Qatar has been awarded the 2022 World Cup. This isn't sour grapes that the U.S. was its primary competition for the '22 WC, although they should have been chosen.
The U.S. promised an efficient and spectacular WC. We offer an intact, continually developed infrastructure featuring both state of the art football and soccer stadiums with easy access to airports and hotels. We have a diverse population and a somewhat untapped soccer market that is rapidly expanding. Many of the world's biggest companies call the USA home and they have a chance to spend big at the greatest sporting event in the world. We sent you a former Leader of the Free World and Morgan Freedman, and neither was bought in France.
What didn't we have? The desert and soaring heat (unless you wanted to send two play-in teams to Death Valley), the one major city and 1.6M people and oh-by-the-way the Shariah Law.
Yes, everyone's favorite imposition. Fortunately, Qatar is liberal and there is alcohol but no drinking or being drunk in public. Indecency laws are not so lenient. Sounds like a good host for a month-long party.
Qatar is an energy rich nation, with vast oil and natural gas reserves so they can surely develop the infrastructure before 2022 and which will help power the air conditioned stadiums. It certainly won't struggle to pay for labor, with sponsorship laws that are in essence a new iteration of modern day slavery. Maybe 12 years is enough time for change, as Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifda Al Thani has started to do since 1995. But Qatar has been reluctant to do so for centuries.
If the U.S. had to lose, it should have been to Australia, which put on a fantastic Olympics a decade ago and has similar infrastructure. The fact that Qatar won with their mercenary representatives shows the backroom wheeling and dealing of FIFA.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Anquan Boldin to the New England?
Anquan Boldin wants out of Arizona to a place "where I can win a championship and the Cardinals are listening to offers (must feel confident with Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Breaston) for the top 7 or so receiver in the league. Where will he wind up? Hopefully with the hometown Patriots. Here's why:
The cost: Boldin will most likely take a first round pick and a later round pick (3rd) or a later round pick (4th or 5th) and another later round pick (3rd or 4th) the following draft. The Patriots have a 1st round pick in a slot where there isn't talent to select in this season's draft and are stocked in later rounds (3 in 2nd, 2 in 3rd, 1 in 4th and 2 in the 5th) this year. A player like Boldin is worth the trade of picks, while still being left without quality slots to replenish your talent pool at LB and in the secondary. To boot, Boldin still has 2 years at $6M per on his contract, while looking for a 4 year $40M extension. At only 28, you would be locking him up in the prime of his career.
The potential: Tom Brady is back under center with a quality line with a few pro bowl talents (Mankins, Light & Koppen) and imagine him lined up across from Randy Moss with Wes Welker in the slot. You could line up the frail duo of Fred Taylor and Laurence Maroney behind that and never run the ball with an absurdly effective passing game. You save your backs for the grind when the weather gets sloppy later and the season and for of course, the potential for a return to the playoffs (Editor's Note: Aggressive pessimism). Try and devise a defense that can plan to stop Welker, Moss and Boldin with dump plays to Kevin Faulk. You can't.
The toughness: Boldin is the proverbial "football player" that the talking tv & radio heads keep talking about. The hit he took against the Jets, fracturing his "paranasal sinuses",sounds violent enough, to miss only 2 games was impressive. He's a big physical receiver to go across from a big finesse receiver that you can go to for crucial first downs and red zone plays.
Downside: Financially, you start tying yourself up with big names but few roster spots filled and with the unkown economic situation for the NFL looming, a firm or decreasing salary cap would not be conducive to tying $45M or more in 5 players (seymour, brady, moss the biggest offenders). You give up several quality draft picks for one player, taking away the chance to draft a couple of the high risk high reward caliber players, weakening your draft.
All in all, I think the experiment would work out well and would certainly be entertaining to watch while the Patriots offense was on the field. Would you ever want to miss one of their drives?
The cost: Boldin will most likely take a first round pick and a later round pick (3rd) or a later round pick (4th or 5th) and another later round pick (3rd or 4th) the following draft. The Patriots have a 1st round pick in a slot where there isn't talent to select in this season's draft and are stocked in later rounds (3 in 2nd, 2 in 3rd, 1 in 4th and 2 in the 5th) this year. A player like Boldin is worth the trade of picks, while still being left without quality slots to replenish your talent pool at LB and in the secondary. To boot, Boldin still has 2 years at $6M per on his contract, while looking for a 4 year $40M extension. At only 28, you would be locking him up in the prime of his career.
The potential: Tom Brady is back under center with a quality line with a few pro bowl talents (Mankins, Light & Koppen) and imagine him lined up across from Randy Moss with Wes Welker in the slot. You could line up the frail duo of Fred Taylor and Laurence Maroney behind that and never run the ball with an absurdly effective passing game. You save your backs for the grind when the weather gets sloppy later and the season and for of course, the potential for a return to the playoffs (Editor's Note: Aggressive pessimism). Try and devise a defense that can plan to stop Welker, Moss and Boldin with dump plays to Kevin Faulk. You can't.
The toughness: Boldin is the proverbial "football player" that the talking tv & radio heads keep talking about. The hit he took against the Jets, fracturing his "paranasal sinuses",sounds violent enough, to miss only 2 games was impressive. He's a big physical receiver to go across from a big finesse receiver that you can go to for crucial first downs and red zone plays.
Downside: Financially, you start tying yourself up with big names but few roster spots filled and with the unkown economic situation for the NFL looming, a firm or decreasing salary cap would not be conducive to tying $45M or more in 5 players (seymour, brady, moss the biggest offenders). You give up several quality draft picks for one player, taking away the chance to draft a couple of the high risk high reward caliber players, weakening your draft.
All in all, I think the experiment would work out well and would certainly be entertaining to watch while the Patriots offense was on the field. Would you ever want to miss one of their drives?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Obama's Executive
"Each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And, if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years...our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse." - President Barack Obama
Is the above quote anything more than a scare tactic? This is what Mr Obama has been thriving on as he force feeds America the "change" he promised during the election. During his first weeks in office, the economy has gown from awful to horrific. The only thing dropping faster than the stock markets is economic confidence, arguably the most important contributor to recovery. Mr Obama came in with a full plate with the economy spiraling. What does he do to combat this? He goes back to the buffet table of social and pet projects and piles on a few more layers, lines his pockets with dessert and asks for a doggie bag. His solution to too much debt is to add more debt.
Some argue George W Bush used the September 11th attacks to extend the power of the executive. By and large, this is true, whether right and necessary or not. However, what Mr Obama is doing is quite worse and on a larger scale. He is using the economic meltdown to push forward his far liberal agenda (in contradiction to during his campaign, where he projected himself in the middle).
His "stimulus" plan is proof of this. In spite of the economy, he pledged over $600B to "fix" health care, and acknowledged the need for more; he vowed to lower taxes for 95% of Americans while crushing the upper tier with higher income and capital gains taxes and fewer tax breaks for such high crimes as charitable giving; and he allowed over 1000 earmarks to be put in despite his previous stance on the matter.
Just as Mr Bush acted on fears of more terrorist attacks to push forward his agenda, Mr Obama is acting on fearful concerns about the economy. If this were to work, just as Mr Bush was able to fend off any more terrorist acts at an unknown social and economical cost, Mr Obama would be credited with saving the nation from its biggest threat to our way of life since the Cuban missile crisis. If it is to fail, and in the long run I don't see how this does not handicap us for a long while, it will have not only failed to fix our current situation, but will also strap us with the huge sunk cost of the spending.
True, it has only been a matter of weeks, but signs are pointing down and at a faster pace rather than leveling off and troughing before a rebound. FDR was able to spend his way out of trouble and win a war in the process. If Mr Obama were able to solve this centuries great economic crisis and make progress in what is no longer called the War on Terror, he will be remembered in the same light. His legacy is already in the balance.
Is the above quote anything more than a scare tactic? This is what Mr Obama has been thriving on as he force feeds America the "change" he promised during the election. During his first weeks in office, the economy has gown from awful to horrific. The only thing dropping faster than the stock markets is economic confidence, arguably the most important contributor to recovery. Mr Obama came in with a full plate with the economy spiraling. What does he do to combat this? He goes back to the buffet table of social and pet projects and piles on a few more layers, lines his pockets with dessert and asks for a doggie bag. His solution to too much debt is to add more debt.
Some argue George W Bush used the September 11th attacks to extend the power of the executive. By and large, this is true, whether right and necessary or not. However, what Mr Obama is doing is quite worse and on a larger scale. He is using the economic meltdown to push forward his far liberal agenda (in contradiction to during his campaign, where he projected himself in the middle).
His "stimulus" plan is proof of this. In spite of the economy, he pledged over $600B to "fix" health care, and acknowledged the need for more; he vowed to lower taxes for 95% of Americans while crushing the upper tier with higher income and capital gains taxes and fewer tax breaks for such high crimes as charitable giving; and he allowed over 1000 earmarks to be put in despite his previous stance on the matter.
Just as Mr Bush acted on fears of more terrorist attacks to push forward his agenda, Mr Obama is acting on fearful concerns about the economy. If this were to work, just as Mr Bush was able to fend off any more terrorist acts at an unknown social and economical cost, Mr Obama would be credited with saving the nation from its biggest threat to our way of life since the Cuban missile crisis. If it is to fail, and in the long run I don't see how this does not handicap us for a long while, it will have not only failed to fix our current situation, but will also strap us with the huge sunk cost of the spending.
True, it has only been a matter of weeks, but signs are pointing down and at a faster pace rather than leveling off and troughing before a rebound. FDR was able to spend his way out of trouble and win a war in the process. If Mr Obama were able to solve this centuries great economic crisis and make progress in what is no longer called the War on Terror, he will be remembered in the same light. His legacy is already in the balance.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Cartoon Redux
Naïve and ignorant is what the cartoon is being called over and over as people continue to protest. Seriously, is the good Reverend Sharpton famous for his chronic complaining? Is he ever in thespotlight with good news? What is truly naïve and ignorant is to look at this cartoon in a vacuum where no other news exists and where chimpanzees can only be cartooned as African Americans and not as... well chimps. Is your mind so in the gutter that this has to be racist? Has man, and the United States in particular, not made great strides against racism, particularly seeing how Mr. Obama just took the office of President? Could it not be seen, the day after a famous chimp was shot dead by police and as a stimulus "plan" faced mounting criticism, as simply a parody of current events?
For those that argue that it implies Mr. Obama should be shot because he wrote the stimulus, know that our President has better things to do than sit down and hammer out thousands of pages of a bill. He may have not even read the whole thing. For sure, he was briefed and his aids gave it the okay and he threw his support behind it, but the wording of the cartoon is aimed at the House, the Senate and the Executive, not at any one man. You need to come to grips with the fact that the bill is full of flaws (a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard?) and that it does seem that something of less than human intelligence wrote the thing. Tim Geithner (the man put in charge of the Treasury (and the IRS when he can't pay his own taxes, but I digress), shares just as much blame as do members of the House and Senate. For a miss this bad, it took lots of people screwing up.
Now I would like to move away from this cartoon nonsense and strictly focus on the plan itself. Apparently our elected officials feel the same way about their stimulus plans as they do about our financial institutions...too big to fail. Well, this bill has Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers written all over. Mr. Obama vows transparency and that he will "call out" local governments who misuse the money on pork spending. How is this even possible? You couldn't follow a single million of these dollars, let alone every single one. It is said this will save thousands of jobs and create new ones and that if we didn't have it, the economy slip to a place where it cannot be reversed. This is the justification for trying to fix taking on too much debt with taking on too much debt. As the global economy slips further (I am looking at you China) will they want to keep buying our debt? Is it still as good as gold?
Now, it is easy to not be faced with a task as momentous as Mr. Obama is (and one not of his own doing) and say how bad of a plan it is and not understand the need to do something. However, rather than that, I will offer what I would do if I were in a position to do anything about it other than blog on my blog that no one reads (Hi Mom).
My general plan would be a bit more like the way TARP had been working under Former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Former President Bush in that it wouldn't be a huge lump sum. It would be partitioned out as seen fit. Much easier to manage. Much easier to cut the unneccessary spending, which in my eyes is anything that doesn't immediately address the root of the problems (mortgages) or positively add jobs, both short term and long term. It is one thing to just build , build, build, but what happens when everything is built? You want people in steady jobs and investing in their future. Think a) helping people go to college; b) investing in a wide array of industries (alternative fuels, biotechnology or, here's an idea...the car industry and make them the best in the world again.); c) yes, rebuild our highways, bridges and rails and d) our public school system...overhaul it. Or in other words, think about what made us the world's best economy in the first place.
This would work to distribute the money as needed and with better plans. You think that, right now, great innovators will not come out of the woodwork if they knew they could go to the government and say "Hey, I got this great idea to do X and it will impact Y" and the government would consider giving you $Z, there wouldn't be another boom industry and some gem companies? Every boom comes with a bust. That is simple economics. As long as that boom is bigger than that bust, and not too much longer, we will be better off in the long run, which is all that should matter in economic policy. Short term fixes prove more costly than they are worth and are (duh!) shortsighted.
The second prong of the attack, I would be sure to shore up the next round of mortgage failings. When you are in a flood, do you stand waist deep with a bucket? No, you move to high ground, set up the sand bags and then get at the water starting ackle deep with a pump. It is the same with the thing that sparked the powder keg of this economic calamity, mortgages, specifically those which were nearly completely mortgaged against their own (rising) value. You need to start with those on the brink of foreclosure of defaulting on their payments. We can not afford another [income/situation] bracket to fall into the widening crater of defaults. Write down principal payments on those and shore up those on the brink. Next you can do what you can with those not too far under. Thats when you start doling out the remaining funds of the $50B or whichever figure (I haven't run the numbers) would be appropriate.
It is not good government to bail out people who mortgaged their house against itself to buy cars, boats and a second home or those who bought a $700,000 home with their $40,000 salary. But the banks got a bailout? The ripple on the pond is much smaller with a pebble than a rock. You do what you can, just like with some of the bailout funds with some of those that aren't too far under getting help and those (Lehman and Bear) who were already gone were let go. The "silent majority" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFVsJ7j_ME) may have something to say about this. My thoughts on stopping foreclosures as a broad plan to help the economy are similar to my thoughts on universal healthcare. Why should I have to pay for the unheathly lifestyles of those who choose to not exercise, eat unhealthy, smoke, ect. and why should people have to pay for my drinking and not sleeping enough? Be prudent in your ways, live within your means and you will be able to take care of yourself.
For those that argue that it implies Mr. Obama should be shot because he wrote the stimulus, know that our President has better things to do than sit down and hammer out thousands of pages of a bill. He may have not even read the whole thing. For sure, he was briefed and his aids gave it the okay and he threw his support behind it, but the wording of the cartoon is aimed at the House, the Senate and the Executive, not at any one man. You need to come to grips with the fact that the bill is full of flaws (a new ice breaker for the Coast Guard?) and that it does seem that something of less than human intelligence wrote the thing. Tim Geithner (the man put in charge of the Treasury (and the IRS when he can't pay his own taxes, but I digress), shares just as much blame as do members of the House and Senate. For a miss this bad, it took lots of people screwing up.
Now I would like to move away from this cartoon nonsense and strictly focus on the plan itself. Apparently our elected officials feel the same way about their stimulus plans as they do about our financial institutions...too big to fail. Well, this bill has Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers written all over. Mr. Obama vows transparency and that he will "call out" local governments who misuse the money on pork spending. How is this even possible? You couldn't follow a single million of these dollars, let alone every single one. It is said this will save thousands of jobs and create new ones and that if we didn't have it, the economy slip to a place where it cannot be reversed. This is the justification for trying to fix taking on too much debt with taking on too much debt. As the global economy slips further (I am looking at you China) will they want to keep buying our debt? Is it still as good as gold?
Now, it is easy to not be faced with a task as momentous as Mr. Obama is (and one not of his own doing) and say how bad of a plan it is and not understand the need to do something. However, rather than that, I will offer what I would do if I were in a position to do anything about it other than blog on my blog that no one reads (Hi Mom).
My general plan would be a bit more like the way TARP had been working under Former Treasury Secretary Paulson and Former President Bush in that it wouldn't be a huge lump sum. It would be partitioned out as seen fit. Much easier to manage. Much easier to cut the unneccessary spending, which in my eyes is anything that doesn't immediately address the root of the problems (mortgages) or positively add jobs, both short term and long term. It is one thing to just build , build, build, but what happens when everything is built? You want people in steady jobs and investing in their future. Think a) helping people go to college; b) investing in a wide array of industries (alternative fuels, biotechnology or, here's an idea...the car industry and make them the best in the world again.); c) yes, rebuild our highways, bridges and rails and d) our public school system...overhaul it. Or in other words, think about what made us the world's best economy in the first place.
This would work to distribute the money as needed and with better plans. You think that, right now, great innovators will not come out of the woodwork if they knew they could go to the government and say "Hey, I got this great idea to do X and it will impact Y" and the government would consider giving you $Z, there wouldn't be another boom industry and some gem companies? Every boom comes with a bust. That is simple economics. As long as that boom is bigger than that bust, and not too much longer, we will be better off in the long run, which is all that should matter in economic policy. Short term fixes prove more costly than they are worth and are (duh!) shortsighted.
The second prong of the attack, I would be sure to shore up the next round of mortgage failings. When you are in a flood, do you stand waist deep with a bucket? No, you move to high ground, set up the sand bags and then get at the water starting ackle deep with a pump. It is the same with the thing that sparked the powder keg of this economic calamity, mortgages, specifically those which were nearly completely mortgaged against their own (rising) value. You need to start with those on the brink of foreclosure of defaulting on their payments. We can not afford another [income/situation] bracket to fall into the widening crater of defaults. Write down principal payments on those and shore up those on the brink. Next you can do what you can with those not too far under. Thats when you start doling out the remaining funds of the $50B or whichever figure (I haven't run the numbers) would be appropriate.
It is not good government to bail out people who mortgaged their house against itself to buy cars, boats and a second home or those who bought a $700,000 home with their $40,000 salary. But the banks got a bailout? The ripple on the pond is much smaller with a pebble than a rock. You do what you can, just like with some of the bailout funds with some of those that aren't too far under getting help and those (Lehman and Bear) who were already gone were let go. The "silent majority" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nFVsJ7j_ME) may have something to say about this. My thoughts on stopping foreclosures as a broad plan to help the economy are similar to my thoughts on universal healthcare. Why should I have to pay for the unheathly lifestyles of those who choose to not exercise, eat unhealthy, smoke, ect. and why should people have to pay for my drinking and not sleeping enough? Be prudent in your ways, live within your means and you will be able to take care of yourself.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
NY Post Cartoon
I am not sure how far away from NYC this has radiated, but there are currently protests going on against (and outside of) the NY Post. The reason being is seen here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090218/ap_en_ot/ny_post_cartoon. It has two cops, one shooting a chimpanzee dead and the other saying "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill." It was printed on Wednesday (2/18/09) and came a day after (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/17/travis-the-chimp-shot-dea_n_167527.html) a famous chimpanzee was shot and killed in Stamford, CT (40 miles or so from NYC) and was big news the day before. If its on my elevator news up date at work, then everyone knows about it.
The first thing that came to my mind was that they were using a current hot story (the chimp being shot), they showed their displeasure with the current government plan for the economy. But instead, a couple of bell ringers and hell raisers, like the Reverend Al Sharpton got on the case and call for the cartoonist and the editor on a pitchfork. Their argument breaks down to the cartoon harped on old racist depictions of African Americans (in this case, Barack Obama) being shot for the stimulus package. Problem is, when I think of the stimulus package, I think of failure in house, senate and the executive branch, not the failings of one man.
I find a few things wrong with this. First and foremost, the chimpanzee in no way resembles Obama or any other homosapien since at the very earliest, Neanderthals. Second, given the timing of the cartoon (the day after the local story of a chimpanzee being shot dead after going on a rampage attacking a person broke), mt mind isn't even tempted to leave that story and think something terrible.
Additionally, and admittedly this reason may vary from person to person, I think that chimpanzees wrote the "stimulus" (even Mr Obama seems to be starting to get away from calling it this) based on its complete disagreed for the past, present and future, although that is a whole other blog post. The plan the government has in place right now was not the failings of one man, but lots of politicians and lobbyists. Given, it is most associated with the most visible and most supportive backer of it. As a more light hearted honorable mention, I could go into the difference between apes and monkeys, the latter of which was often used to depict African Americans through and even beyond the 1960's and the former of which being the family the chimp belongs in. Calling for the firing of two men because of this is simply ludicrous.
The first thing that came to my mind was that they were using a current hot story (the chimp being shot), they showed their displeasure with the current government plan for the economy. But instead, a couple of bell ringers and hell raisers, like the Reverend Al Sharpton got on the case and call for the cartoonist and the editor on a pitchfork. Their argument breaks down to the cartoon harped on old racist depictions of African Americans (in this case, Barack Obama) being shot for the stimulus package. Problem is, when I think of the stimulus package, I think of failure in house, senate and the executive branch, not the failings of one man.
I find a few things wrong with this. First and foremost, the chimpanzee in no way resembles Obama or any other homosapien since at the very earliest, Neanderthals. Second, given the timing of the cartoon (the day after the local story of a chimpanzee being shot dead after going on a rampage attacking a person broke), mt mind isn't even tempted to leave that story and think something terrible.
Additionally, and admittedly this reason may vary from person to person, I think that chimpanzees wrote the "stimulus" (even Mr Obama seems to be starting to get away from calling it this) based on its complete disagreed for the past, present and future, although that is a whole other blog post. The plan the government has in place right now was not the failings of one man, but lots of politicians and lobbyists. Given, it is most associated with the most visible and most supportive backer of it. As a more light hearted honorable mention, I could go into the difference between apes and monkeys, the latter of which was often used to depict African Americans through and even beyond the 1960's and the former of which being the family the chimp belongs in. Calling for the firing of two men because of this is simply ludicrous.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Gaza
Chances are, if you are reading this, then you know Israel has been pounding the crap out of the Gaza Strip over the past two weeks. There have been calls for a cease fire from all over the world condemning the attacks and the occupation. News outlets love to point out that over 1000 Gaza residents (militant and non alike) have been killed while less than 20 Israelis have been killed from rocket and other attacks.
First, a bit of background. There has never been but a lull in violence and conflict in Israel for thousands of years. Control over Jerusalem throughout history has been one long game of hot potato. When the concept of Israel was being mulled over by the UN, the original plan was
for a partition, one Jewish and one Arab, with the West Bank remaining neutral (due to the holy sites for both sides and the fact that no one will ever relinquish/maintain control over those sites). Arab Nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq) rejected this and instead attacked the newly formed Israel. At the end, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank. Israel itself controlled a barren wasteland with no natural resources and only tourism to rely on (a real kicker to control the only land in that area with no oil).
To keep this from getting too boring, control over various regions of Israel (a small area about the size of New Jersey, mind you) moved back and forth, usually from Arab aggression resulting in their own defeat and Israel conceding the land from the resulting victories. This has been going on forever and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. The whole thing is really just so petty on both sides at this point, we should just have a bingo game to see who gets control of each area. Violence is as certain as a hypochondriac's thoughts when hearing the defintion of hypochondria.
Back to recent events. If any other country in the world was subject to unprovoked rocket attacks, no matter the casualty result, the "offensive" into the firing country wouldn't be second guessed. Can you imagine Mexico shooting rockets into New Mexico? Andorra taking on Spain? How about Germany laying a few on France (who is attempting to broker the cease fire)? Or, what would the response be to Israeli unprovoked attacks on Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, et all?
Now Gaza is claiming it will only broker a cease fire (after they broke the last one during its final days) if Israel withdraws? Hamas (which controls Gaza), is backed by Iran. Iran has gone on record saying its goal is the complete obliteration of the state of Israel. I don't think the problems with this whole thing could be anymore obvious.
First, a bit of background. There has never been but a lull in violence and conflict in Israel for thousands of years. Control over Jerusalem throughout history has been one long game of hot potato. When the concept of Israel was being mulled over by the UN, the original plan was
for a partition, one Jewish and one Arab, with the West Bank remaining neutral (due to the holy sites for both sides and the fact that no one will ever relinquish/maintain control over those sites). Arab Nations (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq) rejected this and instead attacked the newly formed Israel. At the end, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank. Israel itself controlled a barren wasteland with no natural resources and only tourism to rely on (a real kicker to control the only land in that area with no oil).
To keep this from getting too boring, control over various regions of Israel (a small area about the size of New Jersey, mind you) moved back and forth, usually from Arab aggression resulting in their own defeat and Israel conceding the land from the resulting victories. This has been going on forever and I don't see it stopping anytime soon. The whole thing is really just so petty on both sides at this point, we should just have a bingo game to see who gets control of each area. Violence is as certain as a hypochondriac's thoughts when hearing the defintion of hypochondria.
Back to recent events. If any other country in the world was subject to unprovoked rocket attacks, no matter the casualty result, the "offensive" into the firing country wouldn't be second guessed. Can you imagine Mexico shooting rockets into New Mexico? Andorra taking on Spain? How about Germany laying a few on France (who is attempting to broker the cease fire)? Or, what would the response be to Israeli unprovoked attacks on Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, et all?
Now Gaza is claiming it will only broker a cease fire (after they broke the last one during its final days) if Israel withdraws? Hamas (which controls Gaza), is backed by Iran. Iran has gone on record saying its goal is the complete obliteration of the state of Israel. I don't think the problems with this whole thing could be anymore obvious.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Testimonials
Is it just me, or any time there are "testimonials" listed for a product or a service, that product/service is shady at best? I keep seeing the http://cash4gold.com/ advertised and I went to check it out. Gold is pretty valuable but I simply can't trust a site that has testimonials. It's like trusting the Bernie Madoff with this years tax return.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)