From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Jun 1 20:38:27 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2010 20:38:27 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Female "circumcision": what about the "nick"? In-Reply-To: <9E08C24D7CC2422BB301E9DEE34FAA97@StevePC> References: <53615.144.183.224.2.1274296167.sq uirrel@www.swhi.net> <9E08C24D7CC2422BB301E9DEE34FAA97@StevePC> Message-ID: Steve wrote: >Rich Rostrom provides various details along the lines of: > >> FGM is not "Islamic" - there is nothing in the Koran >> or the Hadiths about it > >> It is primarily found in NE Africa, with outliers in >> West Africa > >Yes; did someone imply that it was a part of Islam? Not here, but that is often asserted. I felt it was useful to counter common misinformation. In any case, it is found primarily in Moslem societies, not all of them African. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Tue Jun 8 22:58:10 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 22:58:10 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] The Gaza Flotilla incident: a knowledge survey Message-ID: Most of you are aware of the incident. I would like to know what you know about. If you will, please respond with a summary of the facts as you know them _right_ _now_ - without doing any further inquiry. I would further ask that no one respond to anyone else's version until everyone has had a chance to post their own version - say until midnight Friday. -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jun 9 00:53:30 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:53:30 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] The Gaza Flotilla incident: a knowledge survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006090616.o596GFOb021346@mail.zarquon.net> At 22:58 6/8/2010 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >I would like to know what you know about. If you will, >please respond with a summary of the facts as you know >them _right_ _now_ - without doing any further inquiry. OK, I'll bite. A flotilla, though I'd only initially heard of three, then nine, ships, left Turkey with supplies for Gaza. They were intercepted by Israeli forces at sea, at least one ship was boarded, gunfire ensued and none people were killed. The ships and remaining crew(s) were captured and interned in Israel. Many of the people were released the their native countries, and some, but not all of the supplies were supposedly going to make it to Gaza after all. The intercept happened at sea, outside of Israeli territorial waters, but within range of the blockade Israel maintains on Gaza. The gunfire only happened after the ships attempted to repel boarders, and the Israeli forces seemed to be saying for a while that they were only defending themselves, though clearly they initiated the boarding action. Some protesters have said they intended to provoke some reaction from Israel, but did not expect live fire to break out. The supplies supposedly include things that would often be restricted from import into Gaza by Israel. Items that might be considered above and beyond subsistence supplies such as food or medical supplies. That person wasn't very clear on what besides some very general things. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jun 9 00:53:30 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:53:30 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] The Gaza Flotilla incident: a knowledge survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006090616.o596GFoD021347@mail.zarquon.net> At 22:58 6/8/2010 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >I would like to know what you know about. If you will, >please respond with a summary of the facts as you know >them _right_ _now_ - without doing any further inquiry. OK, I'll bite. A flotilla, though I'd only initially heard of three, then nine, ships, left Turkey with supplies for Gaza. They were intercepted by Israeli forces at sea, at least one ship was boarded, gunfire ensued and none people were killed. The ships and remaining crew(s) were captured and interned in Israel. Many of the people were released the their native countries, and some, but not all of the supplies were supposedly going to make it to Gaza after all. The intercept happened at sea, outside of Israeli territorial waters, but within range of the blockade Israel maintains on Gaza. The gunfire only happened after the ships attempted to repel boarders, and the Israeli forces seemed to be saying for a while that they were only defending themselves, though clearly they initiated the boarding action. Some protesters have said they intended to provoke some reaction from Israel, but did not expect live fire to break out. The supplies supposedly include things that would often be restricted from import into Gaza by Israel. Items that might be considered above and beyond subsistence supplies such as food or medical supplies. That person wasn't very clear on what besides some very general things. Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Jun 9 18:42:37 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:42:37 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] The Gaza Flotilla incident: a knowledge survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C962E4987F542E492F6D0C40169DE64@StevePC> Rich Rostrom writes: > Most of you are aware of the incident. > > I would like to know what you know about. If you will, > please respond with a summary of the facts as you know > them _right_ _now_ - without doing any further inquiry. Very little. I gather it must have happened over a weekend when I was busy with outside work all day and planned family events, and not going anywhere so I was not listening to the car radio. (I generally don't catch much news on the weekends.) When I first heard of it, it was a follow-up story that assumed everyone knew all about it. I gather a group of boats were bringing some kind of supplies to Gaza and were interdicted by Israel Defense Forces, enforcing a standing embargo. They boarded one or more ships and there were hostilities, including injuries and/or deaths, but I don't think I heard how many. Apparently there is dispute about who initiated hostilities (other than boarding); people are comparing videos from the two sides, but the ones made available so far are all edited and no one is confident that any of them tell the whole story. I get the impression that the "flotilla" included Al Jazeera journalists, which seems to imply that it was partly staged as a media event to begin with. (Surely they expected to be boarded or otherwise interfered with.) - Steve G From mark at mark.hagerman.name Thu Jun 10 18:01:51 2010 From: mark at mark.hagerman.name (Mark Hagerman) Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:01:51 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] The Gaza Flotilla incident: a knowledge survey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2010-Jun-08, at 10:58 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote: > I would like to know what you know about. If you will, > please respond with a summary of the facts as you know > them _right_ _now_ - without doing any further inquiry. As I understand it, one or more boats (ships?) tried to pass the Israeli blockade, and refused to allow the Israeli military to board and inspect for interdicted materiel (weapons? ammo?). There was an exchange of fire, with some casualties/fatalities. That's about all I "know". Mark Hagerman From ignatz at dminet.com Fri Jun 11 15:36:35 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 15:36:35 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Heinlein nails it...again... Message-ID: <20100611203635.GA13157@dminet.com> Ok, I'm retro; I like to re-read favorite books. It's like meeting an old friend, or that scruffy pair of slippers you keep wearing when you've got boxes of new ones given to you in the hope you'll see reason and get *rid* of those embarassing things. I was re-reading Lifeline, and after the hijinks in that 10 square miles of insanity called Washington in the previous Administration, it really hit me hard: A judge is admonishing a defendant, and says: "There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law." Boy, does that ring true today, over 70 years after he penned it. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From jazz at qnet.com Fri Jun 11 23:30:24 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 21:30:24 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! Message-ID: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> Much as I hate to admit it, Ayn Rand might have a had a point. At least with respect to some of the excesses of The Fountainhead. Take a look at some of the comments on the Abby Sunderland story on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/11/missing.teen.sailor/index.html?hpt=T2) and you can see the Conform to Societal Norms versus Free to Be Who I Want To Be ideals playing out. It is pretty amazing how vehement the Conformists get. The current favorite seems to be making the parents reimburse the taxpayers for the girl's rescue, followed closely by getting Child Protective services after the parents for letting a 16 year old out of the house. The fact the parents are American and it is the Australian and French governments involved seems to slip by most people. For their part, the Freedomists seem to be scolding the Conformists for being freedom hating couch potatoes with no hearts and/or souls. I noticed this article around 3am my time, about 18 hours ago. It is over 2700 comments already, and seems to be rehashing the same basic ground. Feel free to browse around. The point counter point is not really informative, but probably instructive (and a bit scary in some ways). Bill Taylor From SteveG at swhi.net Wed Jun 16 21:32:06 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 21:32:06 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > Much as I hate to admit it, Ayn Rand might have a had a point. At > least with respect to some of the excesses of The Fountainhead. Take > a look at some of the comments on the Abby Sunderland story on CNN > (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/11/missing.teen.sailor/index.ht > ml?hpt=T2) > and you can see the Conform to Societal Norms versus Free to Be Who I > Want To Be ideals playing out. Ayn Rand was right that there are different kinds of people? Impressive. Who would have thought of that? - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Wed Jun 16 22:08:50 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:08:50 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> At 21:32 6/16/2010 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Bill Taylor says: > > > Much as I hate to admit it, Ayn Rand might have a had a point. At > > least with respect to some of the excesses of The Fountainhead. Take > > a look at some of the comments on the Abby Sunderland story on CNN > > (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/11/missing.teen.sailor/index.ht > > ml?hpt=T2) > > and you can see the Conform to Societal Norms versus Free to Be Who I > > Want To Be ideals playing out. > >Ayn Rand was right that there are different kinds of people? >Impressive. Who would have thought of that? Well yes, that is fairly remarkable on its own. But in particular the amount of polarization over the issue. There doesn't seem to be a lot of nuance or spectrum expressed in the comments. Either that girl and her parents are way out of line and need punishing, or they should be left alone to their own good judgement. Bill Taylor From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jun 17 09:58:03 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:58:03 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Bill Taylor wrote: >>Ayn Rand was right that there are different kinds of people? >>Impressive. Who would have thought of that? > > Well yes, that is fairly remarkable on its own. But in particular > the amount of polarization over the issue. There doesn't seem to be > a lot of nuance or spectrum expressed in the comments. I saw no comments on the page when I went to it (maybe I was too late), but people who have no particular opinion don't usually state one. You should expect to see mainly polarized views in the Comments section under any news item. In any event, I think it's a bit of a stretch to read comments along the lines you describe and jump to a connection with Ayn Rand. Difference of opinion as to how much society has to say about the consequences of individual decisions is as old as society. A situation like this, where the actions of the individual (a) were undertake largely for publicity and possibly for the associated personal gain, and (b) presented *obvious* risks of imposing *substantial* costs on others,* is bound to generate such discussion. * Any experienced sailor knows about this issue. Policies of rescue services around the world vary; the US Coast Guard only sends a bill if the rescue call is a hoax, but some others do if the need for the rescue was caused by negligence. In any event, I see nothing in any way suggesting that Rand was right - only that she had on opinion on the subject. Incidentally - and I do mean incidentally - I am not surprised at any confusion over the nationalities involved. Her father was born in the UK, lived in Australia, and when I saw him on TV I assumed he was Australian from his accent. - Steve G From steveg at swhi.net Thu Jun 17 10:12:19 2010 From: steveg at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:12:19 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <59366.144.183.224.2.1276787539.squirrel@www.swhi.net> I wrote: > Incidentally - and I do mean incidentally - I am not > surprised at any confusion over the nationalities involved. > Her father was born in the UK, lived in Australia, and when > I saw him on TV I assumed he was Australian from his accent. That is, I assumed he and his family were Australian. It might be different if I'd been following the story before, but my immediate reaction was along the lines of "Hm. I guess some Australian teenager was lost at sea and has been rescued. A 16-year-old girl? Around the world alone? And the parents encouraged her to go? What stupid people." - Steve G From jazz at qnet.com Thu Jun 17 11:06:53 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:06:53 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> Message-ID: <201006171607.o5HG7Gff014598@mail.zarquon.net> At 09:58 6/17/2010 -0500, Steve Gruenwald wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >Bill Taylor wrote: > > >>Ayn Rand was right that there are different kinds of people? > >>Impressive. Who would have thought of that? > > > > Well yes, that is fairly remarkable on its own. But in particular > > the amount of polarization over the issue. There doesn't seem to be > > a lot of nuance or spectrum expressed in the comments. > >I saw no comments on the page when I went to it (maybe I was >too late), but people who have no particular opinion don't >usually state one. You should expect to see mainly polarized >views in the Comments section under any news item. I just got the comments, but they took forever to load. Maybe you have some blocking, or the CNN archive timed out for you. >In any event, I think it's a bit of a stretch to read >comments along the lines you describe and jump to a >connection with Ayn Rand. Difference of opinion as to how >much society has to say about the consequences of individual >decisions is as old as society. A situation like this, >where the actions of the individual (a) were undertake >largely for publicity and possibly for the associated >personal gain, and (b) presented *obvious* risks of imposing >*substantial* costs on others,* is bound to generate such >discussion. > >* Any experienced sailor knows about this issue. Policies >of rescue services around the world vary; the US Coast Guard >only sends a bill if the rescue call is a hoax, but some >others do if the need for the rescue was caused by >negligence. > >In any event, I see nothing in any way suggesting that Rand >was right - only that she had on opinion on the subject. I was thinking more along the lines of how the major characters of The Fountainhead are expressed. The wild eyed idealist, the rigid controlling conformist, and the people that adhere to each side. You have Sunderland and her family acting out the Howard Roarke side of things, and the "She's too young" crowd acting out the Toohey side. Obviously idealized characters don't make good real world people, but this is as close as I've seen in a while. And it isn't just the costs of rescue that was being discussed. The whole idea of whether a 16 year old could possibly be experienced enough to make the trip, or should even be allowed even if it were possible. Then some branches off into the magic age 18, vs child abuse, vs overprotectiveness, etc. etc. That discussion at least admitted that not all teens or parents are the same. But mostly, lot of variations on either, "train her well and good luck to her" or "there is no way a good parent could let this happen". People seemed genuinely surprised that anyone could see the world differently than they do. Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Thu Jun 17 11:49:26 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 11:49:26 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <201006171607.o5HG7Gff014598@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net> <201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net> <24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <201006171607.o5HG7Gff014598@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2010 Bill Taylor wrote: > People seemed genuinely surprised that anyone > could see the world differently than they do. I'm always surprised that others see the world differently. That's why I always pay attention to the opinions of others. I like being surprised. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From SteveG at swhi.net Thu Jun 17 20:51:36 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:51:36 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Ayn was right! In-Reply-To: <201006171607.o5HG7Gff014598@mail.zarquon.net> References: <201006120433.o5C4X2Cd032052@mail.zarquon.net><201006170309.o5H39ejB026032@mail.zarquon.net><24124.144.183.224.2.1276786683.squirrel@www.swhi.net> <201006171607.o5HG7Gff014598@mail.zarquon.net> Message-ID: Bill Taylor says: > But mostly, lot > of variations on either, "train her well and good luck to her" or > "there is no way a good parent could let this happen". People seemed > genuinely surprised that anyone could see the world > differently than they do. Yes, I realize that was a point you were making, and it is a significant issue. Moderation in speech and opinions isn't "in" these days. Most people seem to see a need to have a definite opinion on almost any subject - usually a highly condemnatory one - but no need to think about any possible alternate ways of looking at the issue. They have good examples teaching them this behavior - Congress and the major news media, and of course bloggers. I just don't see an online "reader comments" listing as a meaningful example: even if this were *not* a prevalent trend in society at large, it probably still would be on such sites. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Fri Jun 18 15:00:52 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:00:52 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? Message-ID: Earlier this week, President Obama announced that BP would be required to pay $20 billion for damages and clean-up costs related to the offshore oil well blowout. Under what authority did Obama make this decree? Let's suppose that BP is indeed responsible for the blowout, and that the costs and damages will be about $20 billion. There is still the minor matter of establishing legal responsibility by due process of law. It seems to me that for Obama to proclaim BP responsible and decree that BP will pay $20 billion is lynch law. It is the equivalent of a sheriff or mayor declaring that some man committed a rape or murder, and hanging him from a nearby tree. That's a crime, even if the man was guilty. (In fact many lynching victims were guilty of vicious crimes.) Is what Obama just did morally different? Is overriding the rule of law acceptable because the target is guilty? -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan | From ben at bl.com Fri Jun 18 15:16:33 2010 From: ben at bl.com (Ben Liberman) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:16:33 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 3:00 PM -0500 6/18/10, Rich Rostrom wrote: >Earlier this week, President Obama announced that BP would >be required to pay $20 billion for damages and clean-up >costs related to the offshore oil well blowout. > >Under what authority did Obama make this decree? There was no "decree" President Obama negotiated with BP to have them apologize and guarantee, in advance, a minimum of $20 billion to be used for compensation. some coverage here http://mediamatters.org/research/201006180027 -- ------------------------------ ben at BL.COM Ben Liberman ------------------------------ From ignatz at dminet.com Fri Jun 18 15:24:51 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:24:51 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100618202451.GA18279@dminet.com> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:00:52PM -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: > Under what authority did Obama make this decree? No decree; it was negotiated with the full cooperation of BP. Had the Obama administration simply *told* BP they had to do this, it would neither have been legal, nor would it have gotten very far. BP is in a deep hole, and they know it; they're being cooperative (for the time being, anyway.) Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From jazz at qnet.com Fri Jun 18 21:16:15 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:16:15 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006190217.o5J2H08E029086@mail.zarquon.net> At 15:00 6/18/2010 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >Earlier this week, President Obama announced that BP would >be required to pay $20 billion for damages and clean-up >costs related to the offshore oil well blowout. > >Under what authority did Obama make this decree? Its called a negotiating technique. He makes a statement that looks good to his constituency. It is probably a low end reasonable figure for what BP would end up paying anyway. And by the way, by accepting, BP makes good on their image polishing too. Both of sides walk away looking decent, and more money ends up going to the people that need it faster than it would by the courts and torts process. If BP had stood on all its rights, the deal falls through. The President is embarrassed a bit. People then begin to hate BP for stonewalling. The courts get loaded with claims. The President is emboldened to get the Justice department to be that little bit more aggressive in investigating criminal liability, and maybe he makes a few phone calls to the state governors and AGs, as well as the UK and a few other nations. Things get nasty for years on end. BP sales in the US begin to dwindle (along with what is left of their stock price). BP finds it is spending a lot of time and money challenging unfairly restrictive permit terms. Or they can just pay up. Bill Taylor From jazz at qnet.com Fri Jun 18 21:16:15 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 19:16:15 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006190217.o5J2H0VK029085@mail.zarquon.net> At 15:00 6/18/2010 -0500, Rich Rostrom wrote: >Replies are directed to the list. >If you wish to respond only to the sender, please edit the To: line! >____________________________________________________________ >Earlier this week, President Obama announced that BP would >be required to pay $20 billion for damages and clean-up >costs related to the offshore oil well blowout. > >Under what authority did Obama make this decree? Its called a negotiating technique. He makes a statement that looks good to his constituency. It is probably a low end reasonable figure for what BP would end up paying anyway. And by the way, by accepting, BP makes good on their image polishing too. Both of sides walk away looking decent, and more money ends up going to the people that need it faster than it would by the courts and torts process. If BP had stood on all its rights, the deal falls through. The President is embarrassed a bit. People then begin to hate BP for stonewalling. The courts get loaded with claims. The President is emboldened to get the Justice department to be that little bit more aggressive in investigating criminal liability, and maybe he makes a few phone calls to the state governors and AGs, as well as the UK and a few other nations. Things get nasty for years on end. BP sales in the US begin to dwindle (along with what is left of their stock price). BP finds it is spending a lot of time and money challenging unfairly restrictive permit terms. Or they can just pay up. Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Fri Jun 18 22:05:25 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:05:25 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts Message-ID: I take retention desk calls for a major cell carrier. Not a day goes by that I don't talk to customers who feel they should be let out of their contract without an early termination penalty. In legal parlance I believe that's called a non-performance penalty. I'm also pretty sure from my time working in government contracting that it's a fairly standard contract component. One of the arguments that bothers me most, comes from people who think we should let them cancel without penalty due to moving to an area without coverage. The company didn't make them move, we never said we had coverage everywhere, in fact the contract states that we don't guarantee coverage anywhere. I understand the concept from a humanitarian standpoint, it would be the nice thing to do, but that's not the deal they signed up for. The other argument I find exceptionally annoying is the people who say, "I've been a good customer for X years and I think you should waive the fee." And by good customer they generally mean they paid their bill on time mostly and used the service they paid for. I would very much like to be able to say, without losing my job, "So what? Ford has been a good customer of Goodyear for a hundred years, but if they sign a contract to buy a hundred thousand tires, with a penalty for non performance, and they cancel the order, they'll pay the penalty. That's business." But it seems that people don't think the cell phone contract is real. And now there's talk about Congress or the FCC imposing restrictions on cell phone non performance penalties. I don't understand why cell phone companies should be different than any other business. If our contract terms are onerous, customers will vote with their feet. But when they sign on the dotted line, why shouldn't we be able to hold them to the terms of the contract? Maybe later we'll talk about tenants who think they should be let out of the lease because they can't afford the rent anymore. -- Bill Wilson Evil Corporate Toady The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com Fri Jun 18 22:51:51 2010 From: techgrrl2003 at yahoo.com (Janet Plato) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:51:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <894014.39804.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Bill, I agree with your points that folks should live up to contracts they sign, but I think you might consider your last point in another light, cell phone carriers are being allowed to use a very limited resource, spectrum, and because spectrum is limited, the effective amount of competition that is possible in a region is limited. > And now there's talk about Congress or the FCC imposing > restrictions on cell phone non performance penalties.? I don't > understand why cell phone companies should be different than any other > business. If you accept the argument that competition is good but that having to share spectrum amongst an inordinate number of carriers in a single geographic area decreases throughput, then I think you can see how regulating carriers might be reasonable. > If our contract terms are onerous, customers will vote with their > feet.? But when they sign on the dotted line, why shouldn't we be able > to hold them to the terms of the contract? > Since there is a practical limit to the amount of possible competition, cellular carriers should be regulated, in the same way monopolies are regulated. I cannot simply start up a cellular phone company in the middle of your area, since the FCC granted to you exclusive rights to use a band of frequencies in that region. That grant of exclusivity is what in my opinion makes it reasonable for them to regulate contract terms in this way. > Bill Wilson > Evil Corporate Toady Nope, just someone who has trouble understanding something that your livelihood demands you not understand. Janet Plato From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Fri Jun 18 23:36:09 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:36:09 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: <894014.39804.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <894014.39804.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jun 18, 2010 Janet Plato wrote: > I think you can see how regulating > carriers might be reasonable. Yup. Regulating carriers is reasonable. As long as the regulations are, well, reasonable. The carriers already give the people who don't want to enter into a contract a reasonable out. They just pay full retail price for the phone. This is often called the European model. Although some European carriers are adopting the American plan, most cell users in other parts of the world buy a device at retail, and then select a carrier. If you want the phone for free or nearly so, sign the contract. If you want the service without the obligation, bring your own phone to the party. I get your point about my job being to toe the company line. But the reality is that I have always been fairly libertarian regarding business issues, and I will always believe that people should live up to the bargains they strike. My main point was that people are crying foul over an agreement that they willingly entered into. If the government changes the playing field, so be it. But I still think if it isn't broke, then let's spend time solving something that is. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From ignatz at dminet.com Sat Jun 19 00:13:49 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:13:49 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20100619051349.GA29993@dminet.com> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:05:25PM -0500, Bill Wilson wrote: > <> The bottom line, Bill, is that the carriers in the United States have everything their way; the consumer has nothing. Zilch. Nada. We get crappy service; we get "smart phones" that have whistles and bells--but then have them crippled by various vendors, or even the phone manufacturer. They don't work well at what they're supposed to do--make clear, reliable calls. We get phones, whether you buy them outright or on subsidy, that are "branded", meaning that $700 smart phone is worthless if you decide your carrier sucks and you want to move to another carrier. Oh, and virtually no phones in the US use SIM cards, so you can't change a phone's personality. The contracts are the same--100% obligation to the carrier, absolutely no obligation to the customer. Rates are horrendous, service is mediocre at best, and every single one of the carriers is doing its best to screw the consumer on data services. You complain that the customer who moves and gets crappier or no service should just "suck it up" and keep on paying. But why? Even if you complain in your home area, nobody EVER does anything about it. You want to know why people bitch? It's because, despite all the yammering in the ads, not a single one of the carriers would be in business if people really had a choice in the matter. They are seen as predatory, using their total control over the services and costs to bleed the customer out of every possible dollar above and beyond what's reasonable for corporate profit. I spend an outrageous amount of money for three phones, and most certainly feel, every month, that I'm being ripped off. THAT is why Congress is making noises; but don't worry. The carrier's lobbyists are well-funded (with MY money), so anything that gets passed will be window dressing. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From ignatz at dminet.com Sat Jun 19 00:17:59 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:17:59 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: References: <894014.39804.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100619051759.GB29993@dminet.com> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:36:09PM -0500, Bill Wilson wrote: > Yup. Regulating carriers is reasonable. As long as the regulations > are, well, reasonable. You mean instead of the 100% carrier-centric environment we have today? I wish. > The carriers already give the people who don't want to enter into a > contract a reasonable out. They just pay full retail price for the > phone. This is often called the European model. Although some > European carriers are adopting the American plan, most cell users in > other parts of the world buy a device at retail, and then select a > carrier. Yeah, but most carriers in the rest of the world don't sell crippled, branded phones that won't work on other carrier's networks. So what if I buy your phone? I can't take it with me. > ...I have always been fairly libertarian regarding > business issues, and I will always believe that people should live up > to the bargains they strike. My main point was that people are crying > foul over an agreement that they willingly entered into. Not at all willingly. When every choice is equally foul, and every one totally loaded against the consumer, I can't feel that you have "struck a bargain". It's either get ripped, or no service whatsoever. > If the government changes the playing field, so be it. But I still > think if it isn't broke, then let's spend time solving something that > is. Believe me, almost everyone else except the carriers know it's "broke". -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From jazz at qnet.com Sat Jun 19 00:27:42 2010 From: jazz at qnet.com (Bill Taylor) Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 22:27:42 -0700 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201006190529.o5J5TlPZ009250@mail.zarquon.net> At 22:05 6/18/2010 -0500, Bill Wilson wrote: >But it seems that people don't think the cell phone contract is real. >And now there's talk about Congress or the FCC imposing restrictions >on cell phone non performance penalties. I don't understand why cell >phone companies should be different than any other business. If our >contract terms are onerous, customers will vote with their feet. But >when they sign on the dotted line, why shouldn't we be able to hold >them to the terms of the contract? For the same reason plenty of other contracts are not legal, they either contravene actual law, or they are so shocking that no court would enforce it. You can't put your kids up for collateral, or hold people to pay for torture interests in your dog, even though they agreed to pay. Most criminal enterprise contracts are only held up by the honor (or fear) of the criminals, since, for example, you can't sue your dope dealer to deliver the goods. I can certainly see why my cell contract is real. If I don't pay, they retaliate. But I can also see where it never feels like an equal enterprise, where both parties can actually and equitably negotiate terms. From a consumer point of view, I am faced with a take it or leave it choice. I may actually take it, but I have no intention of respecting these people since they clearly care nothing for me. If I can find a way to take some advantage back, of course I do it. Certainly the cell companies do exactly that through their lobbyists and lawyers. >Maybe later we'll talk about tenants who think they should be let out >of the lease because they can't afford the rent anymore. That can happen, though usually it is less compassion on the part of the landlord, and more like greed over getting a paying tenant in. Even a non-paying tenant has rights, and it takes time and money to get an eviction completed. If the guy wants out, and you can flip the place to someone who will pay, why not? Cell time isn't exactly like that, since it isn't limited in the same way. Bill Taylor From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sat Jun 19 09:25:01 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 09:25:01 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: <20100619051759.GB29993@dminet.com> References: <894014.39804.qm@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20100619051759.GB29993@dminet.com> Message-ID: On Jun 19, 2010 Dave Ihnat wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2010 Bill Wilson wrote: > > Yup. Regulating carriers is reasonable. > > As long as the regulations are, well, reasonable. > > You mean instead of the 100% carrier-centric environment we have today? Yup. That's exactly what I mean. If government sees fit to impose regulations, that's fine. But if one of those regulations abolishes the ETF there won't be any more free cell phones. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From wtwilson3 at gmail.com Sat Jun 19 10:09:38 2010 From: wtwilson3 at gmail.com (Bill Wilson) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 10:09:38 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: <20100619051349.GA29993@dminet.com> References: <20100619051349.GA29993@dminet.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Dave Ihnat wrote: > We get crappy service; we get "smart phones" that have whistles and > bells--but then have them crippled by various vendors, or even the phone > manufacturer. ?They don't work well at what they're supposed to do--make > clear, reliable calls. I agree. Many carriers, including the one I work for, could do a helluva lot to be more consumer friendly. But my point was about the contract, all carriers give a customer a buyer's remorse period, usually 30 days, but one carrier I know is only 2 weeks (except in California where they mandate 30 days). If you check out the service and don't like it, you're off the hook within that period. If you keep the phone, you're bound by the contract. There are a couple companies out there that are getting it right. When I lose a customer to Boost Mobile or Metro PCS or one of the other ones that are doing a better job, I don't have a lot of retention offers that will stop them. Hopefully the major carriers will improve things, but in the meantime people need to live up to their agreements. -- Bill Wilson The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast. -- O. Wilde From ignatz at dminet.com Sat Jun 19 11:46:48 2010 From: ignatz at dminet.com (Dave Ihnat) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 11:46:48 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: References: <20100619051349.GA29993@dminet.com> Message-ID: <20100619164648.GA7544@dminet.com> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 10:09:38AM -0500, Bill Wilson wrote: > ...but in the meantime people need to live up to their agreements. Don't expect a lot of agreement from people who feel they're being forced into unfair 'agreements' over which they have no control or negotiation rights. A contract is supposed to be an agreement between two parties. Vendor contracts for cell phones (hell, all communications in this country) are totally one-sided. Thanks to that, it invalidates them in the eyes of the consumer. Live with it; that's what we're told to do. -- Dave Ihnat ignatz at dminet.com From SteveG at swhi.net Sat Jun 19 12:36:14 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2010 12:36:14 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: <20100618202451.GA18279@dminet.com> References: <20100618202451.GA18279@dminet.com> Message-ID: <10422A93796746D79CD71756BAA58719@StevePC> Dave Ihnat says: > No decree; it was negotiated with the full cooperation of BP. > > Had the Obama administration simply *told* BP they had to do this, it > would neither have been legal, nor would it have gotten very far. Right. Before negotiating, news reports indicated that he was going to "demand" or "order" then to do so, but I'm not at all sure he really said anything like that, and everyone knew he had no legal authority to issue such an order. What he *would* have had authority to do would be to direct the Attorney General to go to court and seek an order freezing all their US assets - which I suspect are well over $20 billion - if they didn't agree to provide adequate security for potential claims. And he might well have succeeded in getting such an order. In any event, it's kind of silly to equate strong-arm tactics to obtain security for civil claims, even if extra- legal, with "lynching." - Steve G From mbcrui at gmail.com Mon Jun 21 08:16:10 2010 From: mbcrui at gmail.com (Mary Cruickshank-Peed) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 09:16:10 -0400 Subject: [Goglog] Is this a lynching? In-Reply-To: <10422A93796746D79CD71756BAA58719@StevePC> References: <20100618202451.GA18279@dminet.com> <10422A93796746D79CD71756BAA58719@StevePC> Message-ID: <4C1F661A.7010408@gmail.com> Steve Gruenwald wrote: > What he *would* have had authority to do would be to direct > the Attorney General to go to court and seek an order > freezing all their US assets - which I suspect are well over > $20 billion - if they didn't agree to provide adequate > security for potential claims. And he might well have > succeeded in getting such an order. > Right. An excellent example of this, and one I'm sure was a lesson to BP is the tabacco company case going before the Supreme Court next week. http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/the-tobacco-cases-a-primer/ 11 years and probably way more than the $280B fine spent in legal fees. Obama only asked BP for a measly $20B. Mary -- -- Mary Cruickshank Peed We are bits of stellar matter that got cold by accident, bits of a star gone wrong. - Sir Arthur Eddington From SteveG at swhi.net Mon Jun 21 20:57:38 2010 From: SteveG at swhi.net (Steve Gruenwald) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:57:38 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Cell Phone Contracts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0F7E50557031410EA0FA8AE8A5767650@StevePC> Bill Wilson says: > I take retention desk calls for a major cell carrier. Not a day goes > by that I don't talk to customers who feel they should be let out of > their contract without an early termination penalty. You can't blame them for asking. A lot of businesses have enough interest in customer relations and loyalty that they do offer concessions. Phone services in general are well known to make deals to attract and retain customers that are not listed among their offers of service, so the consumer has no way of knowing about them without asking. > In legal > parlance I believe that's called a non-performance penalty. I'm also > pretty sure from my time working in government contracting that it's a > fairly standard contract component. No. Actually most Government contracts give the Government a right to assess extra costs against the defaulting contractor *only* to the extent that the default in fact requires finding a replacement contractor at a higher price. Certain limited categories of contracts include liquidated damages penalties, but as a matter of law they must be reasonably calculated to compensate the Government for actual losses.* When they are purely a penalty they are *legally unenforceable.* * There are a handful of penalties that are imposed for public policy reasons, such as for willful failure to meet commitments to issue small business subcontracts; these penalties are based on a *measure of actual harm* to (e.g.) the small business community rather than to the Government. > One of the arguments that bothers me most, comes from people who think > we should let them cancel without penalty due to moving to an area > without coverage. Again, you can't reasonably blame them for asking. This has been a common - not universal, but common - practice for providers of consumer services for as long as I can remember (since my undergraduate days at least). Not everyone does it, but IMO only a foolish consumer would fail to even ask. > The company didn't make them move, we never said we > had coverage everywhere, in fact the contract states that we don't > guarantee coverage anywhere. Which is silly - no one can take such a thing seriously. Who would sign up for a yearly contract at a monthly fee for which they might get *nothing*, and actually expect it to be enforced? > The other argument I find exceptionally annoying is the people who > say, "I've been a good customer for X years and I think you should > waive the fee." And by good customer they generally mean they paid > their bill on time mostly and used the service they paid for. I would > very much like to be able to say, without losing my job, "So what? So many decent companies do. My insurance company, credit card issuer, and banks have all done so on occasion, for a start. I believe my phone company once did too. > Ford has been a good customer of Goodyear for a hundred years, but if > they sign a contract to buy a hundred thousand tires, with a penalty > for non performance, and they cancel the order, they'll pay the > penalty. That's business." Maybe, maybe not. It's negotiable. > But it seems that people don't think the cell phone contract is real. Because the companies often don't treat them as that strictly "real." > And now there's talk about Congress or the FCC imposing restrictions > on cell phone non performance penalties. I don't understand why cell > phone companies should be different than any other business. Come now, you must. Surely you know something about the FCC being created because bandwidth is a limited public resource? > Maybe later we'll talk about tenants who think they should be let out > of the lease because they can't afford the rent anymore. Go ahead. In all the leases I signed when I was a renter, I would continue to pay rent only to the extent that the landlord was unable to find a replacement tenant, i.e., only to the extent of actual damages. > But the > reality is that I have always been fairly libertarian regarding > business issues, That describes you, not the rest of "reality." > and I will always believe that people should live up > to the bargains they strike Then you must also believe that companies should never make deals to retain customers? The bargain the consumer strikes with a major competitive service provider of this kind is *not* unambiguous, to the extent that the companies sometimes make concessions. > There are a couple companies out there that are getting it right. > When I lose a customer to Boost Mobile or Metro PCS or one of the > other ones that are doing a better job, I don't have a lot of > retention offers that will stop them. Oh, this is "getting it right"? So it is *not* a good thing that the contract is inflexible? You think you should be able to vary it when you judge it to be in your employer's interest - yet it is outrageous for the consumer to ask? Personally I feel fully justified in asking. - Steve G From rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com Wed Jun 23 19:55:41 2010 From: rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com (Rich Rostrom) Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 19:55:41 -0500 Subject: [Goglog] Miscellaneous SGO Message-ID: ---- South Carolina's primary run-off was held Tuesday. In the Republican primary, there were run-offs for several offices, including Governor and U.S. Representative from the 1st Congressional District. The gubernatorial nomination was won by State Rep. Nikki Haley - n?e Nimrata Kaur Randhawa. She is the daughter of Sikh immigrants, born and raised in South Carolina. In the 1st CD (which includes Charleston) the nomination went to Tim Scott - who is black. Scott led 8 rivals in the first round primary with 31%. The second place finisher was Paul Thurmond, son of the late Senator Strom Thurmond, with 16%. In the run-off, Scott won with 68%. The 1st District is overwhelmingly Republican, so it appears that Scott will be the next Representative. The area of the 1st CD was previously represented by black Republican Robert Smalls in 1873-1879, 1882-1883, and 1884-1887. ---- ---- Large natural gas fields have been discovered recently off the Mediterranean coast of Israel. See http://www.oilinisrael.net/oil-in-israel-news/oil-in-israel-christian-world-news/bontan-discovery for a map showing licensed exploration blocks. The various fields are estimated to hold in excess of 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas - enough to supply Israel for decades. However, the Lebanese Shi'a group Hezbollah claims that the fields belong to Lebanon. ---- ---- In the Belgian general election of June 13, the Flemish separatist New Flemish Alliance won a plurality of seats (27 of 150). Reports indicate that the NFA will form a coalition with the Socialist Party (which is mostly Francophone); though other parties must participate to form a majority. Another separatist party, Flemish Interest, won 17 seats. No one has yet proposed the immediate dissolution of Belgium, but that outcome is definitely close than before. Ironically, Herman Van Rompuy, the President of the European Council (I.e. chief executive of the EU) was Prime Minister of Belgium till he resigned in November 2009 to take his present job. ---- ---- American Sam Childers, a former Hell's Angel turned evangelical missionary, is in Africa with a private army of some 35 men, hunting for Joseph Kony, the deranged mystic leader of the Lord's Resistance Army. The LRA operates in Uganda, Sudan, Central African Republic, and Congo. It maintains itself largely by kidnapping children and brainwashing them into child soldiers. These abductions usually include the massacre of the children's families. ---- ---- Over 200,000 households in Nepal have installed systems which ferment manure and household sewage into methane for use in cooking and heating. A typical installation cost a few hundred dollars, but pays for itself in less than two years (mostly by replacing firewood - 2,500 kg per year). 74,000 have been installed in Vietnam, with over 20,000 going in this year, even though the subsidies are much smaller than in Nepal. Millions of similar units have been installed in India and China. http://www.michaelyon-online.com/gobar-gas-ii.htm ---- -- | Rich Rostrom rrostrom.21stcentury at rcn.com | | | | Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons | | emmerdes. -- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan |