February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

-Thomas Jefferson

November 30, 2005

MoveOn.org's Love-Hate Relationship with Wal-Mart

After learning about the MoveOn.org fiasco where they faked American troops in a Bush-bashing video, I decided to check out their website to see if the video was still available [At this writing, it is] H/T Michelle Malkin.

While on their main page I noticed an article blasting Wal-Mart [yawn]:

MoveOn members held viewing parties as part of a coalition effort to bring attention to Robert Greenwald's compelling new documentary: Walmart, The High Cost of Low Price.

And a link takes you to this page, where the Moveon.org folks want you to host a DVD party of this movie that "dives into the deeply personal stories and everyday lives of families and communities struggling to fight a goliath." [See here]

Ho-hum, right? Another pro-Socialism organization, who thinks even WJ Clinton was right of Attila the Hun, is fighting to bring down McDonalds, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Halliburton, etc., etc. It is no surprise whatsoever that they're fighting the likes of Wal-Mart and Exxon, too.

But! While doing a little more snooping I came across another Moveon.org link peddling one of their books, MoveOn's 50 Ways to Love Your Country. Well how about this for the epitome of hypocrisy: Moveon.org is selling this book through Wal-Mart. [Buy it here!]

Message read loud and clear, MoveOn.org. Boycott Wal-Mart for all items except for the ones that make us money. Gotcha.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

November 28, 2005

Voting GOP

"Democrats are the only reason to vote Republican."

I'm hoping that I got this Thomas Sowell quote verbatim. I heard this the other day and couldn't believe that someone could so accurately summarize in so few words my reason for voting straight-ticket GOP. But Sowell hits the nail on the head.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

November 24, 2005

Sell me the X-Box 360

I am not a gamer anymore - I quit cold turkey when I got out of the Navy, so I could spend that time doing more productive things (playing street hockey, at the time). I've been FPS-free for more than 6 years now.
But I have been hearing about how Microsoft is trying to market the new X-Box to non-gamers, as an entertainment hub to tie together all of the electronic entertainment devices in your home.

With the upcoming release of the XBox 360, Microsoft is taking another step toward making the personal computer the center of home life. The newest Xbox is not just for game-playing teens: Anyone can hook it to televisions, stereos and computers to take advantage of its enormous hard drive.

(From NPR's Morning Edition, the full story available here.)

I'm interested in coordinating the various entertainment systems in my home. I would love to hear someone try to sell me the X-Box based on my lack of gaming. I am completely serious - give me the good and the bad. I'll check your comments when I am taking a break from hockey.

Others on this topic:
Mary Katharine Ham: I'm not much of a gamer... But I'm intrigued by the Xbox 360, mostly because it appears to be the next in a generation of "electronic Swiss Army knives," as the Washington Post calls them.

BlogNewsChannel.com: Many Xbox 360 features are designed for non-gamers: watching movies, playing music, viewing slide shows or holding video chats. It has three USB ports to connect digital cameras, music players and other devices.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Our National Anthem

As I am getting sickened by watching Toni Braxton sing her "rendition" of The Star Spangled Banner...I just can't hold back any longer. I have three (3) pet peeves about the majority of folks who sing our anthem before our sporting events, and the folks witnessing it themselves.

1) Quit trying to make it a rock song!

2) Our National Anthem should be performed as it was written, sound the same from arena to arena, and not have that annoying "hold" that so many performers like to have when they get to "the land of the freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee" It was not written that way, and it annoys me when they do it.

3) To the fans. SHOW SOME RESPECT! Do not cheer during the anthem. Wait until that annoying performer at least starts the word "brave" at the end please. I attribute this mainly to #2 above, but maybe they would stop doing it if the fans stopped cheering during the "free" part.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, and thank you for letting me get this out of my system.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 23, 2005

The Mysteries of Blogging Solved

I’ve figured it out! Call me a genius, or call me too slow to realize it, but I finally figured out what the big secret about blogging is and why it has become so popular. Let me give you a quick background first to set you up for it (gotta hold you in suspense).

It all happened yesterday believe it or not. It started out with that comment from Newman on my Colts piece. He is a member of the “Shadow Platoon,” an ESPN Fantasy Sports Über Group of which I am lucky and proud to be associated with. Maybe not the best in total points (currently sixth in the Nation, not too shabby I'd say), but the best in people. Anyway, after his post here on the website he sent an email to the group claiming, “My comments have been blogged!!!!” In a way I found it kind of funny how he got excited over it. Well, maybe not excited, but that he would have even mentioned it to the rest of the group. Until…

Enter the addition of Boon as an author for Atlas Blogged (welcome aboard Boon!). In a side email discussion with Wulf and Rammage (the other authors on this site for those non-faithfuls) the four of us were discussing the mysteries of the blog. Rammage discussed writer’s block based on this tidbit about writing up an entry for Atlas Blogged:

“And this was going to be a great article, too. I am utterly fascinated how easy it is for me to sit down and pound out a thousand-word letter to the [email] List - to all of youins - but when I go to write an article for AB, I suddenly freeze up.”

Boon humorously suggested:

“Happens all the time man. Best thing to do is to go through it in your mind and not try to write it down. Let it work on you for some time until you have no choice but to write it to get it out of your system.
And if that doesn’t work, try penicillin."

But Wulf nailed it when he said:

“It's because you feel like you have to have a point. Writing for an audience.”

AHA! That’s it! The big secret is solved!

People just want to be heard! I liken blogging to people calling into a radio show. Except with a blog you don’t have to sit on hold for hours waiting for your one minute on the show with the host talking over you and not really letting you get your point across anyway. Here, you have an uninterrupted medium where you can say whatever you want, without the obnoxious host talking over you. You get to be heard, and it doesn’t stop there. The people who comment are doing it too. That is their way of “calling in” to the blogger's show and letting you know how they feel, without interruption.

So Newman…thanks for the call. Rammage, Wulf, and now Boon…thanks for letting me host my own show. I promise not to write over anyone’s comments or keep them on hold for hours on end. I just hope I can provide some quality entertainment when people tune in.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

November 22, 2005

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Review

First and foremost let me start out by saying that I have not read the Harry Potter books. I have always meant to do so, but have not had a chance yet. I realize that by only seeing the movies and not reading the books I am missing out on a huge piece of the entire Potter experience. Therefore, I am basing this review on my knowledge of Harry and the gang off of what I have seen on the big screen. For better or worse, please keep that in mind as I review this film.

It is my belief that "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was the best one by far. It was not a short film at 2.5 hours, but the time went by very quickly and you actually felt like it needed to be longer, because there were so many storylines they could have gotten into.

The fourth movie picks up at the beginning of the fourth year for our main characters at Hogwarts Academy. Nothing new here, as each film starts with the beginning of the school year, and pretty much ends with the ending of the school year. Most reviews will go into story synopsis and plot lines and give out spoilers. I do not intend to that here. Instead, I will explain the reasons why I liked the film, and talk about a few shortcomings the film had. Don't worry, no major flaws that I saw, but those that read the book might certainly think otherwise.

I enjoyed the film because it had a mixture of elements that make up a good film. It had an engaging storyline, memorable characters, and of course humor. It was also perhaps the darkest of the four films at times (though the third film was certainly a dark film in its own right). Harry and Ron and Hermione are another year older, and being in their early teens they are dealing not only with the issues of being students, but also of becoming young adults. The film touches on the troubles that kids have at that age, and our heroes must cope with these issues as well as the usual bad guys trying to ruin their bid for a fifth movie. Oddly enough, I felt that it was Hermione and Ron that reflected the changes the most of being a year older. Harry was too busy keeping himself alive to really show those changes. Harry does have a few good moments in regards to trying to get a date for a dance, but the relationship between Ron and Hermione takes a different twist, and of course humor follows. Ron's twin older brothers play a bigger role in this film (for comedic purposes) and I truly enjoyed their parts.

A Harry Potter movie would not be complete without special effects and some nifty stunts, and the fourth film does not disappoint. While the first movie played to its audiences the newness of all the magic, the fourth movie had to use a new hook to keep us in. By now we are all used to the oddness of the world and the magic that comes with it. The fourth film doesn't really break any new ground in that regard, but it does introduce the Quiddich World Cup and the Tri-Wizards Challenge, and those storylines were worth watching. We were also introduced to a few new characters that will leave their mark for us Potter movie-goers.

The final aspect that I truly liked about the film was the underlying "coming of age" theme that we see throughout. The tagline of the film is simply "Everything is going to change" and by the end of the film you can see why. Not only have things changed in terms of the main storyline (Potter vs. He we cannot name) as well as the storyline of their lives themselves. The main characters have been together four years, and while they are quite familiar with each other they also realize that as they get older many things about themselves are going to change. It is all pretty much summed up when Hermione utters the movie's tagline during the film that really makes you aware that they are aware of changes to come. Growing up is a very difficult process, whether you be a magician or a muggle, and I liked how we got to see a human side of our characters for a change in this regard.

If I had any complaints about the film, they would be only small ones. The world of Potter has grown enormous, and by the fourth movie we have many characters to deal with, and new ones being added as well. What this means is that, even at 2.5 hours, there is just not enough time to visit with each character properly. In the first film we got a heavy does of Harry and Ron and Hermione, and learned about the other players at Hogwarts. Each successive film added new characters, and by the fourth the screen time was overcrowded. This is where the books have the real advantage over the movie. Hagrid does not have enough screen time, in my own opinion, though the time he is on the screen is a lot of fun. Even Professor Snape needs more time, because he is great whenever we get to see him. That blonde-haired weasel kid? Didn't really get to see much of him in the fourth film at all. There are a handful of new characters introduced, and the movie really does not get into much depth with them at all. Granted, their presence was important to the overall plot, and they will be memorable, but they only served to dilute the screen time for the body of characters in general.

I find myself torn over how I feel about my next issue. Harry Potter, as a character, is a great character. Harry Potter, as a wizard however, leaves a lot to be desired.

On the one hand, Harry Potter hasn't really done too much to impress us as a wizard. We all know that Hermione would kick his wizard butt any day of the week if she had to. It seems that Harry has the fortune of being a living legend and gets out of his troubles through the help of those around him and a lot of good luck. In the fourth film you just kept waiting for Harry to finally do something that makes you say "well there you go, so now he is the Wizard we all thought he was" and he does have a flash of a moment to show that. Still, I found myself sometimes wondering how many times his friends would save him or he would get a lucky turn of events to save him, when it is clear that he should be (by now) more than capable of saving himself.

On the other hand, having Harry not being a blaster in the fourth film shows that he still has much work to do. Harry truly has the Peter Parker syndrome. He wants to be a normal boy and though he may have great power doesn't know really how to use it, and often times stumbles over his own feet because of that. It seems as though Harry is being carefully groomed for that one moment when he finally does break bad, and for as much as people have been anticipating that moment, it should be spectacular. Keeping Harry normal, average even, makes him very much human, and very much a sympathetic character.

One must also point out that this film is rated PG-13. I think that kids overall will not have a problem, but perhaps the truly younger ones might. It does have some very scary moments, and while most of the time the threats, while scary, are not too serious, there are a few times where the threats are very real. Be prepared for some nightmares if you bring young ones to this film. I would say it is still a great family film, and one worthy of kicking off the holiday season. If you have been a fan of the Potter films then no doubt you need to see this.

Posted by Boon | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)

November 21, 2005

Building A Super Bowl Team

I can’t believe I’m going to write about the Colts, but they deserve it.

It’s not often we see it. It takes years to develop. This year is no exception. With the Colts reaching a record of 10-0, it marks the first time since the 1998 Denver Broncos that a team won their first ten games of the season. It really was no accident though. This team has been brewing for years.

Start back in 1998 when the Colts decided to take Peyton Manning instead of Ryan Leaf as the first overall pick. On draft day, this must have been an agonizing decision for the Colts’ front office. Today, they look like geniuses. We all have seen how Manning has taken over his team. We also all have seen the “career” of Ryan Leaf. You make the call.

That was just the beginning. Getting people around Manning on the offensive side came next. Enter Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison (he was drafted two years prior to Manning’s arrival), and an offensive line to be proud of. But they couldn’t get there alone.

Enter Tony Dungy. A coach known for building a formidable defense in Tampa, but never had the offense to go with it. When he went to the Colts, the writing was on the wall. In his first three seasons, Dungy led the Colts to a 34-14 record, and three playoff appearances including the AFC Championship Game. This year, he finally got the defense going and it obviously shows. Their defense ranks in the top 10 this year, and it is evident they are on quite a roll.

Can they go undefeated and ruin the members of the ’72 Dolphins champagne party? Only time will tell. If they decide to rest their starters towards the end of the year to keep them healthy once they lock up a playoff spot, obviously the chances are diminished. It’ll be interesting to see what they do though.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 15, 2005

Who is Ethical, Really?

An internal investigation at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) published its report today, declaring that its former chairman Kenneth Tomlinson is an unethical, partisan jerk.

Tomlinson resigned as the chairman of the CPB on November 4 because of the investigation alleging that he applied undue political pressure on public radio and television (discussed previously here).

Tomlinson is undoubtedly partisan - that's not the issue. And he might be a jerk, or not - I don't know, but that's also not the issue, either.

The issue is whether he is unethical. Allegations spring from the fact that Tomlinson applied a political test in pushing for the hiring of a new president and chief executive to lead the CPB - in other words, he is a loyal party bureaucrat. What Republican chair of any agency pushes for the hiring of a Democrat for a top position - or vice versa?

It is also alleged that Tomlinson acted inappropriately in secretly hiring outside consultants to monitor how partisan the shows on NPR and PBS are. But when push comes to shove, this comes down to the fact that NPR and PBS operate under different rules from the rest of the broadcast world. They are funded by taxpayers to the tune of $400 million dollars, and they expect a level of journalistic freedom from bureaucrats that is unrealistic in the private sector, where there is a financial bottom line, and the suits call the shots based on public demand - not based on party loyalty and partisan positioning. The justification for the CPB has become more nebulous and weak with every passing day.

NPR and PBS must be driven from the public trough. After five years of the federal government being controlled by the self-styled Party for Smaller Government, it has not yet happened. They have preferred to let partisan bureaucrats continue fighting over control of the federal dollars, growing the government larger and larger (see here).

Kenneth Tomlinson is gone from CPB, but does it actually herald any good and ethical change?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 12, 2005

The Friday's Image

There is a lot of new construction near my house, including a T.G.I. Friday's restaurant. I haven't been to a Friday's in years. I remember them as fairly interchangeable with other "casual dining" restaurants, with the quirky faux memorabilia on the walls and a variation-on-a-theme menu.

But Friday's has gone through some changes lately. If you haven't been to one in a while, you might not have heard. First of all, the familiar red and white striped awning is gone, as are many of the familiar quirky items on the wall. The new Friday's exterior looks like Tim Burton may have been consulted. It's not a bad look, and it's aimed at a younger, hipper crowd all around the world, according to the Taipei Times. "Over the next three to five years, all 800 outlets will be remodeled to give the same contemporary and lively tone characterized by a 1960s to 1980s feel."

"We wanted to lighten it up," said Dennis Greer, director of operations in Metro Detroit for T.G.I.Friday's. Well, lighted up is not the feel I had, but they may have managed to look more hip. Interestingly, I didn't see any adults younger than 30, but that may have been because it was Veteran's Day, and most tables had a family with one middle aged to elderly man with a USN ballcap or a flag on his lapel. We'll have to see how this pans out in the long run.

I am vaguely curious to know how much an image change like this affects the likelihood that I will eat at the restaurant. Clearly it can sometimes be expected to work, or companies wouldn't spend the money on renovations. But is it all cosmetic? Can we judge a book by its cover, a blog by its banner, or a restaurant by its new black, red, and steel decor?

But the real issue that prompted me to write is not just cosmetic. While at Friday's, I noted that Jack Daniel's was mentioned on every single page of the menu I was handed. J.D. BBQ sauce seems to have been incorporated onto at least half of the non-dessert items. (Incidentally, I had the Jack Daniel's pulled pork sandwich, and it was delicious.) I found that to be an interesting combination of brand names, and I am curious to know what possible downside there could be to the Friday's chain. Jack Daniel's brand was literally featured more than twice as much as the T.G.I. Friday's logo on the menus, posters, napkins, etc. Is this an upcoming trend in casual dining restaurants? Will we soon see Applebee's featuring Stoli? Jose Cuervo at Chili's? Ruby Tanqueray's? I can't wait to see whether this becomes like when fast food chains were a battleground in the cola wars, or if it becomes more like the new "flair" - cosmetic, ridiculous, and meaningless to the casual dining experience.

A curious note - as we left the restaurant, a pickup truck pulled up, towing a trailer. Truck bed and trailer were full of traditional Friday's quirky memorabilia. Could the Jack Daniel's / Tim Burton phase be over already?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Michelle Malkin on Fox & Friends

My two favorite sources of news—Michelle Malkin and Fox News—have merged this morning as Michelle Malkin guest-hosts on the Saturday morning edition of Fox & Friends.

Malkin was joined by co-hosts Julian Phillips and Kiran Chetry. Chetry is an interesting choice for pairing with Malkin, and I can't help but wonder if this was done because they both have ties to the Montgomery County, Maryland area, or because Chetry and Malkin represent opposite ends of the political spectrum, the former being Fox News' most left-leaning host. Regardless, in the few segments that I watched, I didn't notice any conflicts arise between these two.

This move for Malkin, incidentally and if it becomes permanent, will absolutely drive the leftists crazy, who already hold a seething hatred for her [See here and especially here]. For my part, I thought she did a terrific job this morning. Malkin will bring a nice balance to the creeping RIFNOs (Republicans in Fox News Only) like Kiran Chetry.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

November 10, 2005

Happy Birthday USMC

Happy Birthday to the United States Marine Corps!

As we approach another Veteran's Day, we will of course be mindful of the deployed men and women around the world. For 230 years the USMC has been an elite unit of forward-deployable amphibious military might, and this Navy veteran thanks all Marines who have ever served.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 9, 2005

The Big Democrat Victory

Tim Kaine won the governorship in Virginia. This is being hailed as a huge Democrat victory. I don't see it. I think it would have been a big Democrat loss if Kaine had lost to Republican Jerry Kilgore (and it could have hurt outgoing Governor Mark Warner's future in politics), but it's not an upset of some sort. It is the status quo - not good for the GOP, but to read it as the death-knell for the GOP majority at the federal level is a bit like predicting the Stanley Cup Championship based on the standings on November 9.

A nice take on the situation by The Therapist.

Also, I have seen the press in several places ask whether Kilgore may have been hurt by a last-minute visit by the currently unpopular President Bush. But there is one problem with that theory - Bush landed at the airport, spoke to a hanger full of Republicans, waved a bit and went home. It was a closed-door GOP pep rally, not a traditional stumping. Bush's popularity may be low, but it did not negatively affect the Republicans who came to Richmond International Airport last night, I am quite certain. I say this as a Virginia voter who was even more turned off by Kilgore than by Kaine - this election was definitely about knowing the evil of two lessers.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 8, 2005

How To Tell If Your Friends Are Socialists

Atlas Blogged Special Feature

Have you ever wondered how many of your friends are closet Socialists? Do you have one friend in particular who gives plenty of lip-service to civil liberty and capitalism, but you are suspicious of regardless? Here is a simple, albeit lengthy, test you can perform to find out. Although results will vary, one can expect tell-tale signs of socialist-leanings – if any – within three (3) years.

Organize a fantasy football league with eight (8) to twelve (12) of your friends. The geographic location of your friends is irrelevant, since there are many websites today that offer the means to host your fantasy football league, as well as a method of communication. Although there are many good sites out there, some of the readers of Atlas Blogged use My Fantasy League.

For the most part, you can use whatever fantasy football rules that you desire. But the critical part of this experiment is to have a “Keeper” league that allows the fantasy owners to keep three players of his choosing each year. For example, in your inaugural draft, each owner/coach gets to “draft” players to his team, for a total of 16 NFL players per roster. Each year, after the season ends, all but three players are released back into the draft bucket for next year. The three remaining, the Keepers, are presumably the players with the highest scoring potential. The Indianapolis Colts’ Peyton Manning is an example of a typical Keeper.

To reiterate, personal results may vary, but by using this system, you should be able to separate your friends into the capitalists and the socialists within three years, and possibly as early as two. And the results may surprise you.

How does this work? For whatever the reason, be it a better initial drafting, a greater knowledge of sports or football, previous experience with fantasy leagues, luck, or whatever, it will become immediately obvious that some people are better than others at fantasy football. More times than not, however, the measure of how one performs in fantasy football is largely dependent on how much effort and energy is put forth towards the game. Those who do their homework and study the draft, perform mock drafts, study the waiver wire, and keep abreast of NFL news will invariably perform better in fantasy football. Thus, the equation is the same in the game as it is in life: harder work = greater reward.

This, of course, is a socialist’s bane, who feels that equality and outcome should be guaranteed, regardless of any other factors. So the hidden socialists of your fantasy league may tolerate a team performing badly for one year, but will not stand for it two years in a row. The socialists of your league will begin, by the second year, petitioning the league commissioner (who is equivalent to the government, in our scenario) for hindrances (taxes) on the teams that are performing well, and benefits (subsidies) to the teams that are performing poorly. For, to the socialist, forced parity trumps free-market competition. A laissez-faire fantasy football league is unfair to those who put less effort into it, according to your newly-outed socialist friends.

The true libertarians of your league will be the ones who – regardless of how their team is performing – prefer going winless over having a heavy-handed league commissioner (aka government).

In the league to which I belong, the socialists and the capitalists are almost divided evenly, regardless of a coach’s winning percentage over the last three years. In fact, it’s almost uncanny how those who favor wealth redistribution (i.e. contriving new rules to mandate outcome) are registered Democrats, whereas those who favor the laissez-faire, free-market fantasy football league are registered with anti-collectivist political parties.

Try it for yourself. It’s fun, and revealing. Just don’t let the socialists of your league wrest Edgerrin James from your roster unless you’re well compensated.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Handshakes Banned In High School Football District

I was a student-athlete when I was in high school and college. My teammates and I were extremely competitive and we took pride in what we did. I played my guts out every time out and I didn’t always win. I lived by the old cliché of play hard, do your best, and no matter what the results win or lose, know you did all you could that day. Now granted in my case I was out on a golf course, but still! We competed! And at the end of every match we shook hands like true competitors do and acknowledged the other’s play. I didn’t like all the guys I played against, but I shook their hands nonetheless. I guess times are changing.

In Warsaw, Virginia at Rappahannock High School, one of the five schools in the Northern Neck District, principal Jack Cooley decided that the end of game handshakes need to come to an end. The ban has been in place since the beginning of this season for his district.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has quoted Cooley:

"We've never had fights," Cooley said, "but it's a pretty touchy situation after a game when you have to have the principals go out on the field to make sure everyone is behaving properly."
The ban "has really cut the tension," he said. "You don't have 35 guys plus the cheerleaders out there wondering what is going to happen. All it would take would be that one person not to shake hands or push somebody and who knows who would jump in [to fight], and what do you do? You can't stop it."

Is he serious? Does he not watch every pro sport out there? Well…apart from Detroit Pistons basketball of course. After almost every NFL game you will see opposing players shaking hands, hugging, and even kneeling down together in prayer. I’m willing to bet that the majority of these kids watch NFL games and see this after game camaraderie. To think that they couldn't emulate a lot of the players they look up to is beyond me.

If they were really worried about fights, why couldn’t the principals go to their head coach and just make it known that any after game altercation would not be tolerated. I would imagine if the coach would put game suspensions on his players if anything were to happen, the likelihood of trouble at the end of games would be next to nothing. Instead, they are teaching those kids that there is no faith they can practice good sportsmanship without adult supervision. It’s sad, isn’t it?

Thanks go to Wulf for pointing out this story to me.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

November 7, 2005

Monday Night Madness

Tonight’s game between the Colts and the Patriots should be a don’t miss game to watch. A possible early preview of a playoff contest. Not to mention the fact that the past few years, the Patriots have simply owned the Colts, both in the regular season and the post season. Peyton Manning is 0-7 in his career against them. In all the interviews I’ve seen, he believes that this is the year they will beat them. It's gonna be a fun one to see.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

November 4, 2005

The Capitalist's Philanthropy

It has been clearly demonstrated many times over that a person can successfully pursue profit without an appreciation for the morality of capitalism itself. It is therefore refreshing whenever an outrageously successful entrepreneur is able to exercise that very human tendency toward altruism in a way that actually supports the capitalist system that allowed said entrepreneur to become outrageously successful - thereby helping others toward their dream of outrageous success. Don't give a man a fish; teach him to fish.

Today's Boston Globe carries such a story:

The founder of eBay and his wife have donated $100 million to Tufts University, the school's largest gift ever, but also one with a unique twist: All the money will be invested in microfinance, which involves tiny loans as low as $40, designed to help poor people in the developing world start small businesses, such as selling hand-woven cloth or goat's milk.
Pierre and Pam Omidyar intend the gift to generate healthy returns for their alma mater and in so doing to demonstrate to other investors that microfinance deserves a hefty infusion of private capital, not just charitable and government dollars. Tufts and the Omidyars believe that the gift is the largest private allocation of capital to microfinance by any individual or family.

I came across this story at The American Thinker.

Tufts is not to undertake charity with the hundred mil. It is to invest the money in expectation of a return, just as it invests the other funds in its endowment. But Tufts is required to invest in micro-loans in less-developed economies, where a shortage of capitalism impoverishes the people... And that is precisely what the ultimate third world beneficiaries need: not charity, but help in becoming capitalists.
This is a wonderful example. Now, it is up to Tufts University. All of us should watch carefully how this program works, and draw lessons for the future.
In the meantime, congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. Omidyar and to Tufts University. You have done a wonderful thing.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)