Topic: pictures

Brevity - 1/18/05 (C) 2005 guy & rodd Dist. by UFS, Inc.

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


Some more cars parked a little crooked...I can only assume they slid on the ice and got stuck like that...?

A Picture Share!
Topic: pictures


This pic was taken 1/15/05 after we had severe freezing rain. The ground was definitely covered in a layer of ice and there were three cars parked all crazy like this...

Sweat shops...
Mood:  chillin'
Topic: informative
I categorized this under "informative" instead of just "rambling." I hope you agree :)

I was reading another blog (http://trueliberal0.tripod.com/) and the author mentioned sweat shops. (He also happened to be mentioning how the far left can go too far left sometimes).

Case in point: sweat shops.

Now how many of us think that manufacturing companies here should go from paying workers $7/hr + benefits, 40 hr work weeks, paid time off, sick leave, etc to moving their factories overseas, pay $1/day to the workers and give them little to no benefits? Well unless you happen to own the business (or are a hired financial advisor for them) you probably won't support that. "It's ridiculous" you probably say. "They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that!"

Well, the story, as they say, always has two sides. The "other side" was introduced to me by a man named Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times. In my humble opinion, I think he is an outstanding author. That's my opinion though, you're free to think whatever you want of him.

See, Nicholas and his wife travel abroad a lot. In one article, entitled Two Cheers for Sweatshops, Nicholas actually argues for sweatshops. "How can someone in their right mind do this?" you ask? Well, simple: he's been to those third world countries where these sweat shops are. He knows the conditions of these shops (not as bad as you can imagine, but not the best working environments either). He also knows the conditions of the children who are not able to get jobs at these sweatshops...of the sad truth behind child prostitution, drugs, and crime. Many families (as the article and others like it show) actually encourage their children to work in these shops. The families need money, and the parents don't want their kids turning to drugs or prostitution to get it.

"Fourteen years ago, we [Nicholas and his wife] moved to Asia and began reporting there. Like most Westerners, we arrived in the region outraged at sweatshops. In time, though, we came to accept the view supported by most Asians: that the campaign against sweatshops risks harming the very people it is intended to help." He goes on to explain situations that are reported in America, Michael Moore-style. For those who don't know, "Michael Moore-style" is when you take the truth and twist it and turn it a little bit and omit a few things so that it looks worse than it is.

Rather than sweat shop owners forcing the workers to work long hours, many sweat shop workers request it so as to make more money.

"It's actually pretty annoying how hard they want to work," said the factory manager, a Hong Kong man. "It means we have to worry about security and have a supervisor around almost constantly."

"$2/day for a nine hour shift, six days a week," definitely doesn't sound like a good deal for us, but to someone in a foreign land that is decent money. Comparing what they make to what we make is comparing apples to oranges: Nicholas went to a food stand in a nearby village there and paid the equivalent of 5 cents for a meal of leaves, rice, fish paste and fried beetles. Now where in American can you get a meal for 5 cents?

And then, there's the third side of this story: what paying $2/day to people in Thailand means for us Americans. It means, quite plainly, that we can go to a store and purchase something today for half the price we paid for it a few years ago.

As any intro econ teacher would tell you, it doesn't matter so much how much you make (nominal wage), but what you can buy with it (real wage). Who cares if you make $100/hr if the cheapest hamburger you can find is $300? Life would be much better for you if you made only $5/hr and paid $1 for a hamburger. (We are assuming, of course, that all other goods and services are on comparable terms to the hamburger.) In three hours of working in situation one, you could just barely afford to buy your hamburger; in situation two you could afford 15 hamburgers.

"What does this have to do with it?" you ask? Well, when people overseas produce our products cheaper than we can and in turn the companies that make them sell them to us at a reasonable mark-up, we are better off. Our "hamburgers" become cheaper.

Let's use clothing as an example. Today, let's say, you can find a sweater you like for $20 (regular price). Three years from now, you might find the exact same sweater and it will be $15 (regular price, not sales price). Did cotton fall upon the earth in great quantities and the over-abundance cause a lower price for sweaters? Or was it that the sweaters were made with less labor and capital? Most likely, #2. Now during those three years your wage probably didn't change all that much. Let's say, for the sake of making things easy, that today you make $10/hr, and in 3 years from now you just happen to make $15/hr. That's a good raise in just 3 years, but not completely out of line. Well, today you'd spend 2 hrs working in order to purchase the sweater ($20); in 3 years it will only take you one hours worth of work to purchase the sweater ($15).

What always has bothered me was Nike: they pay someone 15 cents a day to make shoes overseas, and then turn around and sell the shoes in America for over $100. From a business point of view it's brilliant (since they can get away with it). But morally I think it is reprehensible...and that is why I boycott Nike :)

It is hard to be in "support" of sweat shops, but most of them aren't as bad as the press and some activists here would have you believe. But sweat shops aren't all bad, like they'd have you believe. Certainly we don't want anyone suffering at work or being forced to work hours without rest or pay. But for those sweat shops that treat the workers humanely and keep children (and some adults for that matter) out of trouble, I say we should support them. That is why I stand behind Kristof and say "Two Cheers for Sweat Shops!"

Do me a favor...
Mood:  surprised
Topic: people who need help
Do me a favor...if you are going to take someone to court, try to make sure that what you are suing them for isn't against the law :)

I went home for lunch, as I usually do, and turned on Judge Joe Brown (as I usually do). Sure enough, the plaintiff was suing her friend for not paying parking tickets. The friends' defense was along the lines of she had already paid it or shouldn't have to or whatever. Problem was, the plaintiff continually loaned her car to her friend (who she was suing) even though the friend didn't have a license! Furthermore, the plaintiff attempted to have the defendant added to the registration of the car so that she could "legally" drive it around.

Furthermore, the defendant had already paid several parking tickets already; both agreed that this was true. Judge Joe Brown asked where the defendant got the money. "I get welfare," she said.

When the judge referred to it as "public assistance" she retorted "but I don't get public assistance."

"I thought you said you got welfare...?" he asked.

"I do," she said. Apparently she didn't know what "public assistance" meant...or..."public assistance" is too politically correct for her? lol

Anyway, the judge couldn't believe what he was hearing. The plaintiff was knowingly lending her car out to someone w/o a license and trying to add someone to her registration that did not have a license. And, just as bad, the defendant was using her welfare checks to pay other parking tickets!

The judge asked if they were sure they wanted to proceed considering they were both under oath and in danger of being convicted of felonies. They still tried their case, but the judge threw it out before it got any worse.

I'd say "it would be nice if people like this could get some mental help" but the Lord knows there are just too damn many of them in this world to help...

Back to the innocent times...
Mood:  lazy
Topic: ramblings
I was helping a member (what us in the credit union business call "customers") on the phone today and he asked if he could close his Visa. I informed him of our policy: basically we would need him to either come in and sign a form or mail in a request to have the Visa closed. The basic rule is that we have to have a signature to verify they want it closed, just like we need a signature to verify that they did at one time want the loan.

Which got me to thinking...

I know I wasn't necessarily alive "back in the days"...but I do know that times then were much more innocent. I have no doubt that when my dad was my age I'm sure he could have just made a quick call (or sent a telegram perhaps? lol) to close a signature loan that had been paid off. He could write checks without worrying about a hold being placed on them. He could take a business opportunity from a friend and more than likely it wouldn't be a scam...

But things have changed. Now people have to constantly watch their backs, shred their mail, keep close eyes on their accounts, check their credit reports fairly often, and "tips from friends" are often times critiqued to death. Am we all just getting paranoid? Well perhaps, but for good reason. Times have changed. People aren't as nice and innocent as they used to be (unfortunately). Which means we all have to be extra cautious not to have someone do fraud against us. I've never personally had my identity stolen or fraud on my accounts, but I've dealt with plenty of it to know that it is no fun...

It's just too bad that we'll never be able to go back to those "innocent days"...

King of Queens...
Mood:  happy
Now Playing: King of Queens
Topic: ramblings
I must say, the show King of Queens has got to be one of the best shows ever :) I mean most shows these days are funny, but none of them makes me laugh out loud as much or as often as King of Queens.

Doug (Kevin James) plays the husband, Carrie (Leah Rimini) plays the wife, and Arthur (Jerry Stiller) plays Carrie's dad who moved in to live with the both of them since episode one. Most sitcoms have married couples with children; in this show, Arthur plays their 85 year old child. Arthur is definitely the most excentric person you've never met. He screams at the top of his lungs constantly, and of course is slightly senile in his age.

Doug plays a delivery driver for IPS (International Parcel Service) and Carrie is a legal secretary. Doug's personality mimics mine pretty well: overweight guy who loves football, hanging with the boys, and his girl even though he's not the best at showing it. Carrie is a little on the high maintenance side, loves her designer clothing, and can be short tempered at time. Together they live the "blue collar American life"...only unfortunately they're stuck with Arthur.

Seinfeld was definitely my favorite show when it was on tv...King of Queens is slowly approaching the "best television show ever" status. I definitely recommend the show to everyone. Doesn't matter how crappy of a mood I am in, this show always cheers me up :)

Damn Colts...
Mood:  a-ok
Topic: ramblings
I am doing fine now...but I certainly was pissed earlier (5ish). I've been waiting all year for the NFL playoffs to begin...the Colts won last week with a major ass-kickin' against the Denver Broncos. Today they fought against debatably the best team in the NFL, the New England Patriots, and boy did they get their clocks cleaned today. 20 - 3 the Patriots whooped 'em. The team that had the NFL leading 32.5 points per game average was snuffed to just 3 today. Boy did it piss me off...

But...I'm ok now. Now I just need to focus on the Steelers and hoping they can kick the livin' crap outta those damn Patriots.

Does saying that make me un-patriotic? lol

Steelers WIN!!!
Mood:  happy
Steelers WIN 20 - 17 over the Jets...

And now...the Colts need to win tomorrow and next week (against the Steelers) so they can go to the Super Bowl :D

Graner gets 10 years...
Now Playing: Tsumani Aid: A Concert of Hope - Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here"
Topic: people who need help
Plenty of fingers have been pointed over the whole Abu Ghraib prison scandal, and finally after many months someone has been held accountable. 10 years in prison was granted to Army Spc. Charles Graner.

**********************************************

Graner Gets 10 Years in Iraq Prison Abuse

2 hours, 24 minutes ago

By T.A. BADGER, Associated Press Writer

FORT HOOD, Texas - Army Spc. Charles Graner Jr., who grinned in photos of Iraqi prisoners being sexually humiliated but told jurors, "I didn't enjoy what I did there," was sentenced Saturday to 10 years behind bars in the first court-martial stemming from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

Graner, labeled the leader of a band of rogue guards at the Baghdad prison in late 2003, could have received 15 years.

Asked if he felt remorse after the sentence was handed down, Graner said, "There's a war on. Bad things happen."

Graner will be dishonorably discharged when his sentence is completed. He also was demoted to private and ordered to forfeit all pay and benefits.

A day after convicting him, the jury of four Army officers and six senior enlisted men deliberated about two hours to determine Graner's sentence. He could have received 15 years.

Graner, who had been free prior to trial, was taken into custody after the sentence was read. He gave his mother, Irma, a big hug and his father, Charles Sr., a firm handshake before the jury foreman read the sentence.

"He's scared to death," Irma Graner said later.

Graner was accused of stacking naked prisoners in a human pyramid and later ordering them to masturbate while other soldiers took photographs. He also allegedly punched one man in the head hard enough to knock him out, and struck an injured prisoner with a collapsible metal stick.

Defense lawyer Guy Womack said his client and the six other Abu Ghraib guards charged with abuses were being scapegoated, but added that he thought the jury did its job well.

"I firmly believe there should have been reasonable doubt, but we respect their decision," he said outside the courthouse. He added that he had feared Graner could have received a harsher sentence than the 10-year term.

Prosecutors Maj. Michael Holley and Capt. Chris Graveline would not speak to reporters, but they said in a joint statement, "We think it is important that the world was able to observe this court-martial."

Under military court rules, Graner's case will be automatically appealed to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He also could request clemency from his commanding general.

Graner did not testify during his trial, but during the sentencing phase Saturday he took the witness stand to repeat the defense claim that the jury clearly rejected: that he had been ordered by intelligence agents at Abu Ghraib to abuse the prisoners to make them easier to interrogate.

Womack asked him why he was smiling in the infamous photos, some of which were shown while Graner spoke.

"I'm smiling now, and that's a nervous smile," Graner said.

Graner described himself as a by-the-book prison guard corrupted by superiors who ordered him to physically mistreat and sexually humiliate detainees.

He said he initially resisted pressure to mistreat prisoners, but his Army superiors made it clear to him that he was expected to obey the commands of the military and civilian intelligence agents who ran his part of Abu Ghraib.

Graner said a lieutenant in his unit told him: "If (military intelligence) asks you to do this, it needs to be done. They're in charge, follow their orders."

He said he now knows that those orders were unlawful, but "at the time my understanding is that they were (lawful), or I wouldn't have done them," he said.

Graner, a 36-year-old reservist from Uniontown, Pa., spoke for nearly three hours as an "unsworn statement," meaning he was not subject to cross-examination by prosecutors. He did not testify during his trial.

He concluded by saying: "I didn't enjoy what I did there. ... A lot of it was wrong, a lot of it was criminal."

Holley, the co-prosecutor, said in his final statement that Graner was a disgrace to the military and urged the 10 jurors to send him to prison for the maximum sentence.

"The time for Specialist Graner to be responsible for his actions is finally here," Holley said.

Graner faced 10 counts under five separate charges: Assault, conspiracy, maltreatment of detainees, committing indecent acts and dereliction of duty. He was found guilty on all counts, except that one assault count was downgraded to battery.

Four soldiers have pleaded guilty in the case. Two other guards from the 372nd Military Police Company, a reserve unit from Cresaptown, Md., are awaiting trial, along with Pfc. Lynndie England, a clerk at Abu Ghraib who last fall gave birth to a baby believed to be fathered by Graner.

Throughout Graner's 4 1/2-day trial, prosecutors depicted him as a sadist who took great pleasure in seeing detainees suffer.

"It was for sport, for laughs," prosecutor Graveline told jurors in his closing argument Friday. "What we have here is plain abuse. There is no justification."

Iraqi detainee Hussein Mutar, in videotaped testimony shown as the sentencing phase began Friday evening, said he had supported the U.S.-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein until he was abused.

"The Americans came to free the Iraqi people from Saddam," Mutar said. "I didn't expect this to happen. This instance changed the entire picture of the American people (for me)."

Irma Graner, testifying in the sentencing phase, described her son as a kind and gentle man who faithfully served his country.

"He is not the monster he's made out to be," she said quietly. "In my eyes he'll always be a hero."

The shocking photos of reservists abusing and sexually humiliating prisoners were first broadcast on CBS's "60 Minutes II" in April.

A month later, President Bush urged Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to make sure that any guilty U.S. soldiers be punished for "shameful and appalling acts."