There is some evidence that something workable may actually emerge from all of this ‘initial’ hoo-ha.

I know there are different opinions on the issue of these illegals, and everyone, on every side, “has a point” but I was extremely disheartened by what I heard on the radio, and by some of what I am seeing in blogs and in my email. I had to turn Rush off - there was something so insideous about the “ship them all back,” rhetoric flying between him and his callers that it was making my flesh feel crawly. “Round them up and ship them back, devote a whole law-enforcement team to it, we can get rid of all of them in 7 years, Rush!” Stunning. Appalling. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.

This lady is smart and she has a good heart.

UPDATE:

Well... well... well, it seems the GOP is full of proamnesty traitors, via Big Lizards :

Matthew Dowd, GOP poller extraordinaire, writes that the ultra-hardline conservatives who insist that the American people demand "enforcement only" and hate the "amnesty" of the Senate bill have it exactly backwards. In fact:

Dowd's memo says that an internal RNC poll conducted by Jan Van Louhuzen finds that "overwhelming support exists for a temporary worker program. 80% of all voters, 83% of Republicans, and 79% of self-identified conservatives support a temporary worker program as long as immigrants pay taxes and obey the law."

More, from the RNC internal poll: "When voters are given the choice of other immigration proposals, strengthening enforcement with a tamper-proof identity card (89% among all voters, 93% among GOP), various wordings of a temporary worker program (the highest at 85% among all voters, 86% among GOP), and sending National Guard troops to the border (63% among all voters, 84% among GOP) score the highest among both all voters and Republican voters."

Also: "Voters don't consider granting legal status to those already here amnesty."

Suspicions Confirmed

Neal Boortz and Jack Kelly have noted this excellent article by the WAPO's Carol Rust quoting several of the Enron Jurors' reactions to the evidence presented to them in the lengthy trial which seemed to validate my gut feelings immediately after the verdict was announced, e.g.:

As to Lay:

Speaking shortly after a federal judge read their verdict, jurors said Lay's indignant outbursts while testifying in his own behalf made him seem "that he very much wanted to be in control -- he commanded the courtroom," said Wendy Vaughan, a Houston business owner.

"He was very focused, but he had a bit of a chip on his shoulder that made me question his character," she said.

As to Skilling:

...who spent days explaining the tedious financial inner workings of the once high-flying energy company, the jurors couldn't understand how he could know so much about that and not be aware of illegal business maneuvering, whether or not he was responsible for it personally.

"Skilling was supposed to be a hands-on individual," said Freddy Delgado, an elementary school principal. "It's hard to believe a hands-on individual wouldn't know what was going on."

"When he got on the stand and knew what a [technically complicated] chart was and how it worked, we knew he was involved," Delgado said.

As to both:

Elementary school teacher Kathy Harrison said she was glad Lay and Skilling took the stand during their trial. Had they not, "I would have always had questions," she said.

Talk about turning the jury to proscutors, check this out:

"The people with plea bargains we questioned from different angles," said Don Martin, an electrical designer. "All their answers led to one result."

"Fastow was . . . Fastow," Martin continued, referring to former Enron finance chief Andrew S. Fastow, who faces 10 years in prison for stealing millions from the company. "We knew where he was coming from, and we kind of discounted some of what he said, but we weighed all the stuff the government witnesses said, and their answers all came to the same conclusion."

Whenever there was doubt about credibility, jurors dug through the 10 crate-size boxes to find evidence to support or discredit the testimony.

Catherine Seipp on Cindy Sheehan & Dear President Bush on National Review Online

You still have to wonder about the absolute moral authority of someone who considers the mass slaughter of civilians justified if it means her own particular soldier son might still be alive.
— Catherine Seipp on Cindy Sheehan & Dear President Bush on National Review Online

Websites as Graphs

MSN

Boing-boing

CNN

Is technology art?

Bush and Blair

I missed the first of the Bush and Blair press conference on Iraq but I did see most of it. I thought Bush was more articulate than usual and Blair less. But Blair did pose a good question: If what we are doing in Iraq is not important why is the enemy so determined to stop us? What are they afraid of?

Democracy is the answer to the question.

I might add, the press was its usual obnoxious, self important, arrogant, pompous, rude, shallow, banal self.

Before the Revolution: Color Photos from Russia

Amazing prerevolutionary color photos taken by Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii, who made his color photos by making three exposures through differently colored filters. The Library of Congress bought the negatives from his heirs in 1948 and, using computers and imaging software, has generated the fully colored versions. They are now on exhibit and you can see them here.

HT: INDC Jounal.

Boy, This Economy Sucks

Bloomberg reports that the economy grew at a slower than expected rate in the first quarter.

I'll bet women and children (as well as all people of color) suffered most.

Man, This Economy is Great

Reuter's reports the best economic growth in 2 1/2 years with stronger than expected strength in housing and consumer spending.

Arrogance and the Law

The jury has spoken in the Enron case. While I did not follow it closely, I did read bits of the defendants' testimony. Each of them at one time or another showed the jury a quality in a part of their personalities that is more than deadly in a jury trial. The quality? Arrogance.

Jeff Skilling betrayed it in his attitude with his cross examiner, a relatively young Assistant US Attorney. Skilling made it clear that this young man's grasp of the business concepts used at Enron was woefully inadequate. But if Skilling was so damn smart, a juror might plausibly ask, why did Enron sink so fast with him at the helm? Irrelevant to the case, but highly relevant to turning a potentially sympathetic jury into assistant prosecutors.

Ken Lay, on the other hand, betrayed an imperious impatience with his own counsel during direct, becoming irritated when he momentarily lost his train of thought and could not grasp the gist of the question. Lay clearly wished to maintain his lordly command of the proceedings. Yet he was a defendant and his attorney was valiantly trying to help him. Again, a small point, but maybe a turning point.

This case was difficult enough for the defense. The public generally wants someone to be legally responsible for a corporat failure of the magnitude of the Enron debacle. This seems to be par for the course. The defense must find a way to turn the jury's sympathies to its client in some way or it is toast. When the defendants themselves become unsympathetic as people, the defense becomes burnt toast. Bitter and charred.

The taste of place

As Jim Miller pointed out, if the French were not so arrogant this would not be so amusing. To which I'll add, if I had more money it would be more useful.

Overhead

I respect the sentiment once expressed by the outlaw Josey Wales who said, "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms". But I'm beginning to dislike these ugly suckers. Especially when they make cheeky fly-bys of My Osprey Nest when Mamma ain't around to kick their sorry buzzard butts. All while Fugly Buzzard sits there looking at me - close enough that I could just about hit 'im upside da head baddabing wi't a pipe - just wishin' I were dead.

Correction?

Last Friday, I wrote a post on a National Post story that reported that Iran would force religious minorities to wear distinguishing insignia. The Post soon after withdrew the story and now has published a statement (subscription only) that the story was false.

Some news services seem quick to mock the National Post for being both pro-Israel and quick to tar the Iranians (as if one could be too quick). Al Reuters writes:

The conservative National Post ran the story on its front page last Friday along with a large photo from 1944 which showed a Hungarian couple wearing the yellow stars that the Nazis forced Jews to sew to their clothing.

The story, which included tough anti-Iran comments from prominent Jewish groups, was picked up widely by Web sites and by other media.

"Is Iran turning into the new Nazi Germany? Share your opinion online," the paper asked readers last Friday.

But the National Post, a long-time supporter of Israel and critic of Tehran, admitted on Wednesday it had not checked the piece thoroughly enough before running it.

"It is now clear the story is not true," National Post editor-in-chief Douglas Kelly wrote in a long editorial on page 2. "We apologize for the mistake and for the consternation it has caused not just National Post readers, but the broader public who read the story."

Ha'aretz, however, gets to the heart of the matter:

The report emerged as false on Friday evening. Yes, the parliament in Tehran recently passed a law setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments" but it has never passed a decision to mark the country's Jewish citizens.

According to Iran expert Meir Javedanfar, Tehran has yet to fix the dress code for Muslims in the country, let alone for minority ethnic groups.

So you see, Iran, which now wants to portray itself as the victim of slanders from a western, Jewish-owned paper, only wants, for the time being, to make all Muslims wear the same uniform. What a nice idea that is, eh? and it still guarantees, does it not, that all Infidels will be identifiable in contrast to their Muslim compatriots?
(Photo Credit: BL)

Be Still My Heart

Armavirumque has a cheerful piece up [ht:Lurker] on the possibility that Keller et al may be getting closer to being measured for felony orange suits. Brylun covered Gabriel Schoenfeld's analysis of the pertinent code sction which the NYT violated in publishing the NSA story and AG Gonzales is sure being tantalizing in his comments.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that some enemies of America may be brought to justice soon.

Never Mind

That is what some of the hardline Congressmen seem to be saying about immigration reform. Back when Congress attempted to make illegal entry into the US a felony they did not only send their fan club of nativists into smug self congratulatory back patting...they brought to life an immigration movement the likes of which this country has not seem in many years, if ever.

Now the Senate has passed the Hagel-Martinez bill. Big Lizards has a post up on the bill:

There is great room for negotiation on this bill, many things that can be -- and should be -- changed. But there is no chance for dropping any of the big three:

* Secure the border with a real fence;

* Allow more people to enter the country, either as guest workers or immigrants, to continue doing jobs that need doing, but that Americans won't do (the "spillway");

* Do something to regularize the millions of illegals already here.

No bill that excludes any of these three has a prayer of passing through Congress... and not to act at all would be a catastrophe of both policy and politics.

So instead of railing against those elements that are deal-breakers, let's focus on trying to make the bill better: to increase whatever part you see as beneficial to make the bill, on the whole, a deal we can live with.

UPDATE, a few minutes later: Mary Katharine Ham, guest blogging on Hugh Hewitt, reports on a teleconference between Ed Meese and a group of conservative bloggers about the immigration bill, and about Meese's New York Times op-ed today opposing it, "An Amnesty by Any Other Name ...." The conference was run by Matt Spaulding of the Heritage Foundation.

Let's see if we've grasped the essentials here: a group that opposes what it's pleased to call "amnesty" for illegals invites a speaker who opposes what he calls "amnesty" to speak to a bunch of conservative bloggers -- who oppose what they call "amnesty." And by golly, after thrashing out those differences, they finally all concur that they must oppose what they call "amnesty" for illegals!

This evening on Brit Hume's Special Report the speculation was that the House might kill the deal. No compromise, nata. Just deader than a doornail. After all this drama. After all the hysterical assertions that life as we know it is doomed if we do not get a fence, they might just blow it off. Two thirds of the American people want a bill and the longer this drags out the more likely it will be that Democrats will be the ones deciding the nature of the bill. If Republicans can not do this, someone else will do it for them.

Katrina - A Different View

Lou Dolinar has an excellent article over at Real Clear Politics that provides insight into how well the first responders in New Orleans performed with a bit of contrast as to how poorly the MSM performed. His only error is in evaluating the MSM as news providers when they are in fact propagandists. Their propaganda efforts cannot be faulted.

The performance of the Coast Guard, the National Guard and the Regular Army during Katrina was exemplary. I believe that Dolinar is a bit more critical of FEMA than necessary, given that FEMA does not promise that relief will be immediately available - every report I have seen makes clear that the first 72 hours are the responsibility of the local and state response teams.

I also think that he is a bit too gentle with Blanco who may well have been aware of the actual situation at the Superdome but made no effort to correct the blatant (and successful) propaganda efforts of the MSM (including Fox, which I no longer watch).

With the results of the mayoral election announced, I believe that the good citizens of New Orleans received far better treatment than their attention to civic duty warrants. Any locale that re-elects Nagin and Democratic Congressman 'Cold Cash' Jefferson deserves a very large portion of whatever distress due to governmental mismanagement befalls it. I wish the citizens of New Orleans no ill but they deserve the absolute minimum of federally supported help.

And not just Mexico

In some comment a while back I did some back of the envelope figures on the cost of chartering 747s and pontificated that a future US "guest worker" program would really mean crop pickers from anywhere on the planet, and not just people coming over the southern border. Well, in Yakima Washington it is already happening, with Thai labor. Seattle Times article in VDARE via Maggie's Farm.

Politically, this kind of thing could get very interesting, very fast.

Immigration Again

Alvaro Varga Llosa writes a sensible piece: Immigration—The Wages of Fear

WASHINGTON—I have been called a “Spanish conquistador” in Peru, a “sudaca” (South American scum) in Spain, and a “wog” in Britain—and I am profiled as a Hispanic in the U.S. (which actually means “ancient Roman” since Hispania was the Iberian province of Rome). The first time I went to London, I was asked if there were any cars in Peru. I explained that they prefer flying saucers to avoid rush-hour congestion.

I may be forgiven for drawing attention to the abyss that separates perception from reality in today’s debate on immigration in the U.S. The fact that President Bush should feel compelled to send the National Guard to the border with Mexico in order to win support for his proposal to legalize millions of Hispanics is an indication of where perceptions stand.

Whenever there is a major disconnect between the law and reality, trying to force reality to fit the law only brings more misery. Forcing millions of real people to adjust to fiction—as the bill approved by the House of Representatives that triggered the recent protests by immigrants intends to do—is the stuff of totalitarianism.
...

Much of the Hispanic contribution has little connection to low-skilled jobs. According to Geoscape International, a third of Hispanic households earn over $50,000 a year. The Pew Hispanic Center puts the net worth of Hispanic households at more than $700 billion. HispanTelligence, a research division of Hispanic Business magazine, says the rate of growth of the purchasing power of Hispanics in the last 10 years is three times the national average. In 2010, Hispanics will own 3.2 million businesses. Clearly, these immigrants are expanding the national pie.
...

I expect Mr. Llosa has picked positive indicators and some terms are a bit vague -- what precisely does it mean to "speak English" -- but a short article can't be comprehensive and filled with footnotes. I found the optimistic view put forth a bracing corrective to the gnashers of teeth and criers of doom. As we say around here, read the whole thing. HT: NoLeftTurns.