Update 12-17-2010 - Information on the State of Texas vs. Richard Nutt in available online. For the record, Nutt's SPN is 02535111. For updates enter the SPN at the Harris County District Clerk Office search page.
Recently two cases of police accused of allegedly working with drug dealers for protection surfaced in Houston. While I believe most law enforcement officers are honest, I also believe power corrupts and sometimes even an honest person will throw away his good name in pursuit of seemingly easy gain.
This topic is also of concern and interest to me due to the on going violence, corruption and drug cartel wars in Mexico. For people believing that their influence and reach isn't strong in the United States, they are delusional. Drugs and money are powerful influences and the corruption that is caught may only be the tip of the iceberg.
In the case, Harris County Deputy Richard Nutt stands accuse of helping out drug dealers in a scam called a "Drug Rip." A drug rip is a simple scam. The dealer sells to a buyer. The crooked cop pulls the buyer over on a traffic stop and confiscates the drugs. The cop returns the drugs to the dealer and gets paid. The drug dealer gets to keep the money and the drugs. It's a nice deal cause is the dealer really going to go to the cops to report his stolen stash?
To top things off, according to the linked article in the Houston Chronicle, Nutt pulled down over $94,000 in salary. I know deputies don't earn that much so it had to be through overtime and extra jobs. When you earn that much and it's dependent on extra work, it is easy to get in over your head financially. Since the money is dependent on extra work, if the work dries up the bills loom big. He may have used the drug money as a way to make up in case the extra work goes away. Or the temptation of easy money was just to good to pass up.
Whatever the case, I'm sure we'll find out more in the future.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Nothing To Fear - Part 3
One of the battle cries on the Great Immigration Debate is "if you're here legally then you have nothing to worry about."
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."
Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.
So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.
Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.
So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?
Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.
So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?
To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."
Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.
So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.
Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.
So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?
Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.
So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?
To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
GOP & Obama Tax Cut
Like most people, I don't like paying taxes. In fact I don't know anyone who likes paying taxes. Taxes are a fact of life and won't ever go away.
Recently President Obama and the GOP leadership agreed to extend the Bush regime's tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits for 13 more months for 7 million people and cut 2% off the Social Security payroll tax.
I agree with extending the Bush tax cuts to all levels of income. Included on that cut are dividends taxed at reduced rate instead of ordinary income. I like the lower dividend tax rate for many reasons. First, retirees fund part of their retirement income with dividend paying stocks. Others use dividends payouts to build their nest egg for retirement. The lower tax rate encourages people to invest and save for the future. It also encourages companies to reward investors with cash versus stock buy backs. Money goes directly into the accounts of shareholders or reinvested. The capital gains tax also falls under this category of tax cuts that I like.
I disagree with the continuous unemployment extensions. By constantly extending the payments, the government creates a dependency and gives the unemployed no motivation to find jobs. One of Obama's battle cries is that small business are the engine behind the growth of the economy. He backs this talk up with trying to create incentives for small business to hire.
However, the unemployment extensions kill a major source of small business ideas. Who goes into business for him or herself? Usually those that either struggle financially. They get creative and look for innovative ways to make a living. With the government hand outs, that innovation and motivation is eliminated.
Another problem unemployment creates is that jobs out there aren't getting filled. Many people turn down jobs because they would earn less than unemployment pay. Shortening the length of payments again gives people a reason to take jobs versus taking a free ride.
I have no problems with short term unemployment but like the 25 year old son who won't move out, enough is enough. The U.S. government shouldn't carry the unemployed forever.
Lopping off two percent from Social Security taxes for a one year period is another bad idea. While it sounds nice in theory, it benefits higher wager earners more than lower earners. The article "High-income Households To Benefit More..." explains what I'm referring to. We all know Social Security will eventually be insolvent. Already the funds paid out exceed the incoming funds. Slashing off two percent only adds to an ballooning deficit.
Finally, who is going to pay for the tax cuts. The government doles out unemployment, cuts Social Security taxes and does nothing to offset the spending. Eventually the bill will come due. My generation and the next might not get the full brunt of it but someone will and that won't be pretty. Asks the Greeks and the Irish.
Recently President Obama and the GOP leadership agreed to extend the Bush regime's tax cuts, extend unemployment benefits for 13 more months for 7 million people and cut 2% off the Social Security payroll tax.
I agree with extending the Bush tax cuts to all levels of income. Included on that cut are dividends taxed at reduced rate instead of ordinary income. I like the lower dividend tax rate for many reasons. First, retirees fund part of their retirement income with dividend paying stocks. Others use dividends payouts to build their nest egg for retirement. The lower tax rate encourages people to invest and save for the future. It also encourages companies to reward investors with cash versus stock buy backs. Money goes directly into the accounts of shareholders or reinvested. The capital gains tax also falls under this category of tax cuts that I like.
I disagree with the continuous unemployment extensions. By constantly extending the payments, the government creates a dependency and gives the unemployed no motivation to find jobs. One of Obama's battle cries is that small business are the engine behind the growth of the economy. He backs this talk up with trying to create incentives for small business to hire.
However, the unemployment extensions kill a major source of small business ideas. Who goes into business for him or herself? Usually those that either struggle financially. They get creative and look for innovative ways to make a living. With the government hand outs, that innovation and motivation is eliminated.
Another problem unemployment creates is that jobs out there aren't getting filled. Many people turn down jobs because they would earn less than unemployment pay. Shortening the length of payments again gives people a reason to take jobs versus taking a free ride.
I have no problems with short term unemployment but like the 25 year old son who won't move out, enough is enough. The U.S. government shouldn't carry the unemployed forever.
Lopping off two percent from Social Security taxes for a one year period is another bad idea. While it sounds nice in theory, it benefits higher wager earners more than lower earners. The article "High-income Households To Benefit More..." explains what I'm referring to. We all know Social Security will eventually be insolvent. Already the funds paid out exceed the incoming funds. Slashing off two percent only adds to an ballooning deficit.
Finally, who is going to pay for the tax cuts. The government doles out unemployment, cuts Social Security taxes and does nothing to offset the spending. Eventually the bill will come due. My generation and the next might not get the full brunt of it but someone will and that won't be pretty. Asks the Greeks and the Irish.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wikileaks, Assange, National Security
I'm a staunch support of First Amendment rights. I'm against any government interference or censorship of writers, musicians, artist or any other artist endeavor. Blogs, journalism and academic writings also warrant First Amendment protections.
I'm also a supporter of whistle blowers in private industry or public service. I feel just as strongly about investigative journalism. The fourth estate is an essential pillar of a free and open democracy.
So where does Wikileaks fit into my beliefs of First Amendment rights?
It's delicate balancing act but there are somethings that must remain classified, state secrets and privileged information with in a government. State secrets are a fact of life in any government. Military and national security secrets are vital to a government's survival.
So when should the press, an organization or individual publish or reveal government classified information? I believe that only when government corruption, waste or gross ineffectiveness exist then the public has a right to know.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks rightfully published information that the public needed to know. Wikileaks in the past published government and private industry documents that revealed corruption. Abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed. Other organizations also exposed abuse in both military theaters. The Abu Ghraib abuses stand as an example of such abuse.
So where does Assange and Wikileaks cross the line? When the show no discretion in releasing documents. Sometimes they release documents for the sake of releasing them with no care of the dangers posed to individuals or with regard to state secrets. Just because a document is in government files doesn't mean the public has a right to know.
From what I can tell, Wikileaks operates under a policy of shear volume dumps without vetting or redacting damaging information. Instead of studying the information, Wikileaks throws everything out there without analysis or conclusions. In the past, there has been solid reasons why someone released information. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were genuine cases of government lies and corruption. In some cases, Wikileaks makes no such case. They just merely put the documents out there because it is a government document and therefore the public must know.
On the other hand, some of the reaction by the press has been overboard. Many are reacting with shock that the U.S. wrote up psychological profiles on world leaders. There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do that or assemble some kind of dossier on a foreign leader. In all likelihood, most governments not only have profiles on world leaders but also on minsters, generals and other civic and military leaders. The outrage is overblown.
If nothing else, Wikileaks stirred the pot. Right or wrong, the information is now out there. At some point, if not now, Wikileaks will expose something they have no right to.
I wonder, if they obtained nuclear, military or national security secrets, would they publish them?
I'm also a supporter of whistle blowers in private industry or public service. I feel just as strongly about investigative journalism. The fourth estate is an essential pillar of a free and open democracy.
So where does Wikileaks fit into my beliefs of First Amendment rights?
It's delicate balancing act but there are somethings that must remain classified, state secrets and privileged information with in a government. State secrets are a fact of life in any government. Military and national security secrets are vital to a government's survival.
So when should the press, an organization or individual publish or reveal government classified information? I believe that only when government corruption, waste or gross ineffectiveness exist then the public has a right to know.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks rightfully published information that the public needed to know. Wikileaks in the past published government and private industry documents that revealed corruption. Abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan were exposed. Other organizations also exposed abuse in both military theaters. The Abu Ghraib abuses stand as an example of such abuse.
So where does Assange and Wikileaks cross the line? When the show no discretion in releasing documents. Sometimes they release documents for the sake of releasing them with no care of the dangers posed to individuals or with regard to state secrets. Just because a document is in government files doesn't mean the public has a right to know.
From what I can tell, Wikileaks operates under a policy of shear volume dumps without vetting or redacting damaging information. Instead of studying the information, Wikileaks throws everything out there without analysis or conclusions. In the past, there has been solid reasons why someone released information. Watergate and the Pentagon Papers were genuine cases of government lies and corruption. In some cases, Wikileaks makes no such case. They just merely put the documents out there because it is a government document and therefore the public must know.
On the other hand, some of the reaction by the press has been overboard. Many are reacting with shock that the U.S. wrote up psychological profiles on world leaders. There isn't a government in the world that doesn't do that or assemble some kind of dossier on a foreign leader. In all likelihood, most governments not only have profiles on world leaders but also on minsters, generals and other civic and military leaders. The outrage is overblown.
If nothing else, Wikileaks stirred the pot. Right or wrong, the information is now out there. At some point, if not now, Wikileaks will expose something they have no right to.
I wonder, if they obtained nuclear, military or national security secrets, would they publish them?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
ATT Wireless War - Resolution and Victory
Finally the unending war against AT&T Wireless ended.
The whole time I was having problems I was a pain the ass. I constantly called to report problems on my phone. Towards the end I kept telling whoever I talked to I want all these problems documented. I give them credit, they did.
I gave up and switched to Verizon in September. When I got my final bill from AT&T I decided to contest the early termination fee. What did I have to lose? The worst they could say is no.
I didn't know who to call though. A customer service rep told me only a manager could waive the fee. I already beat my head calling customer service and dealing with them.
The best I could come up with was to call AT&T corporate headquarters in Dallas. I got the switchboard operator and explained my situation. She transferred me to the Office of the President. A lady answered the phone and again I explained everything. She said she'd look into my account. I asked her if she would go back and look at my problems for the last several months and take that into account. She said yes and I should get a reply within 48 hours.
Two hours later at while at the store, my cell phone rang and I didn't recognize the number. Normally I don't answer but I did. It was the lady from AT&T. She told me she looked at my account and saw my problems went back to January of this year. She decided to waive the termination fee.
It was a complete capitulation by AT&T. I finally received a satisfactory resolution to a nightmare of a situation. The service by AT&T reach a point of complete unacceptable levels. Initially it was dropped calls and no service from a piece of garbage Lv-Vu phone. Customer service reps were baffled that I had a strong signal and still had problems. A new phone improved call reception but everything else went downhill. It reached an apex when I missed countless text messages, several voicemails and internet access. No matter what the technical department tried nothing worked. It even reached a point after the gave me a new SIM card and then a new phone that they told me there wasn't anything more they could do for me.
My recommendation to anyone who is considering AT&T is to avoid them at all costs. Their service, not just based on my experience but coworkers and friends too, is unreliable and customer service is nice but support for phones is garbage. That it took a call to headquarters to finally resolve my case is pretty pathetic.
The whole time I was having problems I was a pain the ass. I constantly called to report problems on my phone. Towards the end I kept telling whoever I talked to I want all these problems documented. I give them credit, they did.
I gave up and switched to Verizon in September. When I got my final bill from AT&T I decided to contest the early termination fee. What did I have to lose? The worst they could say is no.
I didn't know who to call though. A customer service rep told me only a manager could waive the fee. I already beat my head calling customer service and dealing with them.
The best I could come up with was to call AT&T corporate headquarters in Dallas. I got the switchboard operator and explained my situation. She transferred me to the Office of the President. A lady answered the phone and again I explained everything. She said she'd look into my account. I asked her if she would go back and look at my problems for the last several months and take that into account. She said yes and I should get a reply within 48 hours.
Two hours later at while at the store, my cell phone rang and I didn't recognize the number. Normally I don't answer but I did. It was the lady from AT&T. She told me she looked at my account and saw my problems went back to January of this year. She decided to waive the termination fee.
It was a complete capitulation by AT&T. I finally received a satisfactory resolution to a nightmare of a situation. The service by AT&T reach a point of complete unacceptable levels. Initially it was dropped calls and no service from a piece of garbage Lv-Vu phone. Customer service reps were baffled that I had a strong signal and still had problems. A new phone improved call reception but everything else went downhill. It reached an apex when I missed countless text messages, several voicemails and internet access. No matter what the technical department tried nothing worked. It even reached a point after the gave me a new SIM card and then a new phone that they told me there wasn't anything more they could do for me.
My recommendation to anyone who is considering AT&T is to avoid them at all costs. Their service, not just based on my experience but coworkers and friends too, is unreliable and customer service is nice but support for phones is garbage. That it took a call to headquarters to finally resolve my case is pretty pathetic.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Quick Takes on California Prop 8, Ground Zero Mosque
Prop 8 and Same Sex Marriages
In general I'm against same sex marriage. It really serves no purpose. Why a same sex couple should be given same the same rights as a heterosexual couple doesn't register. Since time immemorial marriage consists of the union of a man and a woman. Why change now?
I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals or any kind of sexual being. The only sexual being I abhor is a sexual predator whether the predator is a rapist or pedophile. What consenting adults do in the privacy is their business.
In fact I think homosexuals should enjoy all freedoms conferred on all citizens. They should be allowed to live, work and associate where ever and with whoever they want. They should be afforded equal protection in all aspects of life.
So why do I draw the line at marriage? It's hard to explain but I believe very few things are intrinsic to human nature or survival. The partnership between man and woman is one of those few built in survival instincts man has. Biologically, historically and socially homosexuality serves no purpose. I'm not against same sex pairings. That's an individual choice but I see no reason why it should be given equal status as the marriage of a man and a woman.
Ground Zero Mosque
Since I'm weighing in on controversial subjects I might as well chime in on the Ground Zero Mosque.
As a Libertarian I have one position on the matter. The proposed mosque is on private property and they can do whatever they want with it.
Still I have to question the reason why Muslims chose such a controversial site for a mosque. The powers that made the decision had to know that the project would raise the ire of the American public. The majority of American Muslims stand with America in the war against radical Islamists. Muslims in America are left alone for the most part. So why provoke the public with choosing a site so close to an American tragedy? Aside from a few nut jobs, Americans accept Muslims in our community. Why endanger that support or tolerance? Whatever the reasoning behind the choice, there is no wisdom in it.
In general I'm against same sex marriage. It really serves no purpose. Why a same sex couple should be given same the same rights as a heterosexual couple doesn't register. Since time immemorial marriage consists of the union of a man and a woman. Why change now?
I'm not passing judgment on homosexuals or any kind of sexual being. The only sexual being I abhor is a sexual predator whether the predator is a rapist or pedophile. What consenting adults do in the privacy is their business.
In fact I think homosexuals should enjoy all freedoms conferred on all citizens. They should be allowed to live, work and associate where ever and with whoever they want. They should be afforded equal protection in all aspects of life.
So why do I draw the line at marriage? It's hard to explain but I believe very few things are intrinsic to human nature or survival. The partnership between man and woman is one of those few built in survival instincts man has. Biologically, historically and socially homosexuality serves no purpose. I'm not against same sex pairings. That's an individual choice but I see no reason why it should be given equal status as the marriage of a man and a woman.
Ground Zero Mosque
Since I'm weighing in on controversial subjects I might as well chime in on the Ground Zero Mosque.
As a Libertarian I have one position on the matter. The proposed mosque is on private property and they can do whatever they want with it.
Still I have to question the reason why Muslims chose such a controversial site for a mosque. The powers that made the decision had to know that the project would raise the ire of the American public. The majority of American Muslims stand with America in the war against radical Islamists. Muslims in America are left alone for the most part. So why provoke the public with choosing a site so close to an American tragedy? Aside from a few nut jobs, Americans accept Muslims in our community. Why endanger that support or tolerance? Whatever the reasoning behind the choice, there is no wisdom in it.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Effort To Preserve Texas State Records
In today's edition of the Houston Chronicle, I found an article about attempting to preserve old historical records of Texas. A Historical Court Records Task Force to survey the condition of various state district and county courts. The main purpose was to see what records still survive, what condition they are in and how they are being preserved.
The results were startling. While a lot of records were destroyed, stolen or lost, thousands still survive. The conditions of existing records vary from good to poor to disintegrating or eaten by rats.
The Task Force plans a more detailed survey. They will also look at ways to secure and preserve the state history.
I think it's amazing task and great job if they can pull it off. So many characters formed Texas...Judge Roy Bean, Sam Houston, Davey Crocket and Stephen F. Austin to name just a few. An amazing library can be digitized of all document they can find and then store them for save keeping.
On a personal note for me, record gathering and keeping helped my own family research immeasurably. Using census I traced one branch of the family back to South Carolina after the Revolutionary War. I followed a path they blazed from South Carolina to Mississippi before finally settling in Texas.
Although it had a personal reason for me, such records document the events and stories of the Great State of Texas. Private funds and grants need to come in to help pay to preserve and scan all the documents possible and provide for secure storage. All other options don't qualify for ideas or debate.
The results were startling. While a lot of records were destroyed, stolen or lost, thousands still survive. The conditions of existing records vary from good to poor to disintegrating or eaten by rats.
The Task Force plans a more detailed survey. They will also look at ways to secure and preserve the state history.
I think it's amazing task and great job if they can pull it off. So many characters formed Texas...Judge Roy Bean, Sam Houston, Davey Crocket and Stephen F. Austin to name just a few. An amazing library can be digitized of all document they can find and then store them for save keeping.
On a personal note for me, record gathering and keeping helped my own family research immeasurably. Using census I traced one branch of the family back to South Carolina after the Revolutionary War. I followed a path they blazed from South Carolina to Mississippi before finally settling in Texas.
Although it had a personal reason for me, such records document the events and stories of the Great State of Texas. Private funds and grants need to come in to help pay to preserve and scan all the documents possible and provide for secure storage. All other options don't qualify for ideas or debate.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Naomi Campbell's Soul-less Existence
The self absorbed, self centered, don't give a fuck attitude of some people boggles the mind. Some people have no regard for loss of life, mutilation and atrocities inflicted. The only thing that matters is the world revolving around them.
I'm talking about Naomi Campbell who is perhaps one of the ugliest so called "super models" ever to walk the earth. I'm not even talking about her physical appearance. I refer to the dark cold spot that resides where most people have hearts.
Campbell was forced to testify against her will in the trial of Liberian Charles Taylor who stands accused of crimes against humanity. Taylor allegedly trafficked in blood diamonds and proceeds were used to fund war in Sierra Leone.
Thousands were killed, displaced, raped, mutilated and separated from families in the war.
Campbell's cold empty place in her chest showed during her testimony. To quote her directly according to the Houston Chronicle article:
A big inconvenience for her? Just wants to get on with her life? Talk about self centered and thinking the world is only about yourself.
If it's a big inconvenience for her I wonder what it is for all the people displaced, hurt or killed on the war? She think there was a picnic going on in Sierra Leone? Poor thing just wants to get on with her life. Unfortunately there are many dead in Sierra Leone who can't say the same. Maybe someone should drag Campbell kicking and screaming to the war sites. Force her to visit with mutilated victims. See the children harmed and made orphans.
Someone should show Naomi Campbell the real world. The glamor ritzy life in only lived by the relatively few. I don't begrudge success. In fact I celebrate success. What I hate is the self centered egotistical idiots like Campbell. I really believe she thinks the whole deal is trivial. No Campbell, this isn't a trivial exercise. People died. Sorry your little life had to be shattered to try and help achieve justice.
I'm talking about Naomi Campbell who is perhaps one of the ugliest so called "super models" ever to walk the earth. I'm not even talking about her physical appearance. I refer to the dark cold spot that resides where most people have hearts.
Campbell was forced to testify against her will in the trial of Liberian Charles Taylor who stands accused of crimes against humanity. Taylor allegedly trafficked in blood diamonds and proceeds were used to fund war in Sierra Leone.
Thousands were killed, displaced, raped, mutilated and separated from families in the war.
Campbell's cold empty place in her chest showed during her testimony. To quote her directly according to the Houston Chronicle article:
I was made to be here. So obviously, I’m just, like, wanting to get this
over with and get on with my life,” Campbell said. “This is a big
inconvenience for me.
A big inconvenience for her? Just wants to get on with her life? Talk about self centered and thinking the world is only about yourself.
If it's a big inconvenience for her I wonder what it is for all the people displaced, hurt or killed on the war? She think there was a picnic going on in Sierra Leone? Poor thing just wants to get on with her life. Unfortunately there are many dead in Sierra Leone who can't say the same. Maybe someone should drag Campbell kicking and screaming to the war sites. Force her to visit with mutilated victims. See the children harmed and made orphans.
Someone should show Naomi Campbell the real world. The glamor ritzy life in only lived by the relatively few. I don't begrudge success. In fact I celebrate success. What I hate is the self centered egotistical idiots like Campbell. I really believe she thinks the whole deal is trivial. No Campbell, this isn't a trivial exercise. People died. Sorry your little life had to be shattered to try and help achieve justice.
Friday, August 6, 2010
AT&T Wireless Saga Part 2
Everything went smooth for a few months. Then I noticed I'd go a couple of days without a text message. I'd send my friends a test text asking for a reply. I'd never get one. I'd call AT&T and the usual power down, remove sim card and battery and put it back together routine. It would work for a while and then start over again. I'd call again and they'd do what little troubleshooting they could do over the phone. It was a cat and mouse game. Then the routine got old.
The whole problem reached an apex two weekends ago when I was in San Antonio. I wasn't getting text messages, phone calls or voicemails. I had to call AT&T three times and still I had lingering problems. One customer service rep tried to tell me it was because I wasn't in my home area. I call bullshit on that. They have all these commercials about nationwide coverage and they can't get me a message or call 200 miles away from my home? One of the reps was nice enough to credit my account $25. Another rep was just a dumbass. He could never quiet understand my problem. The third said to go into a store when I get back to Houston and they will replace my sim card.
I'm pissed off all weekend because I have friends I want to see and can't make plans cause I can't communicate with them.
The real pisser happened after I got home. Someone left me a voicemail on Saturday and it didn't show up in my voicemail inbox until Tuesday. I was extremely pissed off at that moment. I called AT&T immediately and told them what happened. Again they offered to replace the sim card.
I finally got the sim card replaced this week. I again went out of town. Between work and out of town I didn't have time to change it until two nights ago.
I got into the habit of calling AT&T every time something went wrong. I wanted to leave a phone record of all my complaints. At the very least, if they didn't document my exact problem someone could see I've repeatedly called. I told one rep that I didn't think the sim card replacement would work.
And the result with the new card? The same garbage. More missed text messages, text messages received in duplicate and sent in triplicate. One buddy told me to quit texting because everything was coming across three times.
I've about had it. AT&T has offered to replace the phone. As far as I'm concerned it's a last grasp hail mary. If this doesn't work I'm going to cancel my account whether or not I have to pay the disconnect fee.
Yesterday again I had trouble with text messages. I have seven verified messages sent by others that I didn't receive. So I called in today to once again make it know I was having issues. I asked the rep at what point does this become an exercise in futility? When does it become a point where I can cancel my contract without penalty? His reply was under the terms of contract I have to pay a penalty. I replied with a simple fact. I don't pay for my service my phone gets disconnected but if I don't get service I can't cancel my contract. Again he repeated his claim of contract terms don't allow it. I reminded him that their are two parties to a contract. I pay for services provided by AT&T and if I don't get the services then AT&T isn't living up to their end of the contract. I could tell I was frustrating him with simple logic. Finally he told me that if the new phone fails to talk to a manager and they have the power to waive the fee. I asked is it impossible to get a manager to do and he said it was pretty close to impossible. He said it would take an extreme case to get the fee waived.
Finally I asked the rep to please document the fact that I'm having problems again with the text messaging. He obliged and read back to me all that he wrote. I thanked him since I overwhelmed him with logic.
Tomorrow I'm going to try and get the new phone. Like the sim card replacement, I don't think a new phone will work either. This problem has happened over the course of two different phone models. I seriously doubt a third will be any different.
AT&T's service, for whatever reason, has turned into total garbage for me. The customer service was horrible with the LG-Vu until I threatened to cancel. This time around customer service has been more understanding and better but still equally worthless. If the third phone doesn't work I'll cancel service whether I have to pay early termination or not.
The whole problem reached an apex two weekends ago when I was in San Antonio. I wasn't getting text messages, phone calls or voicemails. I had to call AT&T three times and still I had lingering problems. One customer service rep tried to tell me it was because I wasn't in my home area. I call bullshit on that. They have all these commercials about nationwide coverage and they can't get me a message or call 200 miles away from my home? One of the reps was nice enough to credit my account $25. Another rep was just a dumbass. He could never quiet understand my problem. The third said to go into a store when I get back to Houston and they will replace my sim card.
I'm pissed off all weekend because I have friends I want to see and can't make plans cause I can't communicate with them.
The real pisser happened after I got home. Someone left me a voicemail on Saturday and it didn't show up in my voicemail inbox until Tuesday. I was extremely pissed off at that moment. I called AT&T immediately and told them what happened. Again they offered to replace the sim card.
I finally got the sim card replaced this week. I again went out of town. Between work and out of town I didn't have time to change it until two nights ago.
I got into the habit of calling AT&T every time something went wrong. I wanted to leave a phone record of all my complaints. At the very least, if they didn't document my exact problem someone could see I've repeatedly called. I told one rep that I didn't think the sim card replacement would work.
And the result with the new card? The same garbage. More missed text messages, text messages received in duplicate and sent in triplicate. One buddy told me to quit texting because everything was coming across three times.
I've about had it. AT&T has offered to replace the phone. As far as I'm concerned it's a last grasp hail mary. If this doesn't work I'm going to cancel my account whether or not I have to pay the disconnect fee.
Yesterday again I had trouble with text messages. I have seven verified messages sent by others that I didn't receive. So I called in today to once again make it know I was having issues. I asked the rep at what point does this become an exercise in futility? When does it become a point where I can cancel my contract without penalty? His reply was under the terms of contract I have to pay a penalty. I replied with a simple fact. I don't pay for my service my phone gets disconnected but if I don't get service I can't cancel my contract. Again he repeated his claim of contract terms don't allow it. I reminded him that their are two parties to a contract. I pay for services provided by AT&T and if I don't get the services then AT&T isn't living up to their end of the contract. I could tell I was frustrating him with simple logic. Finally he told me that if the new phone fails to talk to a manager and they have the power to waive the fee. I asked is it impossible to get a manager to do and he said it was pretty close to impossible. He said it would take an extreme case to get the fee waived.
Finally I asked the rep to please document the fact that I'm having problems again with the text messaging. He obliged and read back to me all that he wrote. I thanked him since I overwhelmed him with logic.
Tomorrow I'm going to try and get the new phone. Like the sim card replacement, I don't think a new phone will work either. This problem has happened over the course of two different phone models. I seriously doubt a third will be any different.
AT&T's service, for whatever reason, has turned into total garbage for me. The customer service was horrible with the LG-Vu until I threatened to cancel. This time around customer service has been more understanding and better but still equally worthless. If the third phone doesn't work I'll cancel service whether I have to pay early termination or not.
AT&T Wirless Saga Part 1
I've been with AT&T wireless since 1999. Until the last year or so I haven't had any long term problems with them. Until the last year or so.
To make a long story short. I had the LG-Vu because I added an old girlfriend to my account. It would be cheaper to be on the same account for both of us. The phone was in her budget and we each got $50 gift cards. Almost immediately she had problems with the phone. Mainly the screen would turn green. She replaced the phone three times and all three gave her the same problem. I cut her phone off for nonpayment of her half, no explanation to where she was and also using up ungodly amounts of minutes and pushing the limit. I didn't care about paying the early
termination fee. I just wanted her off my account and gone.
Around January of this year I start having my problems. Like her phone, the screen occasionally turned green or the touch screen keyboard would get all out of whack. Then I started having problems with text messaging. I wouldn't get any of texts from friends. Then calls started dropping off. I had to stand in a certain spot in my apartment to make or receive calls. Then I started having to go out on the deck to hear anything.
If I lived in the boondocks or middle of no where I might not have a big problem with it. But I don't. I live right in the middle of Houston. Literally. I'm between downtown and the museum district. AT&T customer service once admitted that I shouldn't be having the problem because the signal was so strong in my area.
I called AT&T for troubleshooting. AT&T's suggestion is to every problem is turn the phone off, take out the battery and sim card, wait 30 seconds and put it back together. Every time I called it was the same routine. Going into the store to complain did no good. They wouldn't offer any solutions. A waste of time.
I was due an upgrade. Or so I thought. My online account said I was due an upgrade so I figured I'd go in the store and choose my new phone. LG-Vu is a cheap piece of garbage anyway. I can afford better. Much better. I go into the store and they tell I don't have an upgrade. Why not? Because when I took my ex-female friend off the account that affected when I could upgrade. I tried and tried but they wouldn't budge from their stance. The said wait until May. Ok fine.
Unfortunately the dropped calls got worse and more texts were missed. I complained some more but they wouldn't do anything. Finally I decided to just suck it up and try to get a new phone again. I complained in person about how bad the service was. I want a new phone. Sure, at full cost plus a $50 upgrade fee. No thanks. I went to another store. I again explained the situation. Sure no problem said the salesman. He took me over to a low end phone. I said no thanks. I want to get rid of this garbage phone and you want to sell me another garbage phone. Oh and by the
way, he added the small detail that it would cost me $75 upgrade fee plus the full price of the phone. My exact words were,"That's bullshit." And I walked out the door.
I had it. I got online and looked up Verizon. I decided right then and there to cancel my AT&T line and move on. When I called customer service I told them to disconnect. I don't care about the early termination fee. Did that change their tune or what. She upgraded me to a $300 phone for $29. No I didn't leave off a zero...that's twenty nine dollars. I agreed to the new phone and it worked fine for a while.
Until the last few months....to be continued.
To make a long story short. I had the LG-Vu because I added an old girlfriend to my account. It would be cheaper to be on the same account for both of us. The phone was in her budget and we each got $50 gift cards. Almost immediately she had problems with the phone. Mainly the screen would turn green. She replaced the phone three times and all three gave her the same problem. I cut her phone off for nonpayment of her half, no explanation to where she was and also using up ungodly amounts of minutes and pushing the limit. I didn't care about paying the early
termination fee. I just wanted her off my account and gone.
Around January of this year I start having my problems. Like her phone, the screen occasionally turned green or the touch screen keyboard would get all out of whack. Then I started having problems with text messaging. I wouldn't get any of texts from friends. Then calls started dropping off. I had to stand in a certain spot in my apartment to make or receive calls. Then I started having to go out on the deck to hear anything.
If I lived in the boondocks or middle of no where I might not have a big problem with it. But I don't. I live right in the middle of Houston. Literally. I'm between downtown and the museum district. AT&T customer service once admitted that I shouldn't be having the problem because the signal was so strong in my area.
I called AT&T for troubleshooting. AT&T's suggestion is to every problem is turn the phone off, take out the battery and sim card, wait 30 seconds and put it back together. Every time I called it was the same routine. Going into the store to complain did no good. They wouldn't offer any solutions. A waste of time.
I was due an upgrade. Or so I thought. My online account said I was due an upgrade so I figured I'd go in the store and choose my new phone. LG-Vu is a cheap piece of garbage anyway. I can afford better. Much better. I go into the store and they tell I don't have an upgrade. Why not? Because when I took my ex-female friend off the account that affected when I could upgrade. I tried and tried but they wouldn't budge from their stance. The said wait until May. Ok fine.
Unfortunately the dropped calls got worse and more texts were missed. I complained some more but they wouldn't do anything. Finally I decided to just suck it up and try to get a new phone again. I complained in person about how bad the service was. I want a new phone. Sure, at full cost plus a $50 upgrade fee. No thanks. I went to another store. I again explained the situation. Sure no problem said the salesman. He took me over to a low end phone. I said no thanks. I want to get rid of this garbage phone and you want to sell me another garbage phone. Oh and by the
way, he added the small detail that it would cost me $75 upgrade fee plus the full price of the phone. My exact words were,"That's bullshit." And I walked out the door.
I had it. I got online and looked up Verizon. I decided right then and there to cancel my AT&T line and move on. When I called customer service I told them to disconnect. I don't care about the early termination fee. Did that change their tune or what. She upgraded me to a $300 phone for $29. No I didn't leave off a zero...that's twenty nine dollars. I agreed to the new phone and it worked fine for a while.
Until the last few months....to be continued.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
BP, Democrats, Obama and Big Oil
BP, Democrats, Obama and Big Oil
The worst part of the leak might finally be over. If things go according to plan, BP will know if the latest fix is successful.
President Obama’s rating have taken a hit since the crisis started. For what reason, I’m not sure. What do people expect him to do? He can’t stop the leak. He can’t clean up the oil. He can’t make BP working any faster. Some people think federal government intervention is the answer to everything.
What Obama and the Democrats have done is unnerving. The blanket moratorium on deep water drilling is typical knee jerk reaction of the government. The ban covered all existing deep wells and allows no new well permits.
Instead of looking for causes into the current leak, Obama decide to unilaterally punish all companies doing work in the Gulf of Mexico without rhyme or reason. The blame and investigation should focus only on BP and the site where the explosion occurred. BP’s track record for disasters is well documented. The whole industry is punished for the acts of a company that in the past has acted with disregard for safety, rules and regulations.
The moratorium also affects the livelihood of those that work in the industry, support the industry and hurts an already battered local economy. A wide unjustified moratorium is unnecessary.
The other disturbing act by the President is basically ignoring the recent court ruling that overturned the drilling ban. Instead of honoring the court ruling, Obama and his staff went back to the drawing board to craft a new ban. Instead of honoring and respecting the court ruling, the Democrats decided to try a new ban that suits their purposes. It is a very chilling snub of the American rule of law. The courts serve as a check on the executive powers and Obama won’t respect that check.
There is no other way around it. Until a new energy source is found for mass use, the world needs to keep drilling and using oil. It is the lifeblood of the world economy. The root cause of the BP leak needs to be investigated. If BP is guilty by all means punish them with fines. Sometimes tragic but genuine accidents happen. Burdening the industry and stifling an economy due to one incident at one site doesn’t justify overreaching bans and regulations. Find the root cause, look for a solution if possible and then implement it industry wide if it is practical.
The scope of the leak is tragic. BP must make good on lost money, wages and livelihoods it caused. If BP is guilty of neglect they should pay. Until the real causes of the incident are found, government should back off and not shoot from the hip on regulations, blame or punishing the industry.
The worst part of the leak might finally be over. If things go according to plan, BP will know if the latest fix is successful.
President Obama’s rating have taken a hit since the crisis started. For what reason, I’m not sure. What do people expect him to do? He can’t stop the leak. He can’t clean up the oil. He can’t make BP working any faster. Some people think federal government intervention is the answer to everything.
What Obama and the Democrats have done is unnerving. The blanket moratorium on deep water drilling is typical knee jerk reaction of the government. The ban covered all existing deep wells and allows no new well permits.
Instead of looking for causes into the current leak, Obama decide to unilaterally punish all companies doing work in the Gulf of Mexico without rhyme or reason. The blame and investigation should focus only on BP and the site where the explosion occurred. BP’s track record for disasters is well documented. The whole industry is punished for the acts of a company that in the past has acted with disregard for safety, rules and regulations.
The moratorium also affects the livelihood of those that work in the industry, support the industry and hurts an already battered local economy. A wide unjustified moratorium is unnecessary.
The other disturbing act by the President is basically ignoring the recent court ruling that overturned the drilling ban. Instead of honoring the court ruling, Obama and his staff went back to the drawing board to craft a new ban. Instead of honoring and respecting the court ruling, the Democrats decided to try a new ban that suits their purposes. It is a very chilling snub of the American rule of law. The courts serve as a check on the executive powers and Obama won’t respect that check.
There is no other way around it. Until a new energy source is found for mass use, the world needs to keep drilling and using oil. It is the lifeblood of the world economy. The root cause of the BP leak needs to be investigated. If BP is guilty by all means punish them with fines. Sometimes tragic but genuine accidents happen. Burdening the industry and stifling an economy due to one incident at one site doesn’t justify overreaching bans and regulations. Find the root cause, look for a solution if possible and then implement it industry wide if it is practical.
The scope of the leak is tragic. BP must make good on lost money, wages and livelihoods it caused. If BP is guilty of neglect they should pay. Until the real causes of the incident are found, government should back off and not shoot from the hip on regulations, blame or punishing the industry.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thoughts and Link Dump
I'm still working the Great Immigration Debate. I'm working on border security ideas and reform. Reform is a necessary step for many reasons but no one will touch it. No matter where a politician stands it is a political third rail.
In the mean time a I a link dump and thoughts I have about the stories linked.
In the MSNBC.com story, Lawmaker: Demagogues setting tone of GOP, defeated Republican incumbent Bob Inglis laments the state of politics. He hits on the fact that politicians pander to much to poisonous elements and that the pandering threatens the long term viability of the party. He also mentions that there is to much fearmongering among politcals.
He was defeated in part because he didn't want to engage in Barack Obama bashing. He is correct in siting that the shouting and screaming accomplishes nothing. Instead of governing and solving problems, the issues mount up and elected officials look to make the next sound bite and preen for the cameras.
Voters are frustrated that both parties have seemingly been hijacked by the extremes. There is really no such thing as a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican. There are still some Blue Dog Dems from the South but they are a dying breed. More and more candidates are voted down by their own party because they aren't "liberal" or "conservative" enough.
Unfortunately politicians want the power and privilege of office. The only way to achieve that is to pander to the wings. The middle of the road voters are put off. One of the reasons Obama was elected is because he wasn't a Bush or Republican. This midterm cycle, Republicans might regain the House of Representatives mainly as backlash against Obama. It's a vicious cycle and appears to worsen each election.
Well, I have more links to comment on but will get that done in the next few days.
In the mean time a I a link dump and thoughts I have about the stories linked.
In the MSNBC.com story, Lawmaker: Demagogues setting tone of GOP, defeated Republican incumbent Bob Inglis laments the state of politics. He hits on the fact that politicians pander to much to poisonous elements and that the pandering threatens the long term viability of the party. He also mentions that there is to much fearmongering among politcals.
He was defeated in part because he didn't want to engage in Barack Obama bashing. He is correct in siting that the shouting and screaming accomplishes nothing. Instead of governing and solving problems, the issues mount up and elected officials look to make the next sound bite and preen for the cameras.
Voters are frustrated that both parties have seemingly been hijacked by the extremes. There is really no such thing as a conservative Democrat or a moderate Republican. There are still some Blue Dog Dems from the South but they are a dying breed. More and more candidates are voted down by their own party because they aren't "liberal" or "conservative" enough.
Unfortunately politicians want the power and privilege of office. The only way to achieve that is to pander to the wings. The middle of the road voters are put off. One of the reasons Obama was elected is because he wasn't a Bush or Republican. This midterm cycle, Republicans might regain the House of Representatives mainly as backlash against Obama. It's a vicious cycle and appears to worsen each election.
Well, I have more links to comment on but will get that done in the next few days.
Friday, June 18, 2010
The Great Immigration Debate: Anchor Baby Myth
The Propaganda
Propaganda inciting fear is a powerful weapon to mold public sentiment. Radical Muslims use fear and portray Israel and the United States as evil entities out to destroy Islam. It's a very effective tool. Propaganda also creates a distraction a government to disillusion the population so they won't see the squalor they live in. North Korea is the prime example. The Dear Leader,Kim Jong-il, and his regime blame the ills on the West. Kim and his repressive regime bares responsibility for the isolation but he created a myth and deflects his shortcomings with visions of American and South Korean troops at the border ready to invade.
One of the rallying points for the anti-immigration reform advocates perpetuates the myth of the so called "anchor babies." They claim people cross into the United States in order to have children. By U.S. law, anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. To hear the anti-immigration advocates tell it, people are crawling over the border at all points just to have babies. Once they have the children, they claim the families cannot be deported due to the citizenship of the children. Thus the illegal immigrants have created an "anchor" in the United States.
The Facts
Fact number one that isn't told is that having a child that is an American citizen doesn't stop deportation proceedings. A family with minor children citizens can all, including the children, be deported. There is nothing anchoring the family to the U.S.
The second fact relates to immigrating to the United States for the parents. As a minor, the child cannot sponsor family members for residency or citizenship. Just as any other American child, they cannot sign a legally binding document. So there is no way they can petition for citizenship for their parents.
Once the child has become an adult citizen there are still barriers to parental citizenship. Since the parents are in the U.S. illegally, they cannot apply for a green card or start the citizenship process. The literally have to leave the country and apply at a U.S. consulate. If the consulate determines that the parents has been in the United States for more than a year a ten year ban from the U.S. kicks in.
Even if the parents pass all the legal sniff tests, financial barriers still prevent them from becoming U.S. citizens. Just having an adult child over 21 does not allow parents to immigrate free and clear. Their adult offspring must prove they can support the family financially. The minimum income requirement in 2009 was almost $23,000 per year.
The Possible Legal Fallacy
I'm not a lawyer. So this section is me just trying to use logic to follow an argument made against anchor babies.
I link to a a post on a Sean Hannity message board. Whether Hannity is affiliated with the board or not is of no consequence. What's important is the argument is posted there and the link : Glenn Beck’s immigrant guest unknowingly perpetuates progressive’s anchor baby myth. One other interesting note about the post, I'm not sure the original source of the argument. I found it on many websites and the webmasters/authors are passing it off as their own analysis.
The argument begins with a quote from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
I highlighted the line in the amendment that is the linchpin to the argument. They claim that babies born in the United States gain automatic citizenship because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I find fault in the jurisdiction argument. Part of the definition of legal jurisdiction states that a person falls under the laws of the governing entity. I don't care who you are, where you are and what you are doing, but unless you have diplomatic immunity you are subject to laws of the country you are in. If illegal immigrants didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States then how are they illegal? If a tourist commits murder are they not subject to the jurisdiction of America law enforcement and the criminal justice system?
When a person enters a foreign country they fall under jurisdiction of that country's laws. To me it's not a valid argument. Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, I don't see this path to citizenship changing.
Conclusion
Like I said in my intro to The Great Immigration Debate, I want to look at both sides of the issues and try to formulate a pragmatic solution. That solution will require compromise and will not satisfy everyone involved.
Today I delved into the anchor baby question not to counter the argument entirely but to try and understand the points made in it. In my research, I found the anchor baby argument to be propaganda and a myth. The fact is babies aren't a path to citizenship and when they get older it isn't a very efficient path to citizenship.
What it boils down to is the anchor baby myth is a propaganda tool to instill fear in the United States and a play to achieve political aims.
Source: The Anchor Baby Myth from Scott and Associates, Attorneys at Law
Propaganda inciting fear is a powerful weapon to mold public sentiment. Radical Muslims use fear and portray Israel and the United States as evil entities out to destroy Islam. It's a very effective tool. Propaganda also creates a distraction a government to disillusion the population so they won't see the squalor they live in. North Korea is the prime example. The Dear Leader,Kim Jong-il, and his regime blame the ills on the West. Kim and his repressive regime bares responsibility for the isolation but he created a myth and deflects his shortcomings with visions of American and South Korean troops at the border ready to invade.
One of the rallying points for the anti-immigration reform advocates perpetuates the myth of the so called "anchor babies." They claim people cross into the United States in order to have children. By U.S. law, anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. To hear the anti-immigration advocates tell it, people are crawling over the border at all points just to have babies. Once they have the children, they claim the families cannot be deported due to the citizenship of the children. Thus the illegal immigrants have created an "anchor" in the United States.
The Facts
Fact number one that isn't told is that having a child that is an American citizen doesn't stop deportation proceedings. A family with minor children citizens can all, including the children, be deported. There is nothing anchoring the family to the U.S.
The second fact relates to immigrating to the United States for the parents. As a minor, the child cannot sponsor family members for residency or citizenship. Just as any other American child, they cannot sign a legally binding document. So there is no way they can petition for citizenship for their parents.
Once the child has become an adult citizen there are still barriers to parental citizenship. Since the parents are in the U.S. illegally, they cannot apply for a green card or start the citizenship process. The literally have to leave the country and apply at a U.S. consulate. If the consulate determines that the parents has been in the United States for more than a year a ten year ban from the U.S. kicks in.
Even if the parents pass all the legal sniff tests, financial barriers still prevent them from becoming U.S. citizens. Just having an adult child over 21 does not allow parents to immigrate free and clear. Their adult offspring must prove they can support the family financially. The minimum income requirement in 2009 was almost $23,000 per year.
The Possible Legal Fallacy
I'm not a lawyer. So this section is me just trying to use logic to follow an argument made against anchor babies.
I link to a a post on a Sean Hannity message board. Whether Hannity is affiliated with the board or not is of no consequence. What's important is the argument is posted there and the link : Glenn Beck’s immigrant guest unknowingly perpetuates progressive’s anchor baby myth. One other interesting note about the post, I'm not sure the original source of the argument. I found it on many websites and the webmasters/authors are passing it off as their own analysis.
The argument begins with a quote from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I highlighted the line in the amendment that is the linchpin to the argument. They claim that babies born in the United States gain automatic citizenship because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.
I find fault in the jurisdiction argument. Part of the definition of legal jurisdiction states that a person falls under the laws of the governing entity. I don't care who you are, where you are and what you are doing, but unless you have diplomatic immunity you are subject to laws of the country you are in. If illegal immigrants didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States then how are they illegal? If a tourist commits murder are they not subject to the jurisdiction of America law enforcement and the criminal justice system?
When a person enters a foreign country they fall under jurisdiction of that country's laws. To me it's not a valid argument. Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, I don't see this path to citizenship changing.
Conclusion
Like I said in my intro to The Great Immigration Debate, I want to look at both sides of the issues and try to formulate a pragmatic solution. That solution will require compromise and will not satisfy everyone involved.
Today I delved into the anchor baby question not to counter the argument entirely but to try and understand the points made in it. In my research, I found the anchor baby argument to be propaganda and a myth. The fact is babies aren't a path to citizenship and when they get older it isn't a very efficient path to citizenship.
What it boils down to is the anchor baby myth is a propaganda tool to instill fear in the United States and a play to achieve political aims.
Source: The Anchor Baby Myth from Scott and Associates, Attorneys at Law
No More BFF?
Those geniuses of social engineering are at it again. Today I introduce you to a New York Times article entitled "A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding." The article starts off with the idea that some think having a best friend at a young age is outdated or romantically over thought of. Basically the advocates of more friendships feel that having one best friend is a detriment to a child's upbringing.
Quoting directly from the article:
The writer for the story correctly points out this concept is a "manifestation" of how educators, parents and other adults want to micromanage all aspects of a kid's life.
What the new theorist want if for kids to have clusters of friend and not just one close best friend. They argue further than having one friend can lead to cliques, exclusivity and bullying.
Even schools are getting in on the act. If they see two kids gravitating to each other they might intervene and encourage them to sit with someone else at lunch or play on different sports teams at PE.
Reflecting back on my school years, I did have a best friend growing up in the neighborhood. We separated as best friends due to age difference. I was one year older so I started middle school a year before him. By the end of the school year I had a new clique of friends. I still hung out with my best friend from neighborhood. By high school we had formed very different groups of friends. We didn't have a fight or a fallen out. We both grew up and found bigger groups of friends with similar interest. In high school, his peers were partying skirt chasers and of course typical teen stuff too. My clan was more homebodies that watch movies, went to football games and did outdoors stuff like fishing and camping. We had girlfriends but weren't the skirt chasers my old friend's group was.
So yes there were two cliques but we remained good friends all through school.
Even in my group of high school buddies there was a dynamic to the group. As a whole we were all friends, hung out, had lunch together and did a lot as a group. Within that group there were smaller groups of two, three or four friends that hung out more than with others in the group. I had my best friend Mike. We hung out most the time but there would be times where he hung out with other guys in the group and I would too.
Guess what, helicopter parents with play dates, and child experts that want social engineer kids friends, there is no need to. We had plenty of cliques, groups within the cliques and so forth with no major problems. That's call learning to socialize and make friends.
Helicopter parents and child social engineers don't want children to feel rejection, or reduce the feeling of rejection if they have a larger group of friends but no one best friend. I think it's a bad idea. That special best friend bond helps a child develop some useful adulthood tool like how to form strong individual bonds. It gives a foundation to build on when they group up and have more chances to form individual bonds. Sure kids will get rejected or hurt but why wait until adulthood to feel it when you can learn it as a child and not be blindsided by new feelings.
Instead, children need to develop these skills for use in later life. When they get in the real world rejection will come in job interviews, date, romantic interests and bad friends. If you don't expose them to it now and learn how to cope, you are holding back a maturing process.
Quoting directly from the article:
But increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?
“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”
The writer for the story correctly points out this concept is a "manifestation" of how educators, parents and other adults want to micromanage all aspects of a kid's life.
What the new theorist want if for kids to have clusters of friend and not just one close best friend. They argue further than having one friend can lead to cliques, exclusivity and bullying.
Even schools are getting in on the act. If they see two kids gravitating to each other they might intervene and encourage them to sit with someone else at lunch or play on different sports teams at PE.
Reflecting back on my school years, I did have a best friend growing up in the neighborhood. We separated as best friends due to age difference. I was one year older so I started middle school a year before him. By the end of the school year I had a new clique of friends. I still hung out with my best friend from neighborhood. By high school we had formed very different groups of friends. We didn't have a fight or a fallen out. We both grew up and found bigger groups of friends with similar interest. In high school, his peers were partying skirt chasers and of course typical teen stuff too. My clan was more homebodies that watch movies, went to football games and did outdoors stuff like fishing and camping. We had girlfriends but weren't the skirt chasers my old friend's group was.
So yes there were two cliques but we remained good friends all through school.
Even in my group of high school buddies there was a dynamic to the group. As a whole we were all friends, hung out, had lunch together and did a lot as a group. Within that group there were smaller groups of two, three or four friends that hung out more than with others in the group. I had my best friend Mike. We hung out most the time but there would be times where he hung out with other guys in the group and I would too.
Guess what, helicopter parents with play dates, and child experts that want social engineer kids friends, there is no need to. We had plenty of cliques, groups within the cliques and so forth with no major problems. That's call learning to socialize and make friends.
Helicopter parents and child social engineers don't want children to feel rejection, or reduce the feeling of rejection if they have a larger group of friends but no one best friend. I think it's a bad idea. That special best friend bond helps a child develop some useful adulthood tool like how to form strong individual bonds. It gives a foundation to build on when they group up and have more chances to form individual bonds. Sure kids will get rejected or hurt but why wait until adulthood to feel it when you can learn it as a child and not be blindsided by new feelings.
Instead, children need to develop these skills for use in later life. When they get in the real world rejection will come in job interviews, date, romantic interests and bad friends. If you don't expose them to it now and learn how to cope, you are holding back a maturing process.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The Great Immigration Debate
I've been quiet on the topic for several reasons. First, the immigration subject riles to many emotions in people. Just what to call illegal immigrants gets blood boiling. Some opt for the politically correct "undocumented workers" over the more correct illegal immigrants. The issue is also very complex. People for and against immigration paint the issue in black and white. The "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome that stifles open debate applies to immigration too. I doubt a real working solution will ever come about due the closed minded people on both sides.
A pragmatic solution that incorporates illegal aliens already here while securing the border is fundamental. Despite what extremist think, those illegals here will not be rounded up and deported. The cost of a round up operation runs into the billions of dollars. You might as well scratch a round up off the board. On the other hand, a tightly secured border is essential. Border security must tighten up and make any crossing attempt extremely difficult to manage.
After spending a while thinking about it, I will examine the situation and look at both sides. I will even offer some ideas of tenable solution. I will not please everyone and will definitely enrage both sides if anyone actually reads my posts. But I am willing to take a shot at this.
It's not easy but I've spent some time on it and hope that eventually a permanent solution, the right one at that, will eventually come to fruition.
A pragmatic solution that incorporates illegal aliens already here while securing the border is fundamental. Despite what extremist think, those illegals here will not be rounded up and deported. The cost of a round up operation runs into the billions of dollars. You might as well scratch a round up off the board. On the other hand, a tightly secured border is essential. Border security must tighten up and make any crossing attempt extremely difficult to manage.
After spending a while thinking about it, I will examine the situation and look at both sides. I will even offer some ideas of tenable solution. I will not please everyone and will definitely enrage both sides if anyone actually reads my posts. But I am willing to take a shot at this.
It's not easy but I've spent some time on it and hope that eventually a permanent solution, the right one at that, will eventually come to fruition.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
U.N. Investigator Thinks U.S. Drones Might Be Illegal
So a U.N. expert claims that U.S. use of drones to take out Al Qaida might be illegal? I have an answer for him. I don't care what he thinks.
The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.
In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.
Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.
Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.
So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.
The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.
In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.
Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.
Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.
So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Stringing Through Multi-universes
I'm no scientist. I do hold a B.S. in Mechanical Technology - Manufacturing Systems. It's kind of misleading. The majority of my course work was in mechanical engineering. I switched because it allowed me to graduate faster. I needed to get done with school and start earning a living.
My educational background has: physics III, calculus III, differential and partial differential equations and several mechanical engineering classes like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical design, hydrodynamics and basic electronics.
I point out my educational background as a basis to my views in science.
Now to my real topic.
Physics breaks down into two theories: Newtonian or classical and quantum. Newtonian physics deals with molecules all the way up to large bodies in the cosmos. Common equations like force = mass * acceleration and measurements like pressure all fall under Newtonian physics. At the subatomic level, Newtonian physics breaks down and quantum physics takes over.
A big quest for physicist and science in general is to establish a theory that ties the two together.
One theory that tries is called M-theory. M-theory supposes that there are eleven dimensions. Four dimensions are the ones we can measure. Length, width, height and time. The other seven constantly oscillate. You cannot see, touch, feel or hear these new dimensions.
Then there is the theory of the multi-universes. This theory posits that several universes exist and each has its own unique set of laws of physics. Only those that can stabilize, like our own, can continue to exist. This Darwinian approach states that other universes that cannot stabilize fail to succeed.
I'll never forget what a physics professor at the University of Houston once told the class. He said physics is full of fudge factors. For example, everyone knows Einstein's equation of E=mc2. E equals energy, m equals mass and c equals a constant. He explained that such constants usually mean scientists can't really figure out the bridge that ties the equation together neatly so they need to find a number that does it.
I'm not sure how right or wrong my professor was. When I see things science resorting to string theory and multiple universes I believe they may be fudge factors. Scientists are married to the idea of a one theory meets applies to all and might be grasping at straws. Instead of examining and modifying existing theories, they look for ways to wrap them up neatly in one package. Scientifically there might not be a way to test these theories. If scientists can't see other dimensions how do we know they really do exists. The same thing applies to multiple universes. How can alternate universes be observed in order to put the theory to test?
The multiple universe theory reminds of the DC Comics multiverses.
Fortunately there are scientists exploring alternate theories. Some are viewed as heretics while others are gaining support or at least getting some to question current practices.
Science is a constant quest for knowledge. Instead of trying to come up with more dimensions and universes, scientists need to examine what is in front of us and explore the visible and observable. I think one day a brilliant physicist, mathematician, philosopher or someone will make a drastic break through that will turn current ideas upside down.
My educational background has: physics III, calculus III, differential and partial differential equations and several mechanical engineering classes like statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, mechanical design, hydrodynamics and basic electronics.
I point out my educational background as a basis to my views in science.
Now to my real topic.
Physics breaks down into two theories: Newtonian or classical and quantum. Newtonian physics deals with molecules all the way up to large bodies in the cosmos. Common equations like force = mass * acceleration and measurements like pressure all fall under Newtonian physics. At the subatomic level, Newtonian physics breaks down and quantum physics takes over.
A big quest for physicist and science in general is to establish a theory that ties the two together.
One theory that tries is called M-theory. M-theory supposes that there are eleven dimensions. Four dimensions are the ones we can measure. Length, width, height and time. The other seven constantly oscillate. You cannot see, touch, feel or hear these new dimensions.
Then there is the theory of the multi-universes. This theory posits that several universes exist and each has its own unique set of laws of physics. Only those that can stabilize, like our own, can continue to exist. This Darwinian approach states that other universes that cannot stabilize fail to succeed.
I'll never forget what a physics professor at the University of Houston once told the class. He said physics is full of fudge factors. For example, everyone knows Einstein's equation of E=mc2. E equals energy, m equals mass and c equals a constant. He explained that such constants usually mean scientists can't really figure out the bridge that ties the equation together neatly so they need to find a number that does it.
I'm not sure how right or wrong my professor was. When I see things science resorting to string theory and multiple universes I believe they may be fudge factors. Scientists are married to the idea of a one theory meets applies to all and might be grasping at straws. Instead of examining and modifying existing theories, they look for ways to wrap them up neatly in one package. Scientifically there might not be a way to test these theories. If scientists can't see other dimensions how do we know they really do exists. The same thing applies to multiple universes. How can alternate universes be observed in order to put the theory to test?
The multiple universe theory reminds of the DC Comics multiverses.
Fortunately there are scientists exploring alternate theories. Some are viewed as heretics while others are gaining support or at least getting some to question current practices.
Science is a constant quest for knowledge. Instead of trying to come up with more dimensions and universes, scientists need to examine what is in front of us and explore the visible and observable. I think one day a brilliant physicist, mathematician, philosopher or someone will make a drastic break through that will turn current ideas upside down.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Unkle Monkee's Product Reviews
A new Unkle Monkee feature - product reviews. I don't often buy stuff but when I do I'd like to offer my take on how good, bad or horrible it is.
I have three products to review today.
The first is the Diamond TVW USB650. The USB650 is a tuner for watching a TV signal through you computer. I ended up returning the product. Why? The software that came with it appears not set up for Windows 7. I couldn't get the software to ever get a signal on my desktop. I did on the laptop which runs on Vista. I uninstalled the software and tried again. This time it hung up and would never reinstall. I tried several times but the process never completed. I went to Diamond's website to look for solutions or driver updated for Windows 7. None were available. An online form to register and ask for technical assistance is available. I registered my product and sent them an email about my issue. That was a week ago. I never heard back from them. I really had no choice but to return the tuner.
The second product is InvisibleShield protector for my cell phone. My opinion is that it's complete garbage. First the package appears deceptive to me. I thought I was buying a protective case and I read the packaging over several times before buying. When I get home and open it, I discover that InvisibleShield is nothing but peal away stickers to cover my phone. I have no idea how many stickers it had but it was several for various parts of my phone. I thought I might as well give it a try. The first part was just for the display face. I carefully tried to put the sticker on. It stuck immediately and bubbled up. I tried to peal it back and smooth it out. To late. It stayed bubbled and then it stuck to itself when I tried again. I returned the remaining stickers to Best Buy. Stay away from InvisibleShield.
Finally, a positive review on the Wisecomm 2.4 GHz Wireless Security Camera. I have no clue why I bought it except that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I initially bought it to hook it up to the computer via the USB650. Since the 650 was a drastic failure, I hooked it up to the TV. It works fine. Just plug it into the TV, set what channel you want it on and you can be a voyeur. For whatever reason you want it for, I give it Unkle Monkee's Official Seal of a Banana.
I have three products to review today.
The first is the Diamond TVW USB650. The USB650 is a tuner for watching a TV signal through you computer. I ended up returning the product. Why? The software that came with it appears not set up for Windows 7. I couldn't get the software to ever get a signal on my desktop. I did on the laptop which runs on Vista. I uninstalled the software and tried again. This time it hung up and would never reinstall. I tried several times but the process never completed. I went to Diamond's website to look for solutions or driver updated for Windows 7. None were available. An online form to register and ask for technical assistance is available. I registered my product and sent them an email about my issue. That was a week ago. I never heard back from them. I really had no choice but to return the tuner.
The second product is InvisibleShield protector for my cell phone. My opinion is that it's complete garbage. First the package appears deceptive to me. I thought I was buying a protective case and I read the packaging over several times before buying. When I get home and open it, I discover that InvisibleShield is nothing but peal away stickers to cover my phone. I have no idea how many stickers it had but it was several for various parts of my phone. I thought I might as well give it a try. The first part was just for the display face. I carefully tried to put the sticker on. It stuck immediately and bubbled up. I tried to peal it back and smooth it out. To late. It stayed bubbled and then it stuck to itself when I tried again. I returned the remaining stickers to Best Buy. Stay away from InvisibleShield.
Finally, a positive review on the Wisecomm 2.4 GHz Wireless Security Camera. I have no clue why I bought it except that it seemed like a good idea at the time. I initially bought it to hook it up to the computer via the USB650. Since the 650 was a drastic failure, I hooked it up to the TV. It works fine. Just plug it into the TV, set what channel you want it on and you can be a voyeur. For whatever reason you want it for, I give it Unkle Monkee's Official Seal of a Banana.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Home Grown Terrorists
Many worry about the issue of home grown terrorists in the United States. The Jihad Jane brings the issue to the forefront again.
The media and others jump and holler that domestic terrorism will infect the nation or poses the greatest threat to American soil.
While they are right to some degree, I can't help but remind them that homegrown terrorism runs deep in the fabric of American society. The threat from Islamic terrorists may be newest threat but certainly not the first.
The attacks of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols still sear my brain. Up to the Sept. 11th attacks, those two perpetrated the largest terrorist attack on American soil.
Ted Kaczinski aka the Unabomber also comes to mind. He carried out 18 attacks from 1978 to 1994 that took three lives and injured several people.
Before there were other were domestic terrorism groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They only intimidates, lynched and burned crosses and houses of blacks.
To a smaller degree the Symbionese Liberation Army qualifies as a domestic terrorist group.
Up in the woods and hills there are many Neo-Nazis or anti-government types running camps to dislodge the U.S. Government.
My point is that there will still be homegrown terrorist talent and we must be vigilant against it. Yes, Al-Qaida and radical Muslims want to attack the United States. We must continue to monitor those groups. However, remember that domestic attacks by the homegrown people aren't limited to Islamofacists. If you the historical data on U.S. soil attacks, Al-Qaida pulled of the largest more complex operation but there are still some homegrown plots brewing. Historically those attacks have been by American's own and haven't been religious based.
The media and others jump and holler that domestic terrorism will infect the nation or poses the greatest threat to American soil.
While they are right to some degree, I can't help but remind them that homegrown terrorism runs deep in the fabric of American society. The threat from Islamic terrorists may be newest threat but certainly not the first.
The attacks of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols still sear my brain. Up to the Sept. 11th attacks, those two perpetrated the largest terrorist attack on American soil.
Ted Kaczinski aka the Unabomber also comes to mind. He carried out 18 attacks from 1978 to 1994 that took three lives and injured several people.
Before there were other were domestic terrorism groups like the Ku Klux Klan. They only intimidates, lynched and burned crosses and houses of blacks.
To a smaller degree the Symbionese Liberation Army qualifies as a domestic terrorist group.
Up in the woods and hills there are many Neo-Nazis or anti-government types running camps to dislodge the U.S. Government.
My point is that there will still be homegrown terrorist talent and we must be vigilant against it. Yes, Al-Qaida and radical Muslims want to attack the United States. We must continue to monitor those groups. However, remember that domestic attacks by the homegrown people aren't limited to Islamofacists. If you the historical data on U.S. soil attacks, Al-Qaida pulled of the largest more complex operation but there are still some homegrown plots brewing. Historically those attacks have been by American's own and haven't been religious based.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Customer Service Is Dead
I know customer service has been dead for a long time. Business small and large view the customer as a source of income and not a resource. They just want you in the door, make a sale and out the door. Most businesses do little encourage customers to return or spread word of mouth.
Years ago I worked for a chain restaurant as a waiter. Back then the philosophy was treat the customer well. They want repeat business and the customer to enjoy the dining experience. On top of that, they knew word of mouth could not only help but hurt business too. I can't remember the exact numbers but they did surveys and found that bad word of mouth is a multiple times worth of damage versus good word of mouth. In other words, don't piss the customer off because not only do you lose repeat business but chances are he will tell his friends and they won't come either. Smart thinking in my book. Not sure it really worked that way but it was a good assumption to work under.
So why my sudden focus on customer service? Simple. Two days and three bad experiences and another one a week ago.
AT&T Wireless Headaches
We all know about the Stalinesque tactics of cell phone companies. Iron clad two year contracts with high early termination fees or Mafia like fees to change the a clause and it will cost a two year extension.
The phone I have is an LG-Vu. I wasn't in my right mind when I bought it. I was helping out a friend by putting her on my account and it was a phone they offered. It's total garbage.
I went in December to remover her from the account and see my upgrade options. AT&T happily removed her from the account for $120 and blew me off on the upgrade. The customer service dork said I can't upgrade until March or there about.
The phone is garbage. I live in the middle of Houston. A few miles from downtown. I get full bars on my signal indicator. I have a hard time sending texts or talking on the phone. I have to stand outside on my patio or in a certain corner to get service.
I figure they could do something for me. I went to one store. He took one look at my account and offered me an iPhone for full price. I said no thanks, told him never mind and walked out the door. I went to a second store. The rep there offered me any phone I wanted for full price plus a $75 upgrade fee. I told him that was bullshit and walked out.
I call customer service and she just wants to trouble shoot my phone. I hung up. I called back and she told me to look online because there are deals there that are better than the store or phone. I looked. Nothing.
I decided enough was enough. I'm changing phone services. I looked up another service and decided to change. I call AT&T one more time to inquire about the early termination fee. The service rep asked me if she couldn't resolve my problem would I terminate. I said I don't know I'm just weighing my options. I explained to her what all happened.
This is what she did. In a heartbeat she sold me a $350 phone for $29...that's twenty nine dollars. And she didn't charge me an upgrade fee either. Just a two year extension of my current contract. Hell she even threw in free shipping for good measure. My grand total for an upgrade was $29 plus taxes and two hours of hitting my head against the wall.
I stayed with AT&T not because I'm happy with the service. I'm not. I stayed because someone finally pulled their ears and their head popped out of the companies ass long enough to make me a deal and used some actual customer service to keep me.
I have more complaints but maybe next time...I'll just say I hate the whole store concept of Ikea.
Years ago I worked for a chain restaurant as a waiter. Back then the philosophy was treat the customer well. They want repeat business and the customer to enjoy the dining experience. On top of that, they knew word of mouth could not only help but hurt business too. I can't remember the exact numbers but they did surveys and found that bad word of mouth is a multiple times worth of damage versus good word of mouth. In other words, don't piss the customer off because not only do you lose repeat business but chances are he will tell his friends and they won't come either. Smart thinking in my book. Not sure it really worked that way but it was a good assumption to work under.
So why my sudden focus on customer service? Simple. Two days and three bad experiences and another one a week ago.
AT&T Wireless Headaches
We all know about the Stalinesque tactics of cell phone companies. Iron clad two year contracts with high early termination fees or Mafia like fees to change the a clause and it will cost a two year extension.
The phone I have is an LG-Vu. I wasn't in my right mind when I bought it. I was helping out a friend by putting her on my account and it was a phone they offered. It's total garbage.
I went in December to remover her from the account and see my upgrade options. AT&T happily removed her from the account for $120 and blew me off on the upgrade. The customer service dork said I can't upgrade until March or there about.
The phone is garbage. I live in the middle of Houston. A few miles from downtown. I get full bars on my signal indicator. I have a hard time sending texts or talking on the phone. I have to stand outside on my patio or in a certain corner to get service.
I figure they could do something for me. I went to one store. He took one look at my account and offered me an iPhone for full price. I said no thanks, told him never mind and walked out the door. I went to a second store. The rep there offered me any phone I wanted for full price plus a $75 upgrade fee. I told him that was bullshit and walked out.
I call customer service and she just wants to trouble shoot my phone. I hung up. I called back and she told me to look online because there are deals there that are better than the store or phone. I looked. Nothing.
I decided enough was enough. I'm changing phone services. I looked up another service and decided to change. I call AT&T one more time to inquire about the early termination fee. The service rep asked me if she couldn't resolve my problem would I terminate. I said I don't know I'm just weighing my options. I explained to her what all happened.
This is what she did. In a heartbeat she sold me a $350 phone for $29...that's twenty nine dollars. And she didn't charge me an upgrade fee either. Just a two year extension of my current contract. Hell she even threw in free shipping for good measure. My grand total for an upgrade was $29 plus taxes and two hours of hitting my head against the wall.
I stayed with AT&T not because I'm happy with the service. I'm not. I stayed because someone finally pulled their ears and their head popped out of the companies ass long enough to make me a deal and used some actual customer service to keep me.
I have more complaints but maybe next time...I'll just say I hate the whole store concept of Ikea.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
It Was Good By Us But Not By Them
No matter which way you cut it, the War on Terrorism is also a political game.
For those with short memory, under President George W. Bush, the goal was to hunt down and kill or capture terrorists. Bush took on the "you're either for us or against us." A simplistic black and white look at the world. So no one shed any tears when missiles and attack drones started taking out terrorists. Nor when soldiers on the ground killed insurgents and fighters bombed hold outs.
Now that a different administration is in power from a different party, all of a sudden killing terrorist might not be such a good idea. Funny thing is it's the party that's out of power that is making the claim. Some backers of Bush and Republicans are claiming killing terrorists is a bad idea.
They point out that intelligence and information may be gained by capturing and interrogating terrorists.
I concede that point. What I don't concede is the way they cry about it. It was never much of a policy toward the end of the Bush Regime to capture terrorists. The main goal is to get them before they get us. Now that it's President Barack Obama's turn and he's killing terrorists, they change their tune.
The article "U.S. emphasizes targeted killings over captures"gives an idea of what I'm talking about.
For those with short memory, under President George W. Bush, the goal was to hunt down and kill or capture terrorists. Bush took on the "you're either for us or against us." A simplistic black and white look at the world. So no one shed any tears when missiles and attack drones started taking out terrorists. Nor when soldiers on the ground killed insurgents and fighters bombed hold outs.
Now that a different administration is in power from a different party, all of a sudden killing terrorist might not be such a good idea. Funny thing is it's the party that's out of power that is making the claim. Some backers of Bush and Republicans are claiming killing terrorists is a bad idea.
They point out that intelligence and information may be gained by capturing and interrogating terrorists.
I concede that point. What I don't concede is the way they cry about it. It was never much of a policy toward the end of the Bush Regime to capture terrorists. The main goal is to get them before they get us. Now that it's President Barack Obama's turn and he's killing terrorists, they change their tune.
The article "U.S. emphasizes targeted killings over captures"gives an idea of what I'm talking about.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Haitian Judge May Release Americans
I really just don't have any sympathy for the ten Americans who tried to take children across the Haitian Dominican Republic border. The claim to be doing a humanitarian deed by taking orphans over the border to the school the American missionaries have in the Dominican.
All kinds of red flags are raised in this case. First and foremost, the children didn't have the proper travel documents or passports. You know it, I know it, the American missionary workers more than likely know it. It's simple. You can't cross borders without proper documentation. So why are you taking orphans over the border without papers? To put up for adoption? Sell? Probably not but you just don't take kids over international borders without permission.
Then it turns out some of the kids have parents. It's another red flag. The missionaries stated originally the children were orphans going to an orphanage. Then it came out about living parents. The parents gave permission to take the kids because they believed the kids had a better chance with someone else. So why did the missionaries state the kids were orphans in the first place? It's already bad enough they had no passports for the children but then they lied and said they were orphans.
Maybe the was nothing nefarious going on and they were that stupid or arrogant to think they could just come and get away with it. I think they are charged with legitimate crimes. Although word is the judge is considering dropping charges at this time.
All kinds of red flags are raised in this case. First and foremost, the children didn't have the proper travel documents or passports. You know it, I know it, the American missionary workers more than likely know it. It's simple. You can't cross borders without proper documentation. So why are you taking orphans over the border without papers? To put up for adoption? Sell? Probably not but you just don't take kids over international borders without permission.
Then it turns out some of the kids have parents. It's another red flag. The missionaries stated originally the children were orphans going to an orphanage. Then it came out about living parents. The parents gave permission to take the kids because they believed the kids had a better chance with someone else. So why did the missionaries state the kids were orphans in the first place? It's already bad enough they had no passports for the children but then they lied and said they were orphans.
Maybe the was nothing nefarious going on and they were that stupid or arrogant to think they could just come and get away with it. I think they are charged with legitimate crimes. Although word is the judge is considering dropping charges at this time.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Why Is This Still A Concern?
We all know the story of September 11, 2001. The U.S. and allies have since embarked on a War on Terrorism. The goal is to disrupt, destroy, kill or capture terrorists that threaten the U.S. and allies.
Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.
My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.
Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.
All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.
My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.
Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.
I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.
Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that
I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.
These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.
Along the way there have been many controversies. The waterboarding, secret CIA prisons, torture claims and Guantanamo prison battle.
My question though is why are we still debating the trials of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The U.S. Department of Justice initially announced the trials would take place in New York. Now the good residents and politicians of New York have backlashed against the idea. NY Senator Charles Schumer contends that none of the proposed sites in New York are acceptable.
Another site considered in Virginia district court. The esteemed Senator Jim Webb is backing a bill that would cut funding for any civilian trial for the defendants.
All those issues aren't what blow my mind. What blows my mind is why are we having this debate in the first place? First, under President George W. Bush and now President Barack Obama, nothing has been done. The Cowboy W vowed to bring terrorist to justice. Languishing in a remote prison isn't justice. The Windbag Obama campaigned on bringing the defendants to trial and closing Guantanamo prison. A year in and nothing yet on both issues.
My question is why after several years, two presidents and Congressional elections nothing has changed? No trials, no sentences and no justice. There has been no movement to try the individuals in military tribunal or civilian court. At this point I really don't care where they are tried. It shouldn't take this many years to figure out how to try them.
Congress has twice written laws on how military tribunals can be used. One was overturned by the Supreme Court and the other hasn't been tested. Either way at least they tried to lay down the ground rules for a trial and some rule of law. It wouldn't be a sham or show trial.
I understand why Obama wants to try them in civilian court. He wants to show the world the U.S. has nothing to hide and that our system is transparent. I'm not against it either. The U.S. courts can handle the trial.
Most troubling to me is comments attributed to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel that
terror trials as a 'distraction' from the administration's domestic agenda, especially health care.
I have a problem with that because it means Emanuel doesn't think bringing the defendants to trial is a priority. He thinks all the President's efforts should be devoted elsewhere. I think such a statement, if he did say it, is highly insulting to the people who died on 9/11, to the people working behind the scenes to stop terror and to the military and civilians on the ground fighting this war. It demeans their sacrifice and effort to keep our country safe. Emanuel's precious domestic agenda shouldn't override the war effort or the trials.
These trials need to start and soon. The families of 9/11 victims need the closure. The nation needs to see the war is paying off. The troops and civilians on the frontlines need this too for their efforts. Both political parties need to quit the grandstanding and bring these criminal cowards to justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
