Say Anything Blog

[...] human reaction is to centralize and overcontrol. I hope GM can avoid this temptation.(see also Smart!) 9:40 AM   SMART!Cemex is a large Mexican cement company, which also has operations inmany other countries, including the U.S. The company has set up a program called Construmex, targetted at Mexicans who are working in the U.S. and who want to build a house back in Mexico...for parents, for spouses and children still living in Mexico, and/or for their own eventual return to that country. The program allows them to purchase cement and other building materials without incurring the often-high fees charged by money transfer services. It also provides design and building advice.A BusinessWeek article (7/18) tells the story of Ignacio Moreno (not his real name) and his family. Moreno works as a bakery employee in Chicago and contributes $380/month to his Construmex account.Back in Mexico City, Moreno’s mother, Alfreda Rosales, 55, stands proudly at her son’s construction site. The former laundress shares a cramped room with her daughter and grandson as they await the completion of the 1,400-square-foot home. “Ignacio has always been a hard-working boy,” she says, wiping away a tear. In a few years, Moreno plans to live in the new house with his family and mam�. Now he’s thinking bigger—a bakery of his own back home, a project he has already discussed with Construmex.Seems to me that this is a program that is good for lots of people. It’s good for Cemex shareholders (of whom I am one). It’s good for the individuals involved. It’s good for the Mexican economy. Some might argue that it’s not good for the U.S. economy, because the funds transferred might otherwise stay in the U.S. and be spent with American businesses; however, I think that’s a shortsighted view. A lot of the money would be transferred anyhow, but often used less effectively. And an economically-viable Mexico is certainly a vital interest of the U.S.The Construmex program is still small: only 4500 participants so far--but it would seem to have a lot of potential. Cemex is a company which has shown a quirky kind of creativity in the past: In 1998, it introduced the improbable idea of bags of cement as wedding presents--an idea that has apparently been quite successful in Mexico. (According to the book Blue Ocean Strategy, as reviewed in BusinessWeek (4/4).As always, nothing on this weblog should be considered as investment advice.(see also Dumb!) 9:20 AM   POTEMKIN SCHOOLHOUSEA reporter for Britain’s Television Four went undercover in some of the country’s toughest schools. What she found wasn’t pretty:What struck me very early on was that poor, even outrageous indiscipline - children leaping across tables or wandering around brandishing fire extinguishers - had become acceptable. At one school, I was calmly advised by a female colleague to lock the classroom door while I was teaching, to “protect” myself and my class from the marauding groups in the corridors. The look of surprise on my face did not seem to register with her.But when the school inspectors came around, they saw a very different picture: When Ofsted inspectors arrived the week after for a two-day visit, however, the school was suddenly transformed. I got through a whole lesson without incident, the corridors were mayhem-free, the atmosphere calmer.How was this miraculous transformation achieved? It turns out that 20 of the most troublesome pupils had been sent on a “day trip.” Also, managers and experienced teachers from other schools were brought in to teach classes that Her Majesty’s Inspectors would be watching. Staff at 3 other schools told the reporter that “hiding” problem pupils during the inspections was a common practice.This kind of manipulation seems highly comparable, on a moral level, to the fudging of financial results by certain corporate executives. In both cases, the objective is to hide what is really going on from stakeholders who have a right to know. Maybe the legal penalties should be equally draconian.But the fakery, as bad as it is, isn’t the worst of it. If administrators know how to make a school civilized for a day, why don’t they use this knowledge to do it all the time, so that something can actually get learned? If there are 20 students who are making the school intolerable for everyone else, why not throw them out?"Progressives" have created a climate in which this is impossible, claiming that to do so would be to write off those 20 children as hopeless. But in reality, if high standards of acceptable behavior were to be maintained, most of the troublemakers would straighten up and fly right. Out of the 20 “incorrigibles,” I would bet that only 5 or so would wind up needing to be permanantly expelled.But rather than face up to what needs to be done, administrators and their “progressive” allies would rather see a whole school in chaos and an environment in which no one learns anything, with terrible consequences for their entire lives. And, ironically, there is no benefit to the troublemakers, either. The only people who benefit are the “progressives,” who can feel very good about themselves regardless of the destruction that they wreak.(via Melanie Phillips)See also: Penny in the Fusebox 8:54 AM Thursday, July 07, 2005   TERROR ATTACKS HIT U.K.London was hit by a coordinated series of bomb blasts that have killed at least 40 people and injured 300.Blogger Charmaine Yoest is in the U.K. to blog the G-8 summit. Her husband Jack passes along the following e-mail from Charmaine at the Edinburgh airport:"Airport is packed with air passengers unable to leave � all flights are shut down. Uniformed men with machine guns grimly moving about. Stranded travelers with baggage starring up at television monitors, horrified at pictures from London. Alarms and sirens constantly going off echoing thru the Edinburgh airport. There is no panic, but there is shock � the same shock we saw in the faces of resident New Yorkers on 9.11 all over again. There is no word if more bombings are expected."Wireless is down. Charmaine�s site is down. Charmaine is taking pictures; we may try to get something posted on our other site: http://www.Yoest.orgCharmaine and the media entourage were scheduled to fly to London today and out from London either tonight or tomorrow morning. There is no word when air travel will resume in the UK. (via PowerLine)The terrorist organization that claims responsibility for the bombings says “now Britain is burning with fear and terror, from north to south, east to west."John Hinderocker of PowerLine responds: I suspect that at the moment there is not much fear and terror, but lots of rage and anger.And Mindles H Dreck has some words for the people of the U.K. (Follow the link and see under what other historical circumstances this quote was used.)UPDATE: Extensive and continuing coverage at The Command Post.  6:48 AM Wednesday, July 06, 2005   VOICES FROM IRAQHere’s an e-mail from a Kurdish man working as an interpreter with U.S. forces, sent to a friend who is an American soldier. This man has been the recipient of multiple death threats from the terrorists. Excerpt:I can’t have my normal life in Iraq again, but I will never stop fighting. And I will never allow these people to come to take over the government and allow them to kill my family and my tribe again. But in the other face to this situation, I’m happy because now I think I paid back the debts to Coalition Forces, and I have revenged my Kurdish people and I enjoined the forming of democracy in this country. And if I stay alive, I will tell my children that I was with great people, fighting side by side to stop the terrorists. And I will tell them the nice and sad stories about that.Read the whole thing.And here’s an item about hundreds of Iraqis demonstrating against terrorism in Mosul. Participating in a demonstration like this in Iraq is not like participating in a typical campus demonstration in the U.S.--it requires considerable commitment and courage.As Mudville Gazette points out, the mainstream media rarely manages to cover stories like this, but they always manage to cover things like the 200 people who demonstrated against President Bush during his visit to Copenhagen (a city of 1.7 million).Does this kind of coverage pattern reflect partisan politican bias? Outright distaste for anything that might put the U.S. in a positive light? A journalistic preference for covering bad news? Or just a general laziness and incompetence reflected in an inability to develop new kinds of news sources rather than just doing the same old things?Probably some of each, would be my guess.  3:48 PM   THEY ACTUALLY DID ITUnbelievable..the Checkpoint Charlie memorial in Berlin has been destroyed. Although the immediate villain in this matter is the bank that owns the property, the leftist city government of Berlin had a lot to do with the destruction: Protestors accused the authorities, many of them Social Democrats and former Communists, of not wanting to acknowledge the crimes of the former East German regime.  8:48 AM Monday, July 04, 2005   THE FOURTH OF JULY, 2005Roger remembers his visit to Ellis Island.That omniverous reader Sheila has an extensive set of 4th-related posts up.Everyone has heard Samuel Johnson’s aphorism, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” However, I suspect that very few are familiar with some of the other things that he said about patriotism. For example:Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country.(There is some evidence that the “scoundrel” to whom Johnson referred was none other than Edmund Burke. Wow!) 9:25 AM Sunday, July 03, 2005   THE COSTS OF SYNERGYAn old issue of BusinessWeek (12/6/04) provides some interesting data on the effects of mergers on customer service. Surveys were conducted to measure customer perceptions of 28 companies that were involved in major mergers between 1997 and 2002. On the average, customers were significantly less satisfied even two years after deals closed than they were before the mergers.For example, the Qwest acquisition of US West resulted in a 12.5% fall in the customer satisfaction index (compared with a 1.4% fall for the industry as a whole.) The First Union acquisition of Core States resulted in a 8.1% fall (compared with a 2.8% fall for the industry). Lots of other examples are given.The study does show some cases where customer satisfaction improved after a merger: for example, Nestle’s deal with Ralston Purina took satisfaction up by 3.7% (vs +1.2% for the industry). But these cases are a lot rarer than the other kind.In statistical studies like this, of course, it’s notoriously difficult to untangle cause and effect. It’s possible that lots of other things were going on at the same time, in addition to the mergers, that had an impact on customer service. Still, these results should be carefully considered by anyone planning a merger or acquisition.And these customer satifaction issues are not without real cost. Another study estimates that about one quarter of people with $1 million or more in investable assets get so upset that they take money out of their accounts soon after their bank mergers. I’m sure that banking isn’t the only industry in which this kind of thing happens.Obviously, there are things that can be done to reduce the likelihood of customer pain in the wake of a merger. However, it’s all too easy to kid oneself that the situation is better in hand than it actually is. There are a lot of moving parts in organizations, and they aren’t always visible until one get enmeshed in the details. Remember, four of the most dangerous words in the English language are “It’s different this time."In the pro-forma P&L statements that are used to assess the potential imact of mergers, there should be a line for the negative impact of customer defections. Maybe in certain cases that line should be zero, or even positive, but experience as described in this study seems to suggest that those cases are relatively rare--and, hence, such assumptions need to be justified and challenged. More often, there will indeed be a negative item for defections, partially offsetting (or maybe even wholly offsetting) any apparent synergies claimed for the merger.None of which is to say that there aren’t worthwhile mergers...but there are way too many of the other kind.See also my post Synergy, or Just Syn? and also Diseconomies of Scale and Mergers, Acquistions, Princesses, and Toads.  11:33 AM Saturday, July 02, 2005   AN ODIOUS COMPARISONReferring to allegations that Iran’s new President-elect was among those who held 52 American hostages in Teheran, NBC’s Brian Williams said:"What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today: The first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries… and might have been called “terrorists” at the time by the British Crown, after all..."Say Anything explains to Mr Williams a few of the differences between the Founding Fathers and the Iranian terrorists.And David Roeder, who was one of the Americans held hostage, remembers his captors well:Roeder also was riveted by memories of the interrogation where his son, Jim, who has a form of cerebral palsy, was threatened. Ahmadinejad “was not the interrogator or the interpreter, but he was there, and he was clearly in charge,” Roeder said.The threat to his family was detailed, he said. His captors knew the address of the home in Alexandria, Va., where his wife and two children were living. They also knew the number of the bus his son rode to special education class and the location of the school.Yep, sounds just like something George Washington would do.Williams seems to think that if two groups are both engaged in a form of “revolution” or “resistance” that makes them equivalent, regardless of the objectives of said resistance or of the methods used. There was a violent and short-lived “resistance” movement known as the Werewolves among young Nazis after the Allied victory in World War II. Would Williams argue that the fact they were engaging in an attempted “revolution” makes them equivalent to the Founding Fathers or the French Resistance?Williams’ comments have been criticized on blogs and elsewhere, and he has attempted to defend himself, as follows:Today, apparently, on some radio talk shows and blogs, my friends in the media have accused me of labeling George Washington a terrorist. They apparently missed my point: That the BRITISH CROWN might have viewed American revolutionaries that way.My question � and specifically the line, “what would it all matter...” was meant to address the popular support within Iran for those who acted against the U.S. and are now in positions of power.It won’t wash. Williams didn’t call George Washington a “terrorist,” but his comment--especially the phrase “what would it matter” clearly tends to set up a specious moral equivalence.  8:45 AM   WHAT IS GOING ON IN BERLIN?In Berlin, there is a Checkpoint Charlie Monument dedicated to those killed by the East German Communist regime.On July 5, the leftist city government of Berlin plans to destroy this monument.A protest demonstration is scheduled tomorrow, Sunday, July 3. David’s Medienkritik has been following this story.  8:36 AM   [...]

Dude, you’re the one who demanded the corporate owned media start labelling the insugents in Iraq “terrorists.” So people start pointing out that that is a incendiary label that---if we are to accept your argument---could be attached to other movements that have been vindicated by history.

But as soon as you meet even the most pussy-footed resistance to your jingoistic proclamations, you want to take your ball and your bat and go home.

Thanks for reminding us all of the shallow, simplistic thinking that permeates the right-wing these days.

Wow talk about missing the point.

Your comparison of todays terrorists and our founding fathers was very accurate however, you missed the point by a mile.

And that point was that at the time and by the stanards of that time the british may have considered our founders terrorists. Even though I would find it hard to believe that they would have used the term terrorists, the concept is totally realistic.

It is a well known fact that they found our methods of combat to be less than honorable, hiding behind cover and ambushing rather than straight on confrontation.

Interesting question. I can remember as a younger man being worked up because Menachem Begin was one of the King David bombers in pre-Israel Palastine. It didn’t seem right that a terrorist...and that was a terrorist act if ever there was one...should rise to the position of Prime Minister in a nation under siege from terrorists daily. One would have to research the history of the American Revolution to see who did what to whom but I suspect that Richard’s point demonstrates the difficulties in comparing across eras.

That said...I’d still be ticked if it turns out that an Iranian kidnapper has become a nation’s leader but what are you going to do? Extradite a foreign President?

Don Myers surmises, Dude, you’re the one who demanded the corporate owned media start labelling the insugents in Iraq “terrorists.”

Dude...because that’s like...ya know...what they are man.

But as soon as you meet even the most pussy-footed resistance to your jingoistic proclamations, you want to take your ball and your bat and go home.

What the fuck are you rambling about here?

Thanks for reminding us all of the shallow, simplistic thinking that permeates the right-wing these days.

Speak for yourself Mr. shit-for-brains.

King Don,

We wanted them called Terrorists, because that’s what they are.  Insurgents are people who are rising up against the government of THIER country.  The terrorists in Iraq are, for the most part, foreigners.  They have come to Iraq to instill terror upon the people of Iraq in an attempt to make them cave in and return to theocratic rule of fear and hate.  You, of all people, should be supporting their efforts and call a spade a spade… terrorist a terrorist.

The US Revolutionary army, while employing guerilla tactics, and buring ships and stocks, did not target civilians for attack.  They did not use the threat and act of beheading innocents for political gain.  They did not relish the demise of life in the pursuit of freedom from governmental rule.  All of this is apparent in the “Federalist Papers"… perhaps you should read it.

lik and seth are like Bizarro World version of the Incredible Hulk---the less-informed they are, the angrier they get.

Don Myers resorts to the tactics of the left:

lik and seth are like Bizarro World version of the Incredible Hulk—the less-informed they are, the angrier they get.

Here are some facts.  Let’s see if you can dispute them instead of resorting to personal insults:

1) The word insurgent indicates a citizen of a country who rises up in armed opposition to the established government of that country (which may be foreign imposed) using unconventional means.
2) A rebel is a citizen of a country who arises up in armed opposition using conventional means.  Normally this indicate the organization of the rebels into an army, including the use of a recognizable uniform, the acceptance of the rule of law in the treatment of prisoners, etc.
3) A terrorist is a person who resorts to the use or threat of terror, including but not limited to the infliction of injury or death, in order to achieve political ends.

The American revolutionaries were certainly organized into well-defined armies that fought set battles against the British Army.  It is irrelevant that they chose to fight on their own terms instead of using European “set-piece” battle formations.

It is well established that the enemy combatants in Iraq are principally foreigners.  Being foreigners, they can hardly be classified as either “rebels” or “insurgents”.  Since they undeniably use terror as their principal means of achieving political ends, “terrorists” certainly does apply.

This may be an incendiary to Don, but so what?  It is the terrorists themselves, who have given terrorism such a bad name.  Do you see any other military combatants who regularly target women and children, or behead non-military captives as an act of intimidation?  This is the price you pay for resorting to such extreme tactics.

Finally, it is true that the British used many derogatory and inflammatory terms to describe the rebel movement.  Again, so what?  Just because the British were pissed at the American revolutionaries and called them bad names, doesn’t magically turn the Iraqi enemy combatants into revolutionaries, or make these terrorists brutal tactics suddenly sublime and beautiful to behold.

The left is in really sorry shape when it starts justifying the brutal tactics of these murderous thugs and terrorists brutalizing the innocent citizens of Iraq.

I gain more respect for you each time you type a comment Carrick!  No small measure of a man is his capacity for reason! 

We don’t always agree, but you’re rational, thoughtful, unafraid to admit when you’re ignorant or wrong, and determined to thoughtfully discuss an issue! 

I aspire to live these same attributes.

Cheers!

I still can’t fathom the comparison. Nor the great lack of understanding of the military history of the revolutionary period.

Some portions of the US military used Guerrilla tactics. But those tactics had been used by the British/Colonists during the French-Indian war. The British fully utilized the Indians for their tactics, which could be called terroristic, against the French. And they used the Indians for these same tactics against the colonists during the revolution. The British thought the Guerrilla tactics that the colonists to be so effective that they then used them in the Napoleonic war. The combatants were called skirmishers and they revolutionized warfare for the British. (You can find histories on the 95th rifles which proves this point completely.)

The vast majority of military clashes between the colonists and the British regulars was between uniformed regulars/militia. Don’t forget how poorly the revolution went in battles for the colonists. There were only a couple very important battles, and the french involvement that allowed the revolution to end successively.

Just because the colonists sometimes used non-conventional methods does not mean that the colonists were considered terrorists by the British. They were called ‘rebels,’ which was appropriate. In fact there was much sympathy in England for the colonists. More so than there is sympathy for terrorists in Iraq. There was no butchering of citizens, though the treatment of the tories in the colonies were poor at times, there still was nothing so brutal as beheadings or suicidal bombing.

Seth says:

All of this is apparent in the “Federalist Papers”… perhaps you should read it.

Embarrasingly, I haven’t read it, but will.  Here is an on line version.  I particularly like this quote, from No. 64,

IT IS a just and not a new observation, that enemies to particular persons, and opponents to particular measures, seldom confine their censures to such things only in either as are worthy of blame.

raqis have carried out less than 10 percent of more than 500 suicide attacks since 2003, according to one defense official. At least 213 attacks have occurred this year - 172 by vehicle and 41 by bombers on foot - according to a count by The Associated Press.

From this post

"It is well established that the enemy combatants in Iraq are principally foreigners."---Carrick

Says who? Not the US military.

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
As the US trained, armed and established camps for the Mujahadin
to battle godless commies, the terrorist and the freedom fighter are one man.

Suicide attacks are a small part of the insurgency.
How you tell where someone is from after they have blown themselves
and everyone around them must be an interesting process.

In our last assault on Fallujah , the Marine general reported 1000
insurgents killed , 10 being foreigners.

Don Myers spit out, lik and seth are like Bizarro World version of the Incredible Hulk—the less-informed they are, the angrier they get.

You’re the one who comes to this site angry and spreading hateful invective Don. I recognize this and am fed up with you.  Consequently you will see the result of me being fed up with your bullshit.

In closing, you really need to work on your projection problem.

WOOF: Suicide attacks are a small part of the insurgency.
Unless you count civilian deaths of course.

How you tell where someone is from after they have blown themselves
and everyone around them must be an interesting process.  In most cases, the identity of the person who “martyrs” himself is known, either by materials recovered at the site, or by identification of the individual via one of the terrorist groups.  In many cases, you can track down stories of “martyrdom” on the Web (see e.g., this article) In Saudi Arabia, Syria and other Muslim countries there is prestige associated with martyrdom for the family of the martyr, so these people generally don’t hide their identity.

Seth says: I gain more respect for you each time you type a comment Carrick! No small measure of a man is his capacity for reason!

That is very kind of you to say.  Thank you.

First Carrick Liwid is one of the most inflammatory posters here.

Second your definitions are beautifull and well written and certainly apply to the standards of today however, Americans today may have considered the American Army as organized but the Bristish certainly did not (I am not convinced that the Americans of the day did), therefore it is easy to conclude that they may have considered us and our tactics as barbaric possibly at the level of being a terrorist ( I am not sure the term was used the way we do), which is the initial point. I think Meyers is trying to say that the original point was missed because some people have to slant it in thier direction if they do not agree with the simple basic concept that was offered.

Richard, I don’t disagree with your comments in general.  I think the mistake is this: Just because the British might have used a label like “terrorist” to describe the actions of American revolutionaries on the battlefield, does not automatically turn Iraqi terrorists into revolutionaries. The problem with Brian William’s comment is that it has the effect of conflating these two.

While I don’t like to see our troups get killed, it doesn’t turn my stomach the way the it does when a suicide bomber targets Iraqi civilians.  The use of IED devices against American soldiers is a grave danger to our soldiers (and to unfortunate civilians who are of course unarmored), but to me it is a reasonable form of warfare, which can be likened to ambushing British soldiers from behind trees.

On the other hand, can you imagine what would have happened if American revolutionaries had consistently targeted civilians?  Not only England, but the entire world, would have condemned such debauchery.

The bottom line, like I said, is it is the terrorists who have given themselves a bad name.  There is absolutely nothing defensible about suicide attacks on noncombatants.  Conflating Iraq with the American Revolution is just another tactic to try and “repackage” the despicable acts of terrorists into something more palatable. 

I’m not going to get into war history (too OT), however, do you have a reference for this:

Americans today may have considered the American Army as organized but the Bristish certainly did not

[...] Brian Williams, responding to criticism for his comments regarding the comparison of our founding fathers to the extreme Islamic terrorists we’re currently fighting around the globe: Today, apparently, on some radio talk shows and blogs, my friends in the media have accused me of labeling George Washington a terrorist. They apparently missed my point: That the BRITISH CROWN might have viewed American revolutionaries that way. [...]

Brian Williams thinks a comparison between our founding fathers and terrorists is fair. What do you think? Via Wizbang and Ankle Biting Pundits.  [IMG]

I see where those “founding fathers” in Iraq killed 32 children in a bomb blast as US troops were handing out candy:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com/#112130259278013521

Can you see George Washington doing the same?

[...] First Michael Moore brought you the idea that the terrorists in Iraq were equivalent to America’s revolutionary minutemen. Then NBC News anchor Brian Williams quipped that the terrorists weren’t all that different, from the British perspective, than our founding fathers. [...]

[...] Friday, July 01, 2005 [...]

>>>
And, perhaps most importantly:
5. The terrorists are fighting against the spread of freedom. Our founding fathers fought against an oppressive British regime to spread freedom.
Despite what Brian Williams thinks, I don’t believe this is an issue worth debating. The comparisons aren’t even remotely apt and even engaging in the discussion lends a semblance of legitimacy to the murderous, fascist tyrants we’re fighting in Iraq and around the world.
<

Our founding fathers had their own agendas, but what all wanted and agreed on was the fact to have control of the American Colonies.
Our funding fathers after winning against the oppressive British regime, they spread freedom to only the white man and not the color people. How ironic is that?
In one hand you don’t want to be oppressed by the British regime, and with the other you are oppressing the color people in America. Speaking of now, with one hand you are helping the refuges in Lebanon and with the other you are aiding Israel with more missiles.
One has a valid point in comparing the Founding Fathers and the terrorists of our times. If you look at it, from the point of view of the British Empire; there are terrorists or agitators. Even the Roman Empire had a word for terrorist or agitators, they were called Barbarians. Now looking at it from the point of view of the poor and the oppressed, those agitators would like a lot like Freedom Fighters, don’t you think?