June 21, 2003
Intervention In Iran Evil? You Decide
OK, I've been seeing a few articles coming out lately that are basically saying we need to leave Iran alone with the excuse as to why usually being something along the lines of how we've failed in Afghanistan and still haven't found evidence of WMD in Iraq.
Let's review:
Afghanistan
Before US intervention:
Remember this joker? (AFP File Photo)
After US intervention and "failure:"
Unveiled Afghan schoolgirls walk with burqa-clad women in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, June 21, 2003. The vast majority of Afghan women still wear the burqa, however many younger Afghan girls are wearing unveiled garments, showing an increasingly liberal side of the country. (AP Photo/ Rafiq Maqbool)
Wait! You mean there are girls going to school? And they can walk the streets without a burqa?? How could we have done this to a nation that was obviously so well off under Osama and the Taliban?
US intervention: a force for good or a force of evil? You decide.
Iraq
No evidence of WMDs:
An Iraqi man holds the identity papers of two of his missing brothers as he hopes to find their remains in this mass grave, 50 kms south of Baghdad, May 24, 2003. Thousands of Iraqis are believed to have been tortured and killed under the ruthless regime of Saddam Hussein. Bodies at this mass grave were all blindfolded and handcuffed. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj
The WMDs themselves:
Saddam Hussein poses with his sons Uday and Qusay (R) in a photo from the private archive of an official photographer for the regime. The most important Iraqi captured by U.S. troops yet has told his interrogators former President Hussein is alive along with his two sons, who fled to Syria after the fall of Baghdad and later returned to Iraq, U.S. officials said on June 21, 2003. REUTERS/Stringer
WMD a little different looking than you expected? They still directly caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of civilians. Does the fact that they were killed by men instead of bombs make their deaths any less significant or deplorable? Were Saddam and his sons not as great a threat, if not a greater threat, to humanity than an inanimate weapon? He was a threat to the US, his opportunity to strike at us just hadn't presented itself yet.
US intervention in Iraq: a force of good or of evil? You decide. Of course if you need help, you could always ask these guys:
Iraqi Shi'ite demonstrators march towards the interim U.S.-led administration's headquarters, in the republican palace area of Baghdad, June 21, 2003. The protesters were demanding more representation in Iraq's political affairs. (Akram Saleh/Reuters)
For the first time most of their lives, they can tell you without fear of appearing in the first picture.
Iran
So what to do about Iran? They're a nation without energy or environmental concerns, yet:
The United States wants the International Atomic Energy Agency to voice concern about Iran's nuclear programs and its failure to answer questions about them, a senior U.S. official said on June 11, 2003. Washington does not expect the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog to refer the issue of Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program to the U.N. Security Council at a board meeting on Monday, the senior State Department official told reporters. Workmen wearing protective clothing walk away from the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear power reactor under construction in southwestern Iran in this March 11 file photo. Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/Reuters
The Iranian students are protesting calling for more freedom. How does the regime respond?
Young Iranians sit in a hallway of Evin prison, in Tehran, after being arrested in recent student protests, on Sunday, June 15, 2003. The anti-government protests, which began on Tuesday, were the largest in months and included unprecedented chants calling for the death of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. (AP Photo)
Notice the looks on their faces. Wonder why they look so glum and dejected? It's not because this arrest might hurt future job prospects or political aspirations. No, it's because they may be about to die (second paragraph).
US intervention or the status quo? Which is more evil?
You decide.
Investing Strategies - Part II
Order Types
It just occurred to me that before I get too deep into a discussion of trading strategies, we probably ought to review the basic types of orders and what they do.
There are really four types of orders that are used: market, limit, stop, and stop-limit.
Market Orders - This is the most basic type of order that there is in the stock market. With a market order, you're basically telling the broker to buy or sell at whatever the current price is. During regular market hours, when everything is functioning normally, these orders usually execute in less than a minute and are fairly safe to use. However, there can be downfalls. If they are placed outside of normal market hours, or during a trading halt, there is a possibility - especially strong in the case of a halt - that the stock will gap, or make a major move one way or the other, when it opens. This gap may be beneficial to you, it may hurt you.
Assuming the market is open, a market order guarantees an execution, but not a price.
Limit Orders - This is probably the most common type of order that I handled as a broker. Essentially, with a limit order, you're telling the market what price you're willing to trade at. If you're buying, your limit order specifies the maximum price you're willing to pay. If you're selling, your order specifies the least you're willing to accept. In either case, your order should be considered "or better" meaning you can pay less to buy or can sell for more (ask your broker if your limit is "or better." If they say no, find another broker.) Limit orders can be both beneficial and problematic. The can benefit you by helping to impose a degree of discipline not available with market orders, but I've also watched people change limit orders - trying to be greedy - and they've "chased" themselves right out of a profitable trade. Once a limit order has been placed, it needs to be changed only after some serious deliberation.
Assuming the market is open, a limit order will guarantee a certain price (or better), but not an execution of the trade.
Stop Orders - This and the stop limit are generally misunderstood by most investors. If you place a stop order, you are specifying a trigger price for a market order. It is most commonly used to provide some protection on the downside. For instance, many traders will place a stop order 10% lower than their purchase price so that if the stock drops by 10% they automatically have the position sold so that they protect as much principal as possible. The key is to remember that a stop order triggers a market order once the stock trades at or through the stop, or trigger, price.
During regular market conditions this may not be a big issue. A sell stop order at $50 may produce a trade at say $49.50, during normal trading. Stop orders overnight can be a big, big risk. On a stock that closes at $55 a stop at $50 may produce a trade at $25 or $10 if the stock gaps down overnight. Remember, a stop triggers a market order once the stock trades at or through the stop price. A gap down from $55 the night before to $10 at the open is trading through and will trigger the market order to sell at the first available price. This usually leads to a very unpleasant conversation with your broker (believe me, I've been on the other end of more than a few).
A stop order will guarantee an execution under certain conditions, but the price is almost certainly going to be different than expected.
Stop Limit Orders - Some brokers will try to convince you that the way to protect yourself from the downside potential of the stop order is to use a stop loss. It is your responsibility to know that there is no such order as a "stop loss." What the broker is usually proposing is a stop limit order. The difference between the stop and the stop limit orders is that the stop limit, instead of triggering a market order, will trigger a limit order to be placed once the stop price is passed. It requires that you establish two prices: the stop or trigger price and a trailing limit. The stop price is the one that you would like to sell at, the limit is the minimum that you're willing to accept.
Let's look at our previous example of the stock closing at $55 and gapping down to $10 overnight. We demonstrated that a stop order at $50 would cause you to sell somewhere around $10. If we have a stop limit with a stop at $50 and a limit at $40, then we would not sell at $10, but we would have a limit order on the books to sell at $40. The upside is that the stop limit has given you more time to evaluate the new situation, but the downside is that the stock may be heading even lower as you reconsider - and you still own it.
Another key thing to remember with stop limit orders is that the bigger the spread between the stop and the limit, the more likely the order is to execute. You should almost never set both prices the same - it makes an execution very unlikely. A stop limit order will guarantee a minimum price, given the proper conditions, but it does not guarantee an execution. And it will not stop a loss. Never let a broker convince you that this order is the perfect form of downside protection. It too has its drawbacks.
Also understand that market and limit orders are available on all stocks, but that stops and stop limits may not be available, may be suspended without notice, and that they are executed on as possible. In extremely volatile market conditions, a stop or stop limit may not execute right away if the broker or floor trader is working on filling market and limit orders.
Order Qualifiers
With most all of these orders there are usually also some order qualifiers that can change the behavior of you order and how it is treated. The full list of qualifiers is fairly lengthy, but we'll just touch on a few of the biggies here.
Day Order - essentially this means that your order is good for the day only. AT 4:00 pm, when the market closes, all day orders are cancelled, or outed, and must be replaced the following day. Every type of order can be a day order.
Good 'Til Cancelled - This order can vary from firm to firm. Some firms will treat a GTC order as a sixty-day order. Others will treat as a thirty-day or maybe a one hundred eighty day order. A few firms make it truly good until cancelled with the order never expiring (every once in a while, I'd talk to someone who had had an order from three to five years earlier execute at another firm. It almost always created massive problems for the client). Ask your firm how long their GTC orders are good for - it's important knowledge to have. GTC orders are available on all types of orders, although they will usually only be accepted on market orders in very unusual circumstances - I personally only ever saw one GTC market order and we did it only because there was virtually no market for the stock.
All or None - This qualifier can be used on larger trades to ensure that the entire block of stocks trades at once. This is usually used on very large quantities of a heavily traded stock to ensure that the trader doesn't end up with ten or fifteen different execution prices. The downfall of the AON restriction is that it takes your order off the order book and it is left to the floor trader to trade it on an as possible basis (which means that it may not happen at all). AON also has a cousin known as Minimum Quantities in which you allow the block to be broken up, but only so far. Same downsides.
Immediate or Cancel and Fill or Kill - These two are very similar to each other. The IOC order basically tells the market to fill what the can immediately or cancel the order. FOK tells the market to fill the entire order or none of it, but do it right now. IOC allows for a partial fill, FOK does not. But on both orders you will know within minutes the outcome of the trade. These are usually only used on large trades when someone is trying to get just a tick or two more than the market is allowing at the time.
There are other qualifiers, but they get used so infrequently as to never been seen. Most people never use an order qualifier beyond a Day Order or GTC because the rest of the qualifiers are targeted at large block traders and usually have restrictions or drawbacks that are very detrimental to the smaller, individual trader.
Investing Strategies
This post is going to be permalinked over in the sidebar. Since I expect this series to run longer and to be updated whenever I feel like it, I figured that one central post with links to all the others might not be a bad idea (especially since the suggestion was made several times with the last series!)
The American Empire - Again??
There are a few things that get me really, really ticked off. Complaining about the "American Empire" is one of them.
If you look at my other site, you'll notice that most everything I have for sale is related to a real empire. The Romans knew how to run an empire. Even the Byzantines had a pretty decent empire for a while. But the United States has never even come close to acting similarly.
We are not out conquering for pride. We are not out conquering for tribute. We are not out conquering for food. We are not trying to support the social structure of a failing state.
The author contends that every empire has some great cultural idea to spread. That is false. The spread of a cultural idea is just a side effect of empire building. Rome didn't conquer Egypt to spread the idea of Republicanism or aqueducts, they conquered Egypt for food.
Food, tribute, security and pride are the foundations of any empire. The US has food, has the ability to provide for our own security (if we would ever put our minds to it), we don't need tribute - we actually pay other states, and if pride were a real issue for us we would have completely conquered the entire Western Hemisphere by now.
But we do have a great cultural idea to spread, one that is relatively unique in history. Liberty.
Not democracy. Not republicanism. Liberty.
Our great idea is more powerful than Islamic fundamentalism. It is more powerful than communism. It is an ideology that believes in humanity. Instead of trying to repress certain traits or to make everyone equal in outcome, liberty allows every person to make their life the way that they want. The other ideologies all presuppose that man is evil and must be given rules and controls to prevent him from hurting himself or others. Liberty presupposes that man is good and able of making rational decisions that will benefit both himself and others.
Neither absolute is completely true, but I believe that the basic assumptions of liberty are closer to the truth. And so do most other people. If man is evil, why would Iranian students be calling for liberty's twin sister, freedom? Fundamentalism runs contrary to the human spirit; liberty quenches the thirst of the spirit.
We must remember that our great idea is not a form of government. Our government, our economy, our way of life are all derived from that basic idea of liberty.
As I read the article on Free Republic this morning, I was reading through the comments after the post and noticed that some people were keying in on this phrase:
"...but democracy is a vehicle for resolving disputes. It is not an ideology like communism or Islamic fundamentalism..."
In this case, the author of the article is right. Democracy is not an ideology. Communism and Islamic fundamentalism are. Democracy is a form of government. But it is not what we are fighting for. It is not our raison d'etre.
Democracy (by which most people actually mean republicanism) is a product of our idea - liberty. Liberty and totalitarianism don't go together. A liberal form of government is required to most fully realize our idea. Therefore, we ended up with republicanism as the best way of protecting our liberty from the whims of tyrants and from the tyranny of the majority.
When we engage in nation building around the world, everyone looks at what tangible traits we bring to the table and then they decry of imperialism. They never realize the power of the intangible we bring. If liberty is such a bad thing, why do the nations of Europe still have, for the moment, representative forms of government? Why hasn't Japan reverted back to the reign of the Emperor? Why did the nations of Eastern Europe all change to representative forms of government?
Because liberty is a more powerful idea than communism, fundamentalism or any other -ism that's out there. Liberty speaks to the soul. The -isms speak down to the mind.
In Iraq, they are just beginning to find out about the idea again. They have not reached the point of unfettered liberty yet, but economically, they're experiencing it. And they're loving it. Their standard of living is already on the way up. But notice, that they are currently paying no taxes. What real empire doesn't collect taxes (also called tribute)?
We are not an empire. To become one, we would have to sacrifice our national foundation - liberty. As a people, we're not ready to do that.
We want to spread our idea because we, as a people, believe in the basic goodness of man. But we cannot impose it, we can only expose it. It is up to the other party to embrace liberty as their own.
Iraq was/is an exercise in ensuring our security. Afghanistan is also. Iran, Syria, Libya, Saudi Arabia, wherever our travails take us next, we will bring our idea with us. If the people decide that they want to embrace it, we will support them in every way possible. If they don't want to, we will let them go the way of Western Europe, allowing them to establish a non-representative government. The choice is theirs, just as it always has been.
The American Empire. Great expansionist emperors like Augustus, Vespasian, Trajan and Hadrian would laugh at the "American Empire." They would be amazed at the empire building potential of the nation. They would be dumbfounded that we could let a little idea like liberty stand in the way of total domination of the known world. They didn't. They knew how to build and run an empire.
Like the author of the first article, they would never comprehend that we don't want an empire.
America is an idea, not an empire.
June 20, 2003
Quick Links
US sends warning to Libya over 'pursuit of WMD' - another Arab nation, another potential problem
"The Bill of NO Rights!" - Should be required reading for the victimhood cult
Balancing the Books: Feds will spend more than $21,000 per household this year - I hope that I can earn what the government is going to spend on my behalf this year!
Either way, ACC has harmed itself - Trying to blame Virginia's politicians for the problems with the ACC expansion plan.
US Senator pauses on PC destruct button - Hatch backtracks on his stupid comments (plus a mention of the blogosphere).
More Pressure On Iran
Looks like we're still ratcheting up the pressure on Iran with the latest statement from the Bush Administration that the US reserves right of military action on Iran.
The clerics responded in the most effective way they know how and "encouraged" the courts to order the execution of the protesters.
They also warned us that they will not be the same as Afghanistan or Iraq. They said that we should not "think" that we can enter Iran by force.
If we did, what would they do? Maybe order the execution of a few more people? Or perhaps they'll chant "Death To America" six times a day instead of five? Certainly even the mullahs can't believe that the Iranian military would have any better chance of stopping the US military than Iraq or the Taliban's forces could.
The panic is getting deeper and deeper among the mullahs. This current bout of "confidence" is nothing more than a front to cover their real fear - that they will lose their jobs, their power and possibly their lives.
We need more pressure on them. We must not take military action off the table just for that reason.
Carnival of the "-tys"
So what exactly is the Carnival of the "-tys?"
Well, it's a number of things. It's one of my key observations on life - and the one that I'm most consistently amazed that other people haven't picked up on. It is also a reflection of my current stressor and pet peeve at work.
I wanted to write and post this last night, but I promised not to write about work stuff yesterday and going back on that promise, especially for this topic, just didn't seem appropriate.
One of my many jobs at work is that of personnel manager. I spend a large portion of my day talking with the other employees, trying to identify potential problems so that I can nip them in the bud. I have found that there are two traits that are absolutely critical to a good employee, my two "-tys": integrity and honesty.
I believe it is impossible to have a good employee without them having those two qualities. Skills can be taught and knowledge can be acquired through work. But honesty and integrity are part of a person's character. They are part of who you are.
I currently have two particular people working for me that really demonstrate the difference between a good employee and a poor one.
One of these employees was arrested and has been working his way through the court system, just since he started working for us. The other has owned his own business and can sell anything to anybody for any price.
I want to have the first employee. I don't trust the second. All because of their honesty and integrity.
The first employee, the one with the legal troubles, at least was willing to own up to them and is making a real effort at trying to straighten out his life. He is a pain in the butt. He whines. He complains. He likes to play victim. But when he really screwed up, he admitted to it and set about trying to fix the damage. He has honesty and integrity to go along with his occasionally questionable decision making skills.
But I can work with him on his faults. We can talk about the challenges he poses at work. Even though he's a convicted criminal, I can trust him more than I can the second employee. Simply because he has that certain strength of character to be able to rise to a challenge.
The second employee has lied about the most basic things. He has shown a willingness to do anything, literally almost anything, for a buck. He may be a self-starter and may appear to require no supervision, but in reality I have to watch him closer than my supposedly high maintenance employee.
This man has no integrity. He honesty is lacking, at best. I have to watch everything that he does.
He lies to customers. He changes sales invoices - after the sale has been completed. He tries to claim commissions on items that he never sold.
But what really upsets me the most is that when I came in last Thursday, the first day of our great tent sale, I found him standing in the middle of the tent, ordering people around with a literal wave of the hand. Uppity, arrogant, and condescending are only a few, a very few, of the words that could be used to describe him.
One of the unfortunate parts of my job is that while I'm the personnel manager, I haven't got the authority to fire him (the owner reserved that for herself). I am supposed to correct problems, without having the implicit threat of real authority. Not that it would really matter in this case.
He denies that what I saw ever happened. He denies that what the other employees have described ever happened. The owner, who was not present, talks about how he "busted his a$$" that morning.
I don't think that I'll be at this job much longer. In my time there I have been advertising manager, store manager, personnel manager, sales manager, salesman, warehouse manager, warehouseman, office manager, finance manager, strategic manager, and God only knows what else. The opportunity there is wonderful. I can expand my resume in every which way. I essentially make my job each and every day. I know I'm underpaid for what I do (that's not conceit, that's what everyone around me - my boss included - tells me), but the money is not the issue. If it was, I wouldn't be there.
When I left the brokerage industry I decided that I needed to rinse myself, to get away from the shysters. The company I'm working for was small and struggling, but part of why it was struggling is because the owner wasn't willing to sell out for a dollar. Reputation and character were a little more important.
But now with the latest and greatest salesman her world has ever seen, she's allowing him to sell her out to the almighty dollar. He is slowly robbing her of her reputation in the community as being a business based on integrity and honesty. She says she wants to maintain her reputation and her character and all that. Yet she does nothing, not a single solitary thing, to really address the problem.
Honesty and integrity are still important to me. My character is who I am. The stress of trying to defend that person is incredible.
Never forget the "-tys."
June 19, 2003
Quick Links
I'm still tired, trying to recover from the last week and I promised not to write about work today, so I'm going to call it an early night. But I did have a few interesting stories that I had found that might be worth a look:
Iran Will Test The Left's Mettle - I'm becoming more convinced each and every day that something big is coming in Iran - soon.
Teen Sues Over "Lesbian Barbie" Shirt Ban - I can kind of see both sides of the argument, but in the end I believe it was an overreaction by the school and the lawsuit is really a thinly veiled money grab.
More Cities Want Companies Who Do Business With Them to Disclose Past Ties to Slavery - And what does this really accomplish besides providing ammunition for the reparations crowd? I sincerely hope that more than a few companies tell these folks to jump in a lake (I doubt it will happen though).
Who CAIRs? Anatomy of misplaced outrage. - CAIR proves that they care little for the truth so long as it makes for a good hatemail campaign.
From London: War news not biased, says ITC - If I remember correctly the sailors of the Ark Royal thought a bit differently.
And finally, Laurence Simon over at Amish Tech Support has proposed a one stop solution for both illegal mp3 downloading and the Middle East problems. I'm just not sure that it was a real good idea to give the recording execs any more bright ideas - they come up with enough on their own.
A Glimmer Of Understanding?
So if you're the notorious anti-American known as Jacques, what's the last thing that you'd want to see? How about a memo from the EU stating that, among other things, Europe has got to recognize the "seminal effect of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 on American fears, thinking and strategy."
Hey, we're only 18 months removed from the event. In America, we were talking about the change in about, what, 18 minutes? It's not as it was kept a secret. We changed on 9/11.
Osama figured it out (the hard way). Saddam figured it out (again, the hard way). The clerics in Iran know that this time things are different. They even figured it out to a point (but it still won't be easy to convince them).
Poor Europe, their bureaucracies are still sending out memos about the possibility of there actually being a change in the US.
But the memos are not completely without merit. The writers did take care to propose solutions to what they view as a problem of poor US public perception of Europe.
They express concern about "mutual suspicion" and "crude stereotyping." But instead of talking of "poor depictions of the President" or his advisors the article goes on to detail out the charges of Bush being a "reckless cowboy" and of Wolfowitz and Perle of "hijacking US foreign policy. Instead of discussing "differences in policy" the article notes that the memo refrains from "criticism of Washington's unilateral actions."
The memo wants to see Europe more effectively market itself outside of New York and Washington. They want to "expose Americans to our brand of democracy." I already know about the EU "brand" of democracy. I've read up on the first draft of the EU Constitution. Their brand of democracy strikes me more a great leap forward into the past of feudalism, with the Lords living in their palace in Belgium as the serfs toil everywhere else around the Continent for the benefit of the egos in Brussels. I want no part of EU democracy. It might be a nice place to visit, but that's about it.
Old Europe is starting to come around just a bit.
But it's going to take more than a memo to change American views towards Europe.
June 18, 2003
The Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day
Saw Bill O'Reilly taking on Orrin Hatch's comments on remote computer destruction on TV tonight.
Bill O'Reilly, Mr. "Some People On The Internet May Say Bad Things About Me So We Need To Reign In The Whole Free Speech On The Net" is taking on a US Senator for wanting to restrict the free exchange of data on the Net?
I figured O'Reilly would love Hatch's comments because they might encourage the creation of technology that would allow Bill to sit there and zap my site and my computer for saying that I think that he's suffering from hypocrisy. What makes the Fifth Amendment right to due process more important than the First Amendment right to free speech - even when that free speech consists of calling O'Reilly names or cheering for his demise as a radio commentator? Is he condoning illegal downloading of mp3s while calling for an end to speech that he may personally find offensive?
Someone needs to remind Bill that the Bill Of Rights is not a smorgasbord buffet. You don't get to pick and choose. Either all the rights get enforced or they will all be lost.
Which make O'Reilly vs. Hatch my Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day.
Can The Truth Be A Lie?
Had an interesting moral question come up at work today. Actually, it's a two parter: when is the truth a lie and is it ever wrong to tell just the absolute truth?
I believe the answer to the second part of the question is yes, it can be wrong to tell the absolute truth. But to explain it, and the first part, I need to describe what happened.
As a few of my previous posts have indicated, we've been having a tent sale at my work during the last week. I've been sitting out there baking my brain and getting a really nice tan while trying to sell a bunch of furniture. Three of the pieces that were out there with me all weekend were a couch and two silk fabric chairs. The chairs were priced, on sale, at $335 - in the tent ($1038 normally).
On Monday, one of the salesmen (I'm the office manager, but I had reasons for volunteering to go and sit in the tent) came out to the tent and declared the sofa and two chairs as "sold." He put sold tags on them and had the warehouse guys take them out of the tent to be put into storage until delivery.
Then this morning, the same salesman comes out and declares that he is not buying the sofa and chairs. Immediately he starts demanding that they be brought on to the floor - in the store.
So the warehouse guys bring the chairs in and set them in the back room, still shrink-wrapped for storage. Almost immediately a customer walks in the door and starts looking at the chairs.
Same salesman that decided not to buy the chairs comes up to help the customer.
"We just brought them on to the floor today," he says and then proceeds to sell the chairs for $670.
"We just brought them on to the floor today."
It is the absolute, literal truth. Yesterday, they were in a storage shed. Two days ago they were in the tent. But last week, they were on the floor.
His statement was the truth, but it was a lie. The customer is under the impression (because he didn't think to ask) that these are brand new, straight out of the factory chairs. In reality they're almost a year old - almost all of that time having been spent on our show floor as floor samples. The chairs are in excellent, factory fresh condition, but they are not what the customer believes them to be - straight off the factory floor.
The salesman told the absolute truth. At no point did he blatantly tell a lie to the customer. But through his selective telling of the truth, in my opinion, he effected a lie. He misled the customer with truth.
Maybe I'm off my rocker here. But I am absolutely of the opinion that what was done was wrong.
Unfortunately, there isn't much that I can do about it at the moment. I was actually the last to find out about the lie (the disadvantage of being in the tent) as the salesman bragged about it to everyone - the owner included. I found out because it bothered the other employees so much that they came out to ask me for guidance (there's a scary thought!) I can't call the customer, as he didn't enter a phone number into the computer (or even a complete address to write them with).
It just really, really bugs me that he was willing to knowingly deceive someone - and that he could do it without even a hint of remorse. In fact, he was excited because it meant that he would get a higher commission!
Why does the world have to have weasels like that?
OK, I'm done ranting and complaining about work now. Tomorrow, no work stories. I promise.
Planes, Trains, And Mail
Ed. Note - This was written earlier this morning during one of the many customerless periods of the day today.
As most of you know, I've been spending the last week outside, in a tent, in the Florida sun, baking my brain. I have gotten to indulge a bit in one of my other hobbies, though - I love watching trains go rolling by.
Where I sit, the CSX mainline through Orlando is maybe 100 yards away from me. I get to watch usually about 10 trains per day go rumbling past. Some days it's more; some it's less. But there are always at least four Amtrak trains rolling past - the two New York to Florida trains going each way.
But so what, it's just a train, right? Nothing special or unusual about most trains. They're just trains. They roll through town and screw up traffic. Right?
Well, you know that I'm not one for just writing about the sake of putting words on paper (or on a screen). As each Amtrak train has rolled past, I've noticed something different. Something that could explain why the airlines, yes the airlines, are hurting so, so bad.
Each of the trains rolling by a baggage car on it, just like they always have. But the car has three new words on it "US Mail Only."
It's been years since the railroads carried the mail. I think the last of the old Railway Post Office (RPO) cars was taken out of service around 1968. It was the loss of mail revenue that made many routes unprofitable and indirectly led to the formation of Amtrak.
Since the demise of the RPO most of the mail in the United States has traveled either by truck or by airplane. For the airlines, this was a great windfall. The airlines make a small fortune carrying the mail (they also pay substantial penalties for mishandling it meaning that it is only somewhat profitable). On many air routes, like on the rails before, the mail is what's making the difference between profitability and unprofitability.
So why is it significant that the trains are carrying the mail again?
When I was working for the airlines, on the morning flights we would send out usually between five and ten thousand pounds mail - on each flight. Many of those first flights in the morning were wildly profitable, even though they would usually be leaving with less than 50% of the passenger capacity.
But if that mail has switched back to rail, what is happening to the profitability of those flights? On some of them they may have been able to downgrade the equipment to something that is more efficient, but on others it may not have been possible to find an airplane that would have been able to make money. And since they can't simply drop one flight without it affecting five or ten other flights, they would continue to fly unprofitable routes.
And each time that airplane takes off with just a small portion of the mail it used to carry, more money is lost.
Now losing the mail won't be the reason that the airlines go bankrupt. It's just going to magnify the effects of the poor customer service and the overly bloated cost structures. It has certainly made the airline industry even more challenging to compete in.
The airlines that will survive will be the ones that figure out how to change the face of flying from being a chore and a challenge to being pleasant again. The smaller, decentralized airlines that can respond quickly to changing market conditions are the ones that are to figure out how to adapt, improvise and overcome the challenges before them. Customer service, not promotional gimmicks or loyalty programs, will once again become the focus of the airlines. It's a matter of survival for them.
Another train just went rolling past; another baggage car with the tiny little letters "US Mail Only." It's kind of incredible to think how the placement of those three words, on the side of a baggage car in a train, may be changing an entire industry - for the better.
June 17, 2003
Tonight's Quick Links
Orrin Hatch Endorses Destroying Computers Of Illegal Downloaders - forget the 5th Amendment and all that due process stuff! Gray Davis may not be the only politician in dire need of recall.
Iran's Khamenei calls US "melting mountain of ice" - when life gives you a "melting mountain of ice" make...make...make... make your peace, 'cause you're screwed.
Look like the site for the above article is pretty interesting. Go take a look.
Clinton Urged To Head NATO - that should finish them off quicker than a merger between NATO and the UN
Saddam Wasn't A Bad Man
Ann Clwyd, a Labour MP, has come out with a scathing smack down of the "Where's the WMD?" crowd. Why do they continue to ignore the mounting evidence of the base evilness of Saddam's regime? Why do they continue to ignore what is shaping up to be the worst human rights catastrophe since Cambodia?
Are they so blinded by their hatred of George W. Bush as to be willing to ignore 800,000 + dead?
I said before that even if there is never any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, the human rights violations would be sufficient reason for war.
I find it incredulous that anyone could read a report like Mrs. Clwyd's and dismiss it as unimportant.
This is not a report that can justify a "yeah, but..." This is reality. This is the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians we were warned about. Does the fact that Saddam killed them make their deaths any less significant?
I don't think so. And I can't believe that anyone who professes to "value human life" or "human rights" could ever blow off something like this.
800,000 dead.
You want to hold a Congressional inquiry into the run up to the war?
Ask why we didn't go in sooner. Ask why we needlessly let people die in these Nazistic concentration camps. Ask why the "human rights champions" in Congress weren't championing human rights. Ask how we could ignore this for 12 years.
Saddam wasn't a bad man. He didn't have any WMDs to justify his removal. </sarcasm>
Just ask the 800,000 dead.
It Must Be The Cheese
Ed. note: This actually was written over the course of two days in the same situation described in the first line.
I've been sitting outside in a tent playing baitfish for the salesmen inside all day, so maybe my brain is a little fried here.
But I've been thinking. A lot. In particular, for whatever strange reason, I've been pondering the Israeli/Palestinian issues, taking into account the personal experiences that I had in the region a few years ago.
When I was over there, there was a very pronounced dichotomy between the thought processes of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. I understand the problems with using generalizations, but in this case they seem, to me at least, to pretty well sum up the situation.
The Israelis seem to have collectively moved onto a higher plane of the hierarchy of needs. What do I mean by that? To explain, we need to look at what some of the debates were about when I was over there.
I call it the Cheeseburger vs. the Jews in Jericho.
What is each argument about? And what does it say about the thought processes of the people having that particular debate?
The cheeseburger debate is, frankly, the one that I have found to be the most fascinating discussions I've ever come across. Basically, while I was over there, there were two major debates going within the Jewish community. First there was the debate over what constituted "work" on the Sabbath. The second was whether or not cheeseburgers, which are a non-kosher mixing of meat and dairy products, would be permitted to be sold in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.
In the end, while I was there, you could get a cheeseburger at the Burger King on the promenade in Tel Aviv, but not in Jerusalem. The ultra-orthodox had won the fight in Jerusalem. It was simply an amazing that someone would debate something as simple as a cheeseburger. It's not too often that I claim culture shock, but this debate was one of those times.
On the other side of the line, in the West Bank, you had raging the traditional desire to rid the Palestinian lands of the Jews. Being Jewish in Jericho was not a good idea. The Palestinians wanted you out or dead. The Jews were about as welcome in Jericho at the time as Osama would be in New York now.
So what does this tell us about the type of people that we're dealing with here?
It tells me, at least, that the Israelis have moved to a higher level of thinking. There isn't a great national cry for the annihilation of the Arabs. Arabs are part of the Israeli people. They live there, they work there, they go to school there, they vote there and they are members of the Knesset. They can be Israeli, if they want to be.
But why my fixation on the cheeseburger debate?
It was serious stuff there at the time. But it also pointed to the fact that, by and large, the Israeli people were peaceful. They weren't concerned with wiping Palestine, Syria or Jordan from the map. They were more concerned with hamburger condiments. There was no question about allowing Arabs to live or to live among the Jews. The national character accepted that there are different people and that they have every bit as much right to life as the Israeli Jews did.
In the West Bank, however, the debate was about the right of the Jews to have the state of Israel. The debate was about the right of Jews to have homes in the West Bank. In some quarters (most, some might argue) the debate was about the right of the Jews to live. There was no question of live and let live. The Jews could not peacefully coexist among the residents of the West Bank.
The Palestinians questioned the right to life; the Jews the right to cheese on your hamburger. It's a much, much different take on the sanctity of life. The Jews accepted that the Palestinians should be allowed to live - in peace, if they so chose. The Palestinians decided that the Jews had no right to life in the Holy Land (except maybe in token numbers as in Syria, Iraq or Iran where Jews are the diversity poster children for the regime).
There are of course exceptions to the rule on both sides. There are murderous Jews, like the guy who shot up a mosque during prayer and there are Palestinians who desire peace. But, by and large, the national character of both sides can be summed up as cheeseburgers vs. Jews in Jericho.
But how have we come to this and what are the possible effects on the peace process and the "Road Map?"
The real driving factor involved here is education. Israeli students are taught the importance of critical thought. They are taught the importance of education in making a positive difference in their lives. They are taught to use their knowledge in ways that makes the world better, not worse.
Palestinian students on the other hand are taught the idea of blind obedience. No matter how vile or sick the demands, all made in the name of jihad, the Palestinian kids are taught to act without question. Critical thought is virtually non-existent.
But this isn't to say that the Palestinians are stupid. Far from it. Look at the number of homicide bombers that have degrees from US universities. They are smart people, they simply don't know how to best use their knowledge. A college degree is not the difference between a smart bomb and a dumb bomb.
Stalin and Mao both had purges of the intellectual classes. The Palestinians have managed to affect a purge of the intellectual class, but it's different. This time, it's a voluntary purge. The intellectuals are willingly and knowingly eliminating themselves at the beck and call of the intellectual midgets of Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah, and the al-Asqa Brigade. The inability to critically think or to question those viewed as "authority" has led to this self-decimation.
Until someone in the Palestinian world speaks up and breaks the cycle of dogmatic indoctrination, every attempt at the peace process will fail. The sooner it happens, the easier the process will be, as the educated intellectual classes will be larger. As more and more of the intellectuals remove themselves from the gene pool, it will become much more difficult to have a somewhat rational discussion with the Palestinians. The fewer intellectuals there are will force us to try to reason more with a bunch of manipulative demagogues - instead of dying off like the intellectuals, they are multiplying.
Until the debate in the West Bank moves to a higher level, peace will be always just out of reach. The Palestinians have to accept the right of the Jews to live. There can be no debate about Jews in Jericho if there is to be peace. It must be a foregone and accepted conclusion that they will be there and that they will, like their Israeli Arab counterparts, be full and active citizens.
Why can the Israelis have a cheeseburger debate when they face a challenge like this?
Because they know that they have the national character to withstand the best that the terrorists have to throw at them. They know that no matter the battlefield, whether physical or philosophical, they are currently far better equipped than the Palestinians. They don't fear the Palestinians. They don't fear the terrorists.
They pity them. They want to help them. They reach out to them with open arms and unreciprocated concessions.
Each of which only serves to enrage the Palestinians. Their self-image can't accept the pain of actually accepting the help of the Israelis. They can't stand the idea that their way, the Palestinian way, may not be the best way. There inability to process critical thought prevents them from being able to rationalize their pain; it prevents them from understanding the concept of "no pain, no gain."
Cheeseburgers vs. Jews in Jericho.
Never underestimate the power of the cheeseburger.
June 16, 2003
The Mullahs Are Power Hungry?!?
I would hate to be an Iranian mullah today. 252 new enemies of the state have now pointed out that they may be practicing a form of polytheism, in direct contravention of the teachings of the Qu'ran.
Now maybe it's just me, but I think that this is an excellent, excellent sign. These 252 signatories can't be completely stupid. They have to realize that by questioning and challenging the basis of the Iranian nutocracy they are putting themselves at substantial risk.
It's not quite a Declaration of Independence, but it's pretty close. 252 men put themselves on the line - their homes, their lives, their families are at risk - to call for the same concept of a representative government.
The battle is now becoming clear: it is a battle for the hearts of the general population or the Army of Iran. The students and these 252 respected men have staked out their battle lines in opposition to the nutocracy.
The nuts can win by themselves - they have the weight of the State to back them. If neither the people nor the military join the neo-revolutionaries, then the battle for freedom is lost.
The general population of Iran is timid. They don't know which way this is going to go. So they're going to sit and wait unless something kicks them off the fence.
There are two things that could bring them over to the fight for freedom.
First off, the Army could side with the freedom seekers and that alone would be enough to decide the fate of the battle. Take away the doubt about the outcome and the people will join the fight.
The second thing that could bring the general population around is time. The longer the protests continue with minimal repercussions for the students, the more bold the people will become. As the regime appears to be weaker and weaker, the general population will feel more and more potent.
The one scenario I don't see playing out, this time, is the military turning on the general population or the students - unless the revolution is definitively squashed. I think that it's fairly significant that the military hasn't been front and center in trying to quell the protests. I think that it's an indication that maybe the mullahs are concerned that unleashing the military may let loose a civil war or coup that could lead to their swinging in the breeze.
I think that the students and the signatories of the open letter all realize that their best bet is to win over the general population. The upcoming propaganda battle should be fascinating to watch. Threats, bluster, cajoling, begging, demanding - I expect to see all this and more over the next few weeks as the bloodless battle intensifies.
I hope the neo-revolutionaries are successful for the sake of the students, the Iranian people and the 252 would-be John Hancocks.
June 15, 2003
Quick Links
Here are some of today's stories that I didn't say anything about (but wanted to):
Rome's Imam Removed Over Jihad Sermon - Good, but he should have been removed the next day
Secularism Is On The Rise - Potentially interesting political ramifications
Arab Totalitarianism - An interesting analysis of the politics of the Middle East
When Wahabbi Isn't Enough
Found a whole series of interesting photos and stories about the recent Iranian demonstrations. I though that they might be of some interest even though they've been discussed quite a bit in the blogosphere already.
Now we all know about the protests, now heading into their sixth day. Apparently tonight, the hardliners were shooting in the area of the demonstrations and were just generally being pretty heavy handed in their approach to ending the movement.
But they haven't exactly been peace loving little thugs the last few days either:
A broken door of a student's room is seen at the Hemmat dormitory of Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 14, 2003. Dozens of militants stormed at least two university dormitories, beating up students in their beds and detaining several of them as violence aimed at silencing government critics raged through Iran's capital. (AP Photo/ILNA)
Broken doors of the student's room are seen at the Hemmat dormitory of the Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 14, 2003. Dozens of hard-line militants stormed at least two university dormitories, beating up students in their beds and detaining several of them as violence aimed at silencing government critics raged through Iran's capital. (AP Photo/ILNA)
And they're not just going after property either. There is a human toll to their evil:
An injured student from the Hemmat dormitory of Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran, Iran, Saturday, June 14, 2003 shows a knife wound in the back. Dozens of militants stormed at least two university dormitories, beating up students in their beds and detaining several of them as violence aimed at silencing government critics raged through Iran's capital. (AP Photo/ILNA)
At least the demonstrators aren't being cowed by the terror tactics of the hardliner militants, as evidenced by the photo from the day after the ones above:
Iranian students chant during an overnight anti-government demonstration outside the campus of Tehran University.(AFP/File/Atta Kenare)
The demonstrations by both students and residents:
Local residents join students at the gates of the Tehran University dormitory complex June 13, 2003. Protests against clerical rule continued in the Iranian capital for a third night Friday. REUTERS/Morteza Nikoubazl
are starting to have an effect on the security of the current regimes of the region, as evidenced by this offer from Saudi Arabia of refuge to 300 Iranian clerics in case of revolt. The end is getting near for the Iranian nutcases.
And as our "friend" Saudi Arabia decides that Wahhabi isn't enough extremism for one nation and takes these nuts in, well then they're sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
I wonder how long it will be before Bashar of Syria and Arafat make the move to the sands of Arabia.
Sanity is coming to the region, one totalitarian dictatorship at a time.
Investing Tips Wrap Up
As promised here is a wrap-up post with links to all ten posts in my Investing Tips series:
Part IV - The Economy And The Market
Part IX - Choosing Your Broker
Part X - Choosing The Right Account
I have already started with a new series on some of the different investing strategies. There will be more to come!
I'll Bet They're Real Scared Now
Hamas has now been threatened with the dreaded EU "scowl of disapproval."
Actually they threatened them with "consequences," specifically with discussions about eliminating external support.
Apparently they see nothing wrong with trying to have a dialogue with terrorists. They call on Hamas to observe an immediate cease-fire to allow the implementation of the Road Map.
So what happens after the Road Map? Does Hamas get released to push for the total annihilation of Israel, now with a safe haven in a foreign country?
This is one of the things that bothers me the most about massive, unaccountable bureaucracies. They are more concerned with the process than the outcome. The Eurocrats seem to think that as long as the Road Map is implemented everybody will be happy and will live in a utopian peace.
It's kind of like the anti-Machiavelli: the ends no longer justify the means; the means now justify the ends - no matter what the ends are.
The destruction of Israel through terrorism is OK, so long as the Road Map process is followed.
What a crock.
-Best
-Good
-So-so
-Not good
-Terrible
