Penn Grad School

Good (financial) Shtick

2008-05-18T23:23:00.001-04:00

Ok, so I know not everyone follows business news all that closely. I don't blame you. It's pretty boring, most of the time. But the Microsoft-Yahoo soap opera has been entertaining on many levels. And something happened recently that is such good shtick (and sort of related to sports) that I felt I should bring it to people's attention.

Quick recap: Yahoo sucks. Google has been destroying them for years according to every conceivable metric - market share, financials, growth rate, etc. Yahoo's stock price (a very important thing for a public company) has been in the toilet. From around $50/share two years ago, the price sank below $20/share.

A few months ago, in steps Microsoft, who - losing money in their own online operations (internet gambling?) - decides they want to acquire Yahoo to help them take on Google. Microsoft offers $31/share, a 70% premium to the stock price prior to the offer. Yahoo shareholders, in other words, have hit the jackpot. Someone is willing to buy their piece-of-shit-($19)shares immediately for a price ($31) they have no chance of seeing for the next 5 years.

Yahoo management stonewalls the deal. They start looking around, trying to merge with AOL, trying to reach a deal with Google (!), trying to get Rupert Murdoch interested - anything but sell to Microsoft. They basically say the $31 offer is an insult, it grossly undervalues the company. Over the course of some bizarre and contentious negotiations, Microsoft ups its offer to $33, and Yahoo says it won't settle for less than $37/share. (each extra $1/share, by the way, costs Microsoft $3 billion). Microsoft's like "fuck it, we don't need this shit," and walks away.

Celebrations ensue in the Yahoo boardroom. The NYT reports that Yahoo directors and executives are, literally, high-fiving each other. Yahoo founder and CEO is quoted saying he's happy the "distraction" is behind them. The good cheer lasts for about three hours, until very, very important shareholders (mega- hedge fund moguls) start talking about how they're extremely disappointed in Yahoo management for botching the deal. There is talk of a shareholder rebellion (there really are such things, only they're democratically decided shareholder initiatives; pitchforks, regrettably, are not generally involved). Everyone expects Yahoo stock to tank on Monday to low 20s.

Only the stock doesn't tank. Well, it does for about a minute, then it just keeps going back up. Why? Well, because a rich dude named Carl Icahn has decided to buy 59 million shares of Yahoo stock (that's about $1.5 billion worth, for those scoring at home). Icahn realizes that the Microsoft offer was a sweet deal, and he figures he can threaten to or actually kick out Yahoo's board, restart negotiations with Microsoft, and make an easy 20% + on his money, likely within a year. This, in itself, is pretty good shtick. If we can somehow piece together $1.4 billion and make 20% on it, that would be very worthwhile according to my calculations.

But it gets better. As part of his initiative, Icahn compiles a list of 10 executives whom he proposes to replace Yahoo's existing board of directors. Prominently featured on this list - one Mark Cuban. That Mark Cuban? Well, yes, that Mark Cuban, the one who owns the Dallas Mavericks. The one who made his fortune...wait, how exactly did Mark Cuban make his fortune? Does anyone recall? I seem to remember it had something to do with the internet, broadcasting games on the internet? Oh, let's just go to the Wikipedia-tape:

"By 1999, Broadcast.com had grown to 330 employees and annual revenues near $100 million.[17] In 1999, during the Dot-com boom, Broadcast.com was acquired by Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock."

Wait, there's a history between Cuban and Yahoo? They've done business together before, that's great!? Nothing more satisfying than two successful business partners reuniting years after their initial glory. But, for the record, just how successful was that investment in Broadcast.com for Yahoo?

"Over the next few years Yahoo! split the services previously offered by Broadcast.com into separate services, Yahoo! Launchcast for music and Yahoo! Platinum for video entertainment. Yahoo! Platinum has since been discontinued, its functionality being offered as part of two pay services, AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet and Yahoo! Plus. As of 2007, neither broadcast.com nor broadcast.yahoo.com are distinct web addresses; both simply redirect to yahoo.com."

Wait, so Cuban basically sold Yahoo a pile of shit for $5.9 billion? Essentially, yes. And now, Icahn is bringing in Cuban to the Yahoo board to make sure shareholders get fair value? This is madness. It is the fox guarding the henhouse. It is kategor become sanegor. It is an invitation to the O' Malleys to come back to NY and arrange for a midnight sale of the Mets to Dunder Mifflin. Yes, my friends, it is all these things. Or, quite simply, it's just "good (financial) shtick."

Latest Stunt Double

2006-12-03T00:48:00.000-05:00

Some of my recent stunt doubles have not garnered the approbation I felt sure they deserved. But I really think this one is undeniable: has-been actor Grant Show (i.e. Jake from Melrose Place) and the somewhat popular Viggo Mortensen (LOTR and History of Violence):

Is any further explanation or comment necessary?

And some more Lieberman material..

2006-11-11T19:10:00.000-05:00

Barry Casselman writing for Realclearpolitics.com:

He is now de facto the most powerful member of the Senate. That's because he will keep his promise to organize with the Democrats. But they will have to be very good to him. Whatever chairmanship he wants. Whatever he wants for Connecticut. If that does not happen, he can easily take a few steps in the Senate chamber and give control to the Republicans. No one will be able to complain. He would have kept his promise to vote for the Democrats, but it was his other promise that the voters of his state care most about, i.e., his promise to deliver for Connecticut. The senate Republicans would be glad to give him a chairmanship and whatever he wants for Connecticut. President Bush would be delighted to cooperate.

Nice

2006-11-10T10:16:00.000-05:00

Krauthammer (no relation) agrees with my take on Lieberman in today's Washington Post:

To muddy even more the supposed ideological significance of this election, consider who is the biggest winner of the night: Joe Lieberman. Just a few months ago, he was scorned by his party and left for dead. Now he returns to the Senate as the Democrats' 51st seat -- and holder of the balance of power. From casualty to kingmaker in three months. Not bad. His Democratic olleagues who abandoned him this summer will now treat him very well.
Lieberman won with a platform that did not trim or hedge about seeking victory in Iraq. And he did it despite having a Republican in the race who siphoned off 10 percent of the
pro-war vote. All this in Connecticut, a very blue state.

Eyes on Lieberman, Kingmaker

2006-11-08T02:07:00.000-05:00

Well, looks like I probably blew my modest political prediction that Republicans would retain control of the Senate. So what better time to make another?

Assuming the Democrats do hold on to an ostensible 51-49 Senate advantage, it is just a matter of time before Republicans come a-knocking to the door of re-elected incumbent Joe Lieberman. Lieberman, it bears recalling, was spurned by his own Democratic party in favor of shrill, faux-leftist zillionaire Ned Lamont - whom Lieberman soundly thumped running as an independent.

Lieberman has given every indication that he intends to be counted as a Democrat in the Senate balance, but as soon as the Republicans recover from their election-night shock, they'll wake up to the fact that Lieberman represents their best shot, however slim, at eking out control of the Senate.

Lieberman, in other words, has - in electoral terms - hit the jackpot. Republicans, soon to be followed by Democrats, will be falling all over themselves offering him whichever committee chairmanship strikes his fancy. Not bad for the man the Netroots thought they had defeated in early August.

Election

2006-11-07T14:41:00.000-05:00

My prediction: GOP maintains control of Senate. I have no idea about the House; everyone thinks it goes Democratic, so I guess it probably will. Too many races for me to follow to make a real prediction.

More grade-school grammar

2006-11-01T01:23:00.000-05:00

Matching singular subjects with singular verbs and plural subjects with plural verbs need not be a difficult task. But there are a couple of situations that seem to give people - including NYT reporters - trouble:

(1) Certain collective but singular subjects (this is my terminology) are often wrongly treated as plural. An example of this phenomenon would be the following: "Everyone must check their [should be "his" rather than "their"] bags at the door."

(2) When a singular subject is followed by a prepositional phrase with a plural object, the object is often incorrectly treated as the subject of the sentence: "Each of the students are [should be "is" rather than "are"]going to the game."

Now, in this NYT article, the reporters face a double-whammy that they (quite understandably) were unable to navigate - both of the aforementioned complications in the very same sentence:

To date, none of the Republicans who have spoken out have [should be "has" rather than "have," since "none" is a singular subject] called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and some had expressed previous reservations about the war or opposed it initially.

Meaningful Prayer

2006-10-24T21:53:00.000-04:00

I've always found the following to be the most meaningful part of the High Holiday Prayers:

We have joked about serious matters. We have ridiculed honest and dedicated people. We have tried to find a springboard for humor in every topic. By doing so we have made repentance very difficult, both for ourselves and the people entertained by our witticisms.

Of course, this excerpt does not actually appear in a liturgical text that is recited in the synagogue. It appears, rather, as an interpretation of one particular sin (among many sins to be confessed) in Mesorah Publications' High-Holiday Prayer Book. But these guys are perceptive, right? Maybe a little too perceptive. The guy who wrote this is definitely a smart-ass. Or at least a repressed smart-ass-wannabe.

This is progress?

2006-10-19T01:29:00.000-04:00

oh, well. the sole remaining cool pillar of israeli society - army officers' right to sleep with as many female underlings as they can handle - has been unceremoniously politically-correctified out of existence. israeli president moshe katsav, who seems likely to be charged with the rape of two female employees, is the latest high-profile israeli leader caught with his pants down concerning, well, getting caught with his pants down. how the mighty have fallen:

A society built partly on the conscious effort to project an image of strength tended to overlook such harassment. In fact, a certain amount of male rakishness often added to a prominent man’s allure. The alleged womanizing by national legends like Moshe Dayan, for example, was considered part of their mystique.

But the ground is shifting rapidly under the feet of the current crop of leaders as a result of legal and societal changes. This week, the police recommended charging President Moshe Katsav with the rape of two former employees, the most serious criminal allegations ever made against an Israeli leader. And on Tuesday, Justice Minister Haim Ramon went on trial, accused of kissing a soldier against her will.

so, apparently, israeli society is changing. but lest we think that things have gone too far too fast, the Times is quick to mention one expert - Ms. Rina Bar-Tal - who "said she was hesitant to declare a social transformation in what was still a patriarchal society." Well, what better way to follow that introduction than with a direct quote from Ms. Bar-Tal? Glad you asked: “The law is there and the police abide by the law, and the infrastructure of our legal system is working...I see that as a very positive note.” oh, that makes sense. cause for a second i had thought a social transformation had been going on. am i the only confused by that combination of sentences? here's the whole paragraph for you.

But Ms. Bar-Tal said she was hesitant to declare a social transformation in what was still a patriarchal society. “The law is there and the police abide by the law, and the infrastructure of our legal system is working,” she said. “I see that as a very positive note.”

Nice.

On the Agenda...

2006-10-17T16:00:00.000-04:00

yeah, i haven't posted in a while. lot of reasons. latest is that my laptop is broken. freaking lenovo; take an american company and run it into the ground. get the damn parts you fucking communists. ok whatever. but i haven't entirely abandoned this site and here's what i have on the agenda once my computer situation improves:

1) pictures from my trip to new orleans.

2) an analysis of how orwell's "1984" applies as well to islamic fundamentalism as it did to ideology of the old ussr.

3) various photos (probly some stunt doubles); including some relating to the story of how I almost became a murder witness in nassau county.

4) update on the domestic disputes i am currently involved in (do not [yet?] involve hitting people)

probly some other stuff too. but it'll take a while.

You got to understand the President's point

2006-09-14T16:22:00.000-04:00

So the NYT is breaking the following story:

Hours after Mr. Bush huddled with House Republicans, he suffered a defeat on the other side of the Capitol, as the Senate Armed Services Committee endorsed legislation that would give suspected terrorists more legal protections than the president desires.

Now, come on. I understand that the Times and Congress want to give some constitutional protection to detainees, but it does seem rather extreme to suggest that the alleged terrorists should enjoy more rights than those enjoyed by the President. I mean, even if Bush is a very bad man who steals from the poor to feed the rich, all the time snacking on the oil he so brilliantly purchased with blood - even so, at least he's an American citizen.

Stunt Double

2006-09-14T15:41:00.000-04:00

Okay, here's another stunt double. I've gotten mixed reviews on this one, though I should mention that the effect is far better in person. What we've got is Cillian Murphy of Batman Begins fame and a dude who hangs out sometimes at Hillel (with 3 chicks who don't).

Bin Laden won?

2006-09-12T01:35:00.000-04:00

Just read perhaps the dumbest column I have ever come across. Too tired to comment right now, but check out "Osama Bin Laden Has Already Won" by the Washington Post's Richard Cohen (who consistently writes stupid things but really outdoes himself in this laugher).

NFC East

2006-09-11T23:47:00.000-04:00

I apologize to the legions, but I've been busy moving into a house in Philly with 6 televisions, each hooked up to Directv and NFL Sunday Ticket. (Superfan, particularly the Red Zone Channel, may be the most important technological development the world has seen since the invention of the combustion engine). Also, my semester started.

But back to football. I've been involved in at least 4 debates during the last few weeks about the NFC East, crowned the "best" or "strongest" division in football by jingoistic Giants fans (and the jingoistic NY media). My contention has been, and remains, that the notion of the NFC East as any sort of powerhouse is total bullshit.

I could end up being wrong, of course, but for now I'll just revel in Week 1, as three of the four teams fell on their asses and got beaten by teams from outside the division. Yeah, the Colts and the Jags were very good last year, but the Vikings and Texans weren't. Bottom line: an impressive ass-whupping was delivered to the over-hyped, over-exposed darlings of the East Coast. Let's hope it continues.

Meanwhile, the Bengals (who dey!) scored a convincing victory over the Chiefs, who must be wondering why on earth they were willing to give up anything - anything - for head Coach Herman Edwards. The guy is a total dolt who has was largely granted a free pass by the NY media because he is both nice and black. Unfortunately for the Chiefs, those two qualities do not correlate with winning in the NFL (though they may coincide, as Marvin Lewis will continue to prove).

Tough break on the Trent Green injury, which is awful. I know this will sound biased (from a Bengals fan), but here is how the play looked to me. The defender (Gathers) left his feet while Green was still upright and running, intending to tackle Green in the midriff area. As Gathers flew through the air, Green left his feet to slide, such that his head was in the spot where his body had been a split-second earlier; as a result, the full weight of Gathers's shoulder-tackle crushed Green's head rather than a less vulnerable part of his body. Let's hope Green has a speedy recovery.

And finally, for all those interested, I am scheduled to deliver a lecture entitled "The Birds and the Babes: The Structure and Rhetoric of Psalm 8" at this year's conference of the Society for Biblical Literature - Washington, D.C., November 20. I suggest purchasing tickets in advance, as they probably will not last long.

Since you asked...

2006-08-28T23:47:00.000-04:00

The response to the contest has been truly overwhelming. So I feel obligated to reveal the full context of the picture in the previous post. These images come to you straight from the basement bathroom of Van Pelt Library, University of Pennsylvania. Nothing says "Ivy League" quite like a monogrammed urinal.

Straight from the ass's mouth

2006-08-28T00:24:00.000-04:00

Okay, now even Nasrallah admits that it was a mistake to abduct the Israeli soldiers and start the war.

We did not think, even one per cent, that the capture would lead to a war at this time and of such magnitude...You ask me if I had known on 11 July (the day before the cross border raid) that the operation would lead to such a war would I do it? I say no, absolutely not.

This comes on the heels of a statement by Sheikh Ali al-Amin, renowned Shiite scholar and Mufti of Tyre, who recently blasted Hizbullah for bringing destruction upon the country: "Neither Lebanon nor the Lebanese people have any connection to this war. The war was forced upon the country and the people."

W ould the "Israel has lost" crowd please shut up now?

Clear-eyed appraisal of Hezbollah's "victory"

2006-08-25T03:16:00.000-04:00

I'm a bit surprised that my own view of the recently halted war between Israel and Hizbollah most resembles that of Michael Young, the opinion editor of Lebanon's Daily Star newspaper. Young is no stooge, and is in fact an inveterate critic, of Israel and the West; yet he demonstrates impressive insight in burrowing through the hyperbolic bluster of Arab leaders and assessing the real outcome of the latest Arab-Israeli battle. Young notes that the conventional wisdom seems to be that Hizbollah defeated Israel:

Hezbollah beat Israel in the latest war in Lebanon, and if you have any doubts, listen to...Syria's President Bashar Assad...Some pundits agreed. This unqualified, air-punching evaluation is from one Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the Lebanese-American University and author of a book on Hezbollah: "In military terms this is a victory that the Arabs haven't tasted in decades by Israeli standards even. Hezbollah is fully aware that it has emerged victorious..."The author of a New York Times story on the Iranian counteroffer, Helene Cooper, offered up this assessment: "Iran has emerged stronger from the Lebanon crisis by showing the world that it is capable of wreaking havoc through its support of the Hezbollah militants"—a view echoed by George Perkovich, the director for nonproliferation at the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

After a few sarcastic remarks about the propriety of Hizbollah victory celebration, Young details exactly why Hizbollah's supposed victory is nothing more than fool's gold - the same fool's gold that Arab leaders have always purveyed following military defeat.

But what kind of victory is this that, even by Hezbollah's unexacting standards, must qualify as a major setback?...Hezbollah has ignored what Israel did to those parts of Lebanon the party cannot claim as its own. Its cries of triumph have been focused on the stubborn resistance put up by Hezbollah combatants in south Lebanon. Nothing has been heard from party leaders about the billions of dollars of losses in infrastructure; about the immediate losses to businesses that will be translated into higher unemployment; about the long-term opportunity costs of the fighting; about the impact that political instability will have...on public confidence and on youth emigration; and about the general collapse in morale that Lebanon faces.

Hezbollah is believed to have many more rockets in storage and its network of bunkers in south Lebanon is probably mostly intact. However, it cannot initiate a conflict without facing the political fallout of imposing new suffering on its already traumatized Shiite community. Almost a million Shiites were thrown into the streets by Israeli bombardments between July and August. Hezbollah has started distributing money to the community, but that won't pay for much of the horrendous suffering—lives lost, profitable businesses closed, self-respect gone for those without homes or livelihoods, and much else that cash handouts cannot remedy.

...the month-long fighting brought the Lebanese Army into south Lebanon, after an absence of several decades—soon to be accompanied by an expanded United Nations force. Nasrallah...has sought in recent weeks to empty those deployments of their meaning, even as he has pretended to welcome the army. That is hypocritical. Hezbollah had repeatedly refused to allow the army to go south, and only agreed to do so because this was seen by an increasingly impatient Lebanese public as a means of ending the Israeli onslaught. If Hezbollah brings out the rockets again, however, it will mean not only confronting the Lebanese consensus, but also the international community, and that's before a shot is fired in anger against Israel.

...the regime in Tehran has not only seen its main reason for supporting Hezbollah go up in smoke in a largely futile endeavor, but must now dole out large sums of compensation money to Lebanese Shiites so the party can hold on to its base of support, even as Iran's poor complain their regime has left them by the wayside. Iran will probably pay out the money (though I've heard unconfirmed reports of delays), but of what value is this if Hezbollah cannot fire on Israel in the event of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities? Or, to the contrary, of what value is the compensation if, by firing on Israel at Tehran's behest, Hezbollah only brings new destruction down on the heads of Shiites, who might then turn against Nasrallah?

Despite Saad-Ghorayeb's assertion that the balance of power will change in Lebanon, in the past week the opposite seems to have been true, as both the government and the parliamentary majority, made up of the so-called March 14 forces hostile to Syria and critical of Hezbollah, have worked to curtail any effort by Nasrallah to transform his so-called victory into political gains. Indeed, as the costs of the war are tallied, there has been a noticeable lack of enthusiasm in Lebanon to see the war as anything but a calamity.

So perhaps a victory it is, but in that case Hezbollah's victory is no different than most other Arab victories in recent decades: the "victory" of October 1973, where Egypt and Syria managed to cross into Israeli-held land, their land, only to be later saved from a thrashing by timely United Nations intervention; the "victory" of 1982, where Palestinian groups were ultimately expelled from West Beirut, but were proud to have stayed in the fight for three months; the Iraqi "victory" of 1991, where Saddam Hussein brought disaster on his country but still held on to power. Now we have the Hezbollah "victory" of 2006: the Israelis bumbled and blundered, but still managed to create a million refugees, to kill over 1,000 people, and to kick Lebanon's economy back several years. One dreads to imagine what Hezbollah would recognize as a military loss.

This guy's analysis is dead-on.

PHOTO CONTEST!

2006-08-24T10:25:00.000-04:00

I have finally joined the rest of America and now own a camera phone - a Motorola RAZR, as it happens (the old one). I've heard a lot of people bitch about the RAZR, but I'm pretty satisfied thus far. Probly because my last phone was so bad, but whatever. In any case, with phone in hand, I have finally been able to take some pictures that I've meaning to snap for quite some time. Here's the first one, which is part of a series. The challenge for you, dear reader, is to determine the context of the picture. Prizes will be announced after I see if anyone gets it.

Finally, some moral clarity

2006-08-23T20:05:00.000-04:00

Anti-Israel types love to lecture the public about the difference between opposition to Israel's policies/interests and anti-Semitism. The former, we are told, is not tantamount to the latter.

As one activist puts it,

Those of us who are involved in activism around Israel/Palestine, and take a position critical of the standard American and Israeli views of the conflict are constantly peppered with accusations of anti-Semitism...it becomes incumbent upon us to prominently and frequently argue that criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic.

Tom Friedman, in a 2002 column quoted here, comments, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile..." [We'll let the grammar slide just this once, but it seems worth pointing out that Friedman likely didn't mean to call his own statement vile]. Countless other critics of Israel have issued similar protestations.

The issue is certainly a complicated one. Indeed, it is often difficult to determine whether anti-Israel sentiment is - in intent or in effect - anti-Semitic as well. All of which makes Charley Reese's August 12 column ever-so-refresehing.

Entitled "A Taste of What is to Come," the article erases any doubt as to where Reese stands on the Israel-Judaism equation. In short, Reese (implicitly) argues, "Israel" and "the Jews" are synonymous. Consider his rhetoric. After explaining that Israel's policies have embittered the Palestinians, and that American support of Israel has cost America dearly, Reese asserts,

Today there is no avoiding the plain truth: We have a Jewish problem. The government is totally paralyzed and is unwilling to issue even the mildest rebuke to Israel, no matter how outrageous its behavior. Why? Because the Jewish lobby is so powerful, American politicians are afraid of it...we don't elect politicians to serve 3 percent of the population and a foreign country.

See how clearly Reese paints his picture! It's simple, really. The US refuses to criticize Israel because of the Jewish lobby. Get it? Israel=Jewish. It's not an Israel problem; it's a "Jewish problem." It's not an Israel lobby; it's a "Jewish lobby." Whose interests are being served? The Jews' ("3 percent of the population") and Israel's ("a foreign country"). Sure, Reese seems to be trafficking in the forged czarist "Protocols," but his honesty must be applauded.

A bit less honest is a site called "antiwar.com," whose proprieters are apparently a bit uneasy with Reese's unvarnished view. In its presentation of Reese's column, the words "Jewish problem" and "Jewish lobby" have been magically airbrushed to "Israel problem" and "Israel lobby." Why, antiwar.com, why? Just when the picture was becoming clearer, you muddy it up once again!?

Islamist Tactics

2006-08-23T13:30:00.000-04:00

Was cleaning out my email account, came across this news piece about a new strategy for naming successors in Islamist organizations. It is fortunate that the strategy has yet to be implemented.

With Rantisi dead, Hamas is holding their cards close to the proverbial (suicide) vest. Speculation is that the organization has already named a new leader but is trying to keep it quiet lest he, too, be immediately targeted by Israel.
I have it on good sources that the truth is a bit more complicated. Hamas is indeed weighing its options concerning the appointment of a new leader. However, the real debate amongst Hamas bigwigs is whom to appoint as their supreme leader; at present, the two contenders are Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush. According to one Hamas official, who spoke on condition that he be identified as someone else, "We have concluded that Israel intends to eliminate anyone whom we name as our leader. Therefore, we have devised the ingenious strategy of naming the criminal Sharon or the evil Bush as our leader, which will, of course, force Israel to kill the person we select."
The official further noted that if the strategy proved successful, it would be adopted on a permanent basis. "If need be," he said, "We will employ this tactic indefinitely. We will certainly kill Sharon and Bush in this fashion, but we will likely extend its use to rid ourselves of Olmert, Netanyahu, Cheney, Rice, and the Jew Wolfowitz. In fact, if my wife does not silence herself about the leak in the guest tent, she may find herself the head of Hamas as well, Allah willing."
No Palestinians were willing to comment on the new tactic on the record, but the thousands of demonstrators who took to the streets today in Gaza City may have been alluding to it as they chanted in unison: "Sharon and Bush, your day of reckoning will come, on the day of Allah, when the eagle and fat bird will die, possibly killed by the Israeli menace who are their own brethren, who have terrorized Palestinians for generations, and you are probably wondering who the new leaders of Hamas are, but we will not tell you this until we feel like it, but by then it will be too late for the Zionist devil, who are the sons of pigs and monkeys, reviled by Allah and the prophet Mohammed."

Re: JonBenet

2006-08-17T21:39:00.000-04:00

Here's what I've taken away from the latest twist in the case: whether the douchebag sicko killed JonBenet or not, the NYT still has lousy copy editors.

Mr. Karr, like the Ramsey’s, have roots in the South.

It never gets old. Speaking of which, I am no longer as young as I once was. I guess that's supposed to be not good. I don't really seem to care that much. Sometimes I feel guilty that I don't care enough, so I try to act like I care more. Whatever. That's not the point. The point is that one thing I had always believed when I was a teenager was that even if getting old sucks, at least old people don't get pimples. I no longer believe that. Why am I using the same acne medication that most of the kids I tutor use? Strange.

Making Jewish mothers proud...

2006-08-15T21:58:00.000-04:00

According to CNN,

Boaz Benmoshe, 44, and Ofer Moses Lupovitz, 43, were among seven people arrested last week and charged for investigation of pimping, pandering, perjury, loan fraud, money laundering, falsifying income tax returns and grand theft, Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle said Monday.

Scary Statistic

2006-08-13T22:16:00.000-04:00

Okay, I get it. Somehow, "women's health" became the dominant concern of the those who study public health. Just like "women" are the dominant (or only?) concern of those involved in "gender studies." These things are just understood, and that would be fine, I guess - if it were left simply at that.

But apparently, it's not enough that women receive the bulk of our attention and concern; we must also be made to understand why women deserve disproportionate consideration. And that's where things get funny. Take this story from Reuters, for example. First, the article reports that Bill Gates is especially interested in AIDS prevention among women:

A cream, gel or pill that women can use to protect themselves from the AIDS virus is key to stopping the AIDS pandemic, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who has given hundreds of millions of dollars to HIV programs, said on Sunday.

But Reuters seems to think that Gates's endorsement does not sufficiently validate the female-centric philosophy being espoused. So the newswire segues into hard statistics:

The World Health Organization estimates that half of the 39 million people infected with the human immunodeficiency virus today are women, and HIV is mostly transmitted through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

Geez, 50% of AIDS victims are women. Shocking, just shocking.

Equal Opportunity Errors

2006-08-10T21:14:00.001-04:00

Lest anyone conclude that abysmal editing is the exclusive domain of liberals in general or the NYT in particular (see here, here, and here), I bring you this gem from the Wall Street Journal:

Citi Cards Executive Vice President M.V. Rajamannar said response has been overwhelmingly positive so far, but the company is still monitoring customer activity to determine weather it will be worth it to expand the service to other products.

Yikes.

On Naming Bagel Stores

2006-08-07T21:27:00.000-04:00

Keep passing this bagel store in Teaneck, NJ called "Three Star Bagel." As a matter of fact, I think I've seen a couple of these stores around - could be a chain, or perhaps a few like-minded small business owners. Whatever.

Does the name "Three Star Bagel" strike anyone else as strange? I mean, this isn't Communist Russia; here, the government isn't the leading bagel store operator. Probably not even in the top 10. Apparently, then, the owner of the Teaneck eatery actually chose to call his place "Three Star Bagel." Was he unaware that, um, there were more freaking stars available at no cost? Why not "Five Star Bagel"? You'd even save some money on the sign, four letters in the word instead of five. What's this dude afraid of - is the Cedar Lane division of Zagat just itching to bust a bagel joint for false advertising? "Sorry, bro, the celery in the tuna is too soggy. Five stars my ass. Afraid we're gonna have to shut you down."

Alright, I know, five stars is too pretentious for a bagel store? I hear that. Then how about "Four Star Bagel"? Sends just the right message - Teaneck's classy, upscale bagel destination.

But no. This guy's not having any of it. He Wants to send a different message. "Hi. Welcome to Three Star Bagel! Come inside and enjoy our mediocre cuisine and subpar service."

Where the heck is the Litani River?

2006-08-04T18:02:00.000-04:00

Is it really that complicated? Apparently, yes.

NYTimes: some 15 miles north of the border

Reuters: some 20 km (13 miles) north of the border

CNN: Leaflets urging residents in southern Lebanon to leave their homes and move north of the Litani River, 25 miles (40 kilometers) from the Israeli border

AP (carried elsewhere): They said they could easily dash inland to the Litani River -- their final objective about 18 miles from the border...

The depth of Israel's planned penetration into Lebanon is rather important, no? Seemingly, it would affect the number of Israeli towns that would be in the range of various Hizbullah weaponry. Can no one pull out an atlas (or download one) and measure the distance? Am I missing something here?

And if the Litani varies in its distance from the Israeli border, wouldn't it make sense to mention that fact and perhaps supply a range of distances that reflect its position relative to Israeli territory?

C'mon, media people. Some among you are being either lazy or stupid.

Letting the terrorists win

2006-08-03T15:10:00.000-04:00

During the last couple of weeks, I've been surprised by the number of analysts/pundits who have concluded that Israel is losing or has already lost in the current hostilities with Hizbollah. I'm not talking about the hippie Left, which always - and now is no exception (see here and here) - says that Israel's actions are illegal and ineffective. I'm talking about usually-sober analysts, supporters of Israel, who see no strategic advantage being accrued by the Jewish state in its ongoing battle against Hizbullah.

In this past Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Brett Stephens argues that the aerial bombing of Lebanon has been essentially fruitless:

Israel is losing this war...The conflict with Hezbollah--a 15,000-man militia chiefly armed with World War II-era Katyusha rockets--is now in its 21st day. So far, Israel has nothing to show for its efforts: no enemy territory gained, no enemy leaders killed, no abatement in the missile barrage that has sent a million Israelis from their homes and workplaces. Generally speaking, wars are lost either militarily or politically. Israel is losing both ways.

Another popular critique, voiced by friends and enemies of Israel alike, is the notion that just by surviving, Hizbollah will have won. As Ralph Peters wrote last week in the NY Post, "All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely." An AP headline circulated in dozens of news outlets echoed the sentiment: "Survival may equal victory for Hezbollah."

Stephens's conclusions, I believe, are premature at best, and at least he openly acknowledges that the facts on the ground may soon change (and they do seem to be changing as Israel increases its ground presence in southern Lebanon). But the latter argument - that Hizbollah wins by not losing - strikes me as nonsensical. A tired trope from five years ago is being recycled in slightly different garb, and people are being taken in once again.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, you might recall, we were warned against doing all sorts of things lest "the terrorists win." We can't crack down on civil liberties, said the ACLU, because then "the terrorists win." People should go shopping, ride the subway, or invest in the stock market, lest "the terrorists win."

Of course, the whole "do x, or else the terrorists win" thing became a joke because of the way it was outlandishly applied to activities and behavior that clearly had nothing to do with the terrorists. However, I don't think that people fully appreciated the logical flaw in the argument in its application to increased security measures (and limiting of civil liberties). You see, the real reason it is stupid to say "if we make it harder to immigrate into America or harder to get on a bus without having your bag searched, then the terrorists win" is because the terrorists aren't trying to make us crack down on immigration or inconvenience bus passengers. What they are trying to do is kill us and overthrow our country. They've said as much, numerous times. It's a pretty simple equation: "dead Americans/destruction of America = terrorist victory." Inasmuch as curtailing civil liberties does nothing to further the terrorists' goals, and in fact might inhibit those goals, increasing security measures cannot be rightly considered a terrorist victory.

Let's try to apply the same sort of logic to the situation in Israel. The terrorist aim is to kill as many Israelis as possible and, ultimately, to destroy Israel. The only question that really matters, then, is how effective Israel has been and will be in foiling those aims and the pursuit of those aims by Hizbullah. This question, of course, is open to debate and should be debated. However, the idea that Hizbollah wins by simply not being destroyed is spurious. Sure, Nasrallah can claim victory and be adored by the Arab world and the European press (and populace?), but at the end of the day, all that matters is whether Israel shuts down Hizbullah's capacity to kill Israelis and threaten Israel.

So, on to the actual question. Is Israel on track in foiling the actual goals of Hizbollah? For my money, yes. Once again, Hizbollah can claim all the glorious victories of Allah they want, but the fact of the matter is - they're headed backward. Israeli troops are controlling an increasing area of southern Lebanon, and Hizbollah is already floating offers of a cease-fire to halt the punishing Israeli assault. Israel, thus far, is not biting, nor should it. As one Israeli official recently pointed out - if Hizbollah were to be given the choice of their current situation or the status quo of one month ago, the terrorists would much prefer the reality in early July to the current reality. When the enemy's actual present and future military capabilities are being degraded, does it really make sense to say that the enemy is winning?

One more point, which PM Olmert has actually said but has been mostly ignored. The fierce Israeli response to Hizbollah's activity is a (powerful) warning to the region. Whenever the UN or whatever other body finally enacts a ceasefire, my bet is that the ceasefire will hold - at least insofar as rockets are concerned. Israel is in the midst of establishing a very important precedent: you send missiles into our cities, you may get some of us, but we will make you pay - and it's going to be fucking expensive.

Last thing. There is solidarity in Lebanon now in favor of Hizbullah, but I'm guessing (well, hoping) that changes once the shooting stops and the Lebanese people are left to ponder how and why the country managed to squander peace and prosperity to satisfy the demented dream of a radical minority.

Another grammar post. Sorry (to everyone except Rebecca).

2006-08-02T02:16:00.000-04:00

I can't DEAL with this shit. Why is America's best newspaper riddled with junior high grammar errors? The very first sentence of Sheryl Gay Stolberg's front-page story -

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.

Does nobody copy edit this rag?

Button-Loosening?

2006-07-31T20:47:00.000-04:00

I'm still kinda wondering about the lyrics to the Pussycat Dolls song, "Buttons." The relevant portion goes something like this:

I'm a make you loosen up my buttons babe
Loosen up my buttons babe
Why don't you loosen up my buttons babe
Loosen up my buttons babe

I don't know, I always had the idea - well, since kindergarten, I guess - that clothing buttons exist in one of two states, buttoned or unbuttoned. I'm not really sure how one would go about loosening a button. And actually, the only loose buttons you hear of are those that need to be fastened more securely to the garment they are attached to. Could this song actually represent a plea to the local dry cleaner? I guess that would explain the urgency. Or perhaps buttons in the hip-hop community have unusual properties? Unclear.

Gotta run. My shoelaces came unzipped.

Stem-cells, abortion, etc.

2006-07-28T15:04:00.000-04:00

President Bush has been roundly condemned or opposed by virtually everyone (scientists, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, media) for his recent veto of a bill that would have lifted the ban on government-funded research of embryonic stem-cells. The conventional wisdom seems to be that Bush's decision is of a kind with similar decisions of religious conservatives who have stifled scientific research throughout history. Indeed, in a Senate hearing on the matter, Republican Senator Arlen Specter predicted that Bush's opposition to government-funded stem-cell research would one day be considered as ridiculous as the Church's (since-renounced) opposition to Galileo's astronomical theories.

Well, I'm here to tell you that...I have absolutely no idea whether the conventional wisdom is right or wrong, though my inclination is to support the research. And while we're on the topic of divisive moral issues, perhaps a discussion of abortion and other moral matters is in order as well.

You see, the problem with stem-cell research, abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, and a whole host of other morality-related public-policy issues is that - when it comes right down to it - the rightness of all of these policies essentially depends upon the gut-instinct of the people who either oppose or support it, and scientific data has very little to say about such judgments. Should a convicted mass-murderer be executed? Well, I think so, but if you disagree, it is highly unlikely that sociological studies and/or other accumulation of data will convince either of us to change our view.

Philosophers have long-noticed that ethical issues are decided in a sort of fact-averse vacuum. David Hume famously noted a sort of "is-ought gap"- in other words, that there is no simple way to proceed from fact-based premises (i.e. the way the world is) to moral conclusions (i.e. the way the world ought to be). One (terrific) philosophy professor of mine, David Johnson, claimed that "Ethics" is a sort of the black-hole of philosophy; basically, all moral arguments fail. [Incidentally, Johnson insisted on speaking of the "apparent is-ought gap" because the gap has not been proven to exist. It's just that no one thus far has been able to bridge it. Philosophy professors are often crazy. Johnson also believes that he has proven (something like) "either God exists or there is an infinite number of alternate universes in which conditions do not permit the existence of human life." Nice.]

Now, before we go overboard and start cohabiting with animals, it seems worth mentioning that, happily, the United States and other functional societies manage to traverse the morass of ethical dilemma by enshrining as law almost-universally-agreed-upon ethical norms. Murder for instance, is outlawed and punished. Same goes for stealing, rape, assault, and countless other behaviors. Indeed, theorists have even found common ground in various outlawed behaviors and have established principles that underlie them. So, for instance, many societies have codified a respect for "individual rights." Given the assumption that the rights of an individual may not be violated, it does in fact follow that murder or theft, say, is a violation of the principle. Now all this is good - great, in fact, I would say.

But what is perhaps glossed over is the fact that whether or not to resepect "individual rights" is itself a moral decision. Of course, it may seem like an easy moral decision, but that actually is my point. There is no controversy over "individual rights" because the public overwhelmingly (by which I mean, almost everyone in the society) believes that "individual rights" should be respected. Decisions about moral issues are easy to reach when they reflect a consensus.

But, needless to say, issues like stem-cell research and abortion (and the death penalty, and euthanasia, and polygamy, and war, etc., etc., etc.) generate what can only be considered the opposite of a consensus. Not only do people disagree about the morality of the issue; often, they believe that the opposite side advocates serious moral crimes. But, as we have seen, factual data often contribute very little to these arguments. Gut instinct (individual or collective - in the case of church-inspired opinion) lies at the heart of all these matters.

I would make one more point, which is subtle but should clarify my argument in one important respect. When I say that these arguments are not influenced by fact, I don't mean that people don't cite facts in order to convince the other side (and themselves) of their righteousness. Death-penalty proponents, for instance, attempt to bolster their view with data proving that the death-penalty acts as a crime deterrent. Neo-cons attempt to foster support for their view that Saddam must be deposed by alleging that Saddam's WMDs constitute an existential threat to the United States. But these facts, while related to the issues at hand, do not really address the moral core of either issue. Even if the death penalty is a deterrent, that does not prove (or even address, really) the question of whether it is moral to put a person to death under any circumstances. Even if Saddam is known to have WMDs which constitute an existential threat to the US, that does not prove (or address) whether it is moral to depose a leader who is an existential threat to a particular country. You see, what people are doing by citing these facts is to change the perception of the situation from one in which the morally advisable course of action is murky to a situation in which a consensus exists about the morally advisable course of action.

Now, sometimes these arguments are at least partially effective. For many people, the procedure known as "partial-birth abortion" seems so similar to murder that the practice appears obviously immoral (I am one of those people). But in many more cases, the issue being debated is not comparable enough to a different situation (in which a moral consensus exists) that any sort of consensus on the new issue can be reached.

And that, it seems to me, is where we stand on abortion. America does not see abortion as murder, but neither does it see it as nothing - as a morally neutral act. As there is no obvious moral comparison to make, we should not be surprised that public opinion is conflicted and essentially deadlocked.

Stem-cell research appears to be a bit different. It seems like a solid majority of Americans find it similar enough to a morally neutral act (or, at least, to the discarding of the embryos that would have happened anyway) that the potential benefits offered by the research far outweigh any squeamishness inspired by the prospect of fiddling with human embryos.

I admit that my gut instinct lies with the public on this one. Upon deeper reflection, I confused myself, but I still incline towards supporting government-funded research. Here are my thoughts:

1) I accept as fact (for the sake of argument) that stem-cell research might provide valuable medical knowledge that can save lives. But does that justify destroying human embryos?
2) The closest analogue I can think of to live-saving human embryos is life-saving human corpses. All things being equal, we would rather not cut up human corpses and we would rather not cut up human embryos.
3) But, there are cases in which it makes sense to cut up at least some human corpses. Organ donation seems like the most obvious case in which it is morally obvious that a corpse should be cut up. The attempt to immediately save a living human being seems worth the sacrifice of cutting up the body of what was once a living human being but is now not alive and never will be.
4) Aside from organ donation, other cases exist in which it seems morally correct to cut up corpses. Medical research (in medical schools and elsewhere) is done on corpses, and autopsies provide important data on communicable diseases and other areas of medical knowledge.
5) The government has no problem funding research that is based on the cutting up of corpses.
6) I can't really think of a good reason that messing with embryos that will never be human beings is worse than messing with corpses that once were human beings.
7) So fund the research.

But again, who really knows?

Oops. Lawsuit, anyone?

2006-07-25T10:03:00.000-04:00

Check out this quote in the Washington Post from a Motorola executive. Tracy Koziol, from the company's handset division, is really excited about Moto's latest phone, the KRZR - which has a narrower frame than the popular RAZR model:

"For people with smaller hands, it does probably fit better than the Razr, especially for Asian customers and ladies," said Koziol, adding that most cellphone carriers around the world have shown interest in the product.

Unfortunately, the paper didn't print the remainder of the statement, in which Koziol trumpeted the angular design of the KRZR's display module - ideal for the slanty eyes of Asian customers.

People like me suck

2006-07-20T16:27:00.000-04:00

Certain phenomena are ruined by publicity. It's a special kind of situation and not all that common, but it happens. Like Ali G, for instance. The more popular he gets, the more difficult it becomes to find oblivious people who will sit for his satirical interviews.

Well, over the past month or so, a similar sort of development has occurred on what was once probably the funniest site on the web. I am speaking, of course, of the message board on calmkallahs.com. ("Kallah" is the Hebrew word for "bride").

The site, run by an Orthodox Jewish woman called Marla, is a forum in which devout Jewish women discuss, well, basically everything they can think of about their sex lives. No topic is too pedestrian or risque for the avant-garde ladies who post on the board; indeed, topics discussed on the site include mundance concerns like "going off birth control" and "husband's back hair," as well as more interesting offerings such as " how to orgasm", "anal sex", and "Dildos and Strapons." All this, from women who cover their hair when they leave the house and abstain from sex for about two weeks out of the month because of menstrual "impurity." I would describe the site as a cross between "Sex for Dummies" and "Girls Gone Wild." For Amish people.

The comingling on the site of repression and horniness, of religious traditionalism and carnal curiosity, makes for a hilarious read. Who can be unsympathetic to the anguished plea of Malki (technical note - "dh" ="dear husband," and "assur"= "prohibited by Jewish Law"):

i really want to give my dh a "handjob"...what should i do???? i wanna give him a handjob and he really wants me to give him one, we know its assur. what do we do?

You can really appreciate the dilemma faced by these women as they strive to reconcile their religious beliefs with their irreligous libidos. And that's what made the site so enjoyable - the genuine, ridiculous questions and emotions that these women were willing to expose. Almost too good to be true.

And, alas, now it is. Because, you see, there is no verification process to post on this site, and the target is just too tempting (I have succumbed to the temptation for mischief myself). Whereas, only a few weeks ago, there was an air of integrity about the issues and posts aired on the site, the situation has since changed considerably. Now, you're more likely to see something like this ("Frum" means "strictly Orthodox"):

Miss Frum: DH has asked me to dress up like a bee-keeper...should i be worried?Anyone else ever experience something strange like this...

Now, granted, this post is funny as hell (though, I'm sad to say, I didn't write it). And, in truth, it occasioned even more hilarity, as a number of ostensibly earnest readers offered these responses to it:

Malki: that IS a bit odd - but in fetish/fantasy world NOTHING is too weird. you might wanna try and figure out what about it turns him on - did he once see a really hot girl dressed as a beekeeper?

Guest: maybe he likes the danger involved and the fearlessness involved in doing something like that. i wouldn't worry about it as long as you both have fun.... and i WOULDN"T ask if it is because he once saw a hot girl as a bee keeper and then asking you to dress up like one. that would upset me if it were my husband, I am not hot enough for him that he wants to use me to replay some fantasy of his??? i wouldnt' go there at all. i would like to assume that if my husband asked me something like that it is because it is something dnagerous and having the guts to do something like that turns himon. as long as you both play safe, have fun!! (maybe come up with something else that you want him to do, you never know, this may open sexual doors for you guys!!)

Like I said, this is priceless stuff in its own right. (I mean, a question doesn't get any more Jewish than "I am not hot enough for him that he wants to use me to replay some fantasy of his?") But it's a different kind of stuff. While the site once represented a place to laugh at Orthodox women, it now presents a sort of ongoing challenge in which the reader must try to determine which questions are seriously asked and which are the musings of (other) juvenile males with nothing better to do.

Don't get me wrong. The site is still a terrific source of entertainment. But I feel like it's lost some of the refreshing naivete that contributed to its original luster. People like me suck.

Keep it truthful

2006-07-19T23:55:00.000-04:00

You really hate to nitpick about these kinds of things, because the destruction and suffering in both Lebanon and Israel are serious and real. But if it really wants to be honest, the NYT either has to avoid this claim or substantiate it:

In Srifa, a neighborhood was wiped out — 15 houses flattened; 21 people killed and 30 wounded — in an Israeli airstrike. The town’s mayor, Afif Najdi, called it a massacre.

Ok, I understand the massacre claim. It's a statement made by the mayor of a town that has experienced an aerial attack. Now, I don't think it was a "massacre," and many (if not most) fair-minded people would agree that it was not a massacre. But the question of what constitutes a massacre is subjective and tricky, and the paper isn't making the claim - it's simply reporting the claim made by someone who witnessed the attack.

But the contention of the first sentence seems to be almost self-contradictory. A neighborhood was supposedly "wiped out." Wiped out. That's pretty bad. Sounds like everything in the neighborhood was destroyed, right? Well, not unless it's a really small neighborhood; as the sentence continues, "15 houses flattened; 21 people killed and 30 wounded." I suppose it's theoretically possible that there were only 15 houses and 51 people in the neighborhood prior to the Israeli assault, but if that's the case, the paper is dutybound to report this fact. What seems more likely is that there were scores, (probably hundreds, if not thousands,) of homes and people in Srifa and the claim is exaggerated - Srifa was not "wiped out" The problem is that, this time, it is the NYT itself that makes the claim.

Yeah, I know, it's still bad, and for the people who lost their homes, there is little solace that only a small percentage of the town (rather than the whole) has been destroyed. But the Times and the media are supposed to report facts, not exaggerate them. Words have meaning, and "wiped out" means something far more serious than damage of fifteen homes and fifty people. Merriam Webster Online, for instance, defines it, "to destroy completely" or "annihilate."

I'm not alleging any sort of anti-Semitic conspiracy, but it is interesting to note that the same sort of exaggerated claims were popularized by Palestinian spokesmen back in 2002, when Israel struck the Jenin refugee camp:

A. Jenin – what was destroyed?
One of the false contentions repeated by Palestinian spokesmen between March 29 and April 21, 2002, concerned the extent of the damage to the Jenin refugee camp that resulted from the battle in the camp between Israeli soldiers and armed Palestinian forces. During and immediately following the battle at Jenin, Palestinian spokesmen stated, again and again – falsely, each time – that Israel was about to destroy or had already destroyed the entire refugee camp:
a. At a meeting of the Arab League, Nabil Sha'ath declared that Israeli “soldiers had received orders from the Israeli army chief of staff Shaul Mofaz for the complete destruction of Jenin…”(Deutsche Presse-Agentur, April 6)
b. Also on April 6, Hassan Abdel Rahman told CNN that Israel was performing “blanket bombing today of the cities of Nablus and Jenin, and it is on television.” [The U.S. Department of Defense defines “carpet bombing” (synonymous with “blanket bombing”) as “The progressive distribution of a mass bomb load upon an area defined by designated boundaries, in such manner as to inflict damage to all portions thereof.”]
c. A few days later, Saeb Erekat told CNN’s Jim Clancy, “You know, the Jenin refugee camp is no longer in existence…”
d. Erekat repeated the charge one week later to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, stating: “There is no longer a refugee camp there. And maybe the [Israeli] defense minister and the prime minister of Israel want to deny what CNN is showing, that the camp was totally destroyed.” (April 17)

In response to these Palestinian allegations, Israeli officials contended that only a small percentage of the Jenin refugee camp had been destroyed. The Israelis later backed up their claim with a set of “before-and-after” satellite photographs of Jenin, which clearly demonstrated that only about ten percent of the refugee camp had been destroyed during Operation Defensive Shield. Since that time, Palestinian spokesmen have ceased their proclamations of Jenin’s total destruction, but they have yet to publicly acknowledge the falsity of their previous statements.

Fed Chief Cannibalism?

2006-07-19T21:51:00.000-04:00

Forget interest rates. Apparently the NYTimes is after a bigger story. In its report on the fed chief Bernanke's remarks, the paper notes:

Boiled down, Mr. Bernanke conveyed a twofold message.

Yeah, the job is tough, but this seems a bit harsh, no?

How stupid can a politician be?

2006-07-13T01:10:00.000-04:00

It would take a lot to top this, it seems to me. Fresh off the horrible tunnel collapse in Boston that killed a local woman headed to Logan Airport, Massachusetts Turnpike Chairman Matthew Amorello was still insisting on Wednesday, “these tunnels are safe.”

"Safe" for whom, people who stay home? A woman is already dead, you nitwit.

He added, "we will get to the bottom of what happened." Well, if you don't know what happened, isn't it just possible, maybe, possibly, that the FREAKING TUNNELS AREN'T SAFE?

Shocking, really, to find out:

Inspectors on Thursday quadrupled to 240(!!) the number of possible ceiling bolt problems in a Big Dig tunnel where a woman was crushed by falling concrete... inspectors found 68 suspect bolt assemblies over the westbound lanes of a connector tunnel providing the main route to Logan Airport. Forty-five more were discovered in a lane carrying carpool traffic, as well as 69 in ramps connecting two interstate highways.

Yeah, real safe.

Amorello, just resign. You're a poor excuse for a human, and no one wants to look at you or hear from you again.

A little bugspray would have been sufficient

2006-07-10T01:46:00.000-04:00

Recently complained to my landlord Paula about some ants in my apartment. She told me she would put me on the extermination list. I asked her if she might be over-reacting a tad, and whom did she think they would come for after the Jews?(Paula is African-American)

"An Income-eating Snooze": the new movie about Al Gore, his triumph over adversity, and - oh, yeah - global warming

2006-07-03T00:35:00.001-04:00

Forget everything you've heard about the "new" Al Gore (like, for instance, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). You know what I'm talking about: the reborn Gore who is suddenly authentic, engaging, folksy, funny, self-effacing, whose touch transforms dross into gold, etc. Yeah, that new Al Gore. Guess what? He doesn't exist. Or, at the very least, no such person appears in Gore's tedious, self-indulgent paeaen to environmental activism - "An Inconvenient Truth."

Though I am somewhat uncomfortable lumping in discussion of Gore's character and personality together with an assessment of Gore's arguments, the movie allows for little alternative, so tightly is Gore's godlike apprehension of the seismic dangers facing the earth interwoven with his many triumphs over personal adversity. Indeed, the film showcases no Gore characteristic so much as his boundless self-absorption. At three distinct junctures, the plot diverges from its ostensibly central concern with global warming in order to explain Gore's ongoing environmental enlightenment as he overcame his son's near-fatal car accident, his sister's death from tobacco-induced lung cancer, and his own (unfair) defeat in the 2000 presidential election.

Frankly, I think this whole tact of Gore's argument is distasteful, probably spurious, and a transparent appeal to sympathy (ad misericordiam, for those keeping score at home). But if we do accept Gore at his word - what does it say about him that the epiphanies following his son's accident and his sister's death weren't enough to push him over the environmental edge? Let's see: almost dead son, sister dead from product (tobacco) grown on the family farm...does Albert "get it" yet, how precious life on earth is and how he must make it his mission to save humanity from itself? Nope, that doesn't do it. But after losing the presidential election it finally becomes clear?! Got to respect a man with priorities.

Aright, enough of that. So how was the movie?

If it had to be boiled down to one word - "boring." Two words - "very boring." Ok, I know, it's a partisan documentary, what do I expect? Well, let's see. A couple years back, the very same media and liberal establishment that can't get enough of Gore now couldn't get enough of another left-wing flamethrower, filmmaker Michael Moore. Now, let's be clear: I detest Michael Moore, and I believe that "Fahrenheit 9-11" is both dishonest and politically wrongheaded. But you've got to hand it to Moore - he knows how to make a movie. The action moves along quickly and is suffused with humor at the expense of rightwing naysayers. Moore narrates but does not make himself the center of the story - because, well, as egotistical as he might be, Moore realizes that the story is bigger than he is. As propaganda, F911 is brilliant.

Gore's hapless effort could not be more different from Moore's effective work. There is very little action to speak of in Gore's film. The closest thing to ongoing activity is the appearance of countless before-and-after photos of various icebergs and lakes that have receded over decades or even centuries. Pass the popcorn! Somehow, some footage of 9-11 gets thrown in, as well as some Hurricane Katrina coverage. But that's about it. Honestly, as tenuous as the connections are between current weather patterns and hurricane/disease activity, the movie would be much more exciting if it had more in the way of disaster footage. If you're trying to scare, then scare us, you pussies! Instead, the most threatening image in the film is Gore plotting a line on a graph that supposedly proves that temperature is going to go up some tremendous (but indeterminate) amount right NOW. Wait, not yet. NOW. Nope, oops, sorry. Ok, NOW! No, actually, get back to us on that.

Fine, so the movie does not really reflect well upon Gore personally and is lacking from an entertainment perspective as well. But how about the nut and bolts? Does it make a good case? Basically, no. Maybe I'll get back to this another time...

pedophiles

2006-07-02T17:03:00.000-04:00

yo, do u think pedophiles are in it for the discounts? cheaper movies, kiddie meals, children stay for free at most hotels. maybe they're just trying to save a buck.

Cathy Young cannot be serious

2006-06-29T20:54:00.000-04:00

Cathy Young is a Contributing Editor at Reason Magazine and a columnist for the Boston Globe. She specializes in what might be called "enlightened center" articles. She takes a particular, controversial, issue - say, atheism - and says that both sides are wrong. On the one hand, blah, blah, blah. But on the other hand, blah, blah, blah. If everyone respects everyone else and is as reasonable as is she, everything will be ok. You can check out some of her recent work here.

Now, since Young is (seemingly) intelligent and writes fairly well, her strategy is pretty effective, if overly formulaic. And occasionally, she advocates on behalf of very interesting, very unpopular causes - such as fathers' rights (see here and here) - which, in my mind, reflects well upon her.

But, as might be expected of someone who so obviously strives to present a balanced view of every issue, Young sometimes presents or interprets evidence in questionable ways in order to make her point. A perfect case in point is the absolute laugher that appears in Young's recent article on criticism of Islam. Young, of course, believes that reasonable criticism of Islam is justified, but going overboard is uncalled for. And, as usual, liberals and conservatives are both wrong. Liberals are too hesitant to criticize Islam, and conservatives too eager.

Young's problem is that in order to paint conservatives as too extreme in their denunciations of Islam or Muslims, she must demonstrate that they are overreacting to the danger that Muslims represent. In attempting to do so, she says this :

In the United States, where the social and economic structures are far more flexible and more conducive to the integration of immigrants than in most of Europe, Muslim radicalism has not been a serious problem.

Sure, Muslim radicalism hasn't been a serious problem in America. Wait, wasn't there that one problem a few years back? I can't seem to remember exactly what it was. Something about some buildings somewhere in the Wall Street area. Whatever it was, I guess it must not have been too serious; either that, or it had nothing to do with Muslim radicalism.

"Superman" Sucks. (No worries, I can't possibly spoil this movie).

2006-06-28T01:56:00.000-04:00

I know that I must weigh my words carefully in this venue. There are, literally, throngs of people who hang on my every word and await my guidance as a night watchman awaits the dawn, a night watchman the dawn. Careers hang in the balance as I make my opinions known. Yet, in the end, I have absolutely no hesitation as I tell you -

"SUPERMAN RETURNS" MAY BE THE WORST FUCKING MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Seriously. Think Judge Dredd. Heaven's Gate. Waterworld. Ishtar. Grease 2. I shudder as I contemplate just how difficult it will be to describe how much this movie sucks. No joke, I feel like I need to say the Yom Kippur hineni prayer before I begin. For the unitiated, that's a prayer sung by the cantor ("here I am, unworthy in deeds...") in which he expresses his unworthiness to stand before God and intercede on behalf of the congregation; the cantor humbly begs that God allow him to fulfill his task and not punish the congregation on account of his shortcomings. I ask for no less from the Almighty in this particular instance.

I guess I need to start somewhere, so here goes:

(1) One nit-picky point from the opening. Of course, had the movie been good, or even decent, or even watchable, I wouldn't mention it - nor, likely, would I remember it. But, given how much the movie sucked, this item presciently foreshadows the disaster ahead.

The format of the opening credits is just retarded. They attempt to wow you with these special effects (more on special effects later, by the way); the names of all the directors, producers, and other idiots come out at you in 3-D. It is somewhat cool - once. After about five minutes of the same ridiculous graphic, it seems not so much cool as gimmicky and stale. Much like the rest of the film proves to be.

(2) The dialogue in the movie stands out for its consistent ridiculousness. At one "dramatic" point (and this movie tries sooo hard, and so terribly, to be dramatic), when Lois is first alone with Superman after his unannounced 5-year absence, she hugs him and says, slowly, "I forgot how warm you are." And then they fly off silently.

I forgot how warm you are?! What is he, a pair of fucking flannel pajamas? I forgot how warm you are?! The line elicited at least 5 snorts from the general vicinity in which I was sitting.

You know, I usually don't like when critics pick out one line from a book or movie and tear it apart. I mean, every work has some line that can be criticized. How does a reader know if one line accurately reflects an entire work? But what can I tell you - in this case, that one line perfectly and fully reflects the bizarre, stilted, downright scripted interaction between the characters.

One other line comes to mind. After Superman recovers from his injuries towards the very end of the movie, he comes to visit Lois (who is living with some other dude) and thanks her. Lois asks, "Will I see you around?" To which, Superman replies, slowly, dramatically, "I'm always around," and flies away. More snorts.

(3) While we're talking about the ending, it might make sense to note here that the ending juuuuust doeeeeeesn't eeeennnd. The movie lasts two-and-a-half hours that feel like five.

It is a close call, but the last 30 minutes of the movie seem slightly more interminable than the first 30 minutes. Nothing happens during either of these two parts of the movie (and only minimally more during the middle hour and a half).

(4) The evil plot Superman must contend with just doesn't make sense; honestly, I don't even know if I can describe what the basic plot is. Lex Luther is trying to...what exactly? To build a continent out of alien crystals that will crowd out other continents by submerging them beneath rising oceans, so that people will be forced to purchase real estate on Luther's privately owned landmass? Whaaaaaat? I swear, it's like a group of Hollywood/NYTimes liberals attempted to package all of the worlds worst dangers - global warming, Israeli occupation, resource-hungry American neo-colonialists, and lack of affordable housing in Manahttan - into one terrifying plot. Superman, save us!

(5) And speaking of Lex Luther's asinine plot, can someone PLEASE explain to me what is so cool about the formation of crystal edifices? As best I can tell, the entire special effects portion of the movie's $260 million budget - that's $260 million, the most expensive movie budget in history - was earmarked for scenes featuring the emergence of stalactites and stalagmites from a crystal pilfered from Superman's Fortress of Solitude. Seriously, does it really cost $260 million to make scenes that look pretty much like this:

Wouldn't it just have been easier - and, say, oh, a hundred million dollars cheaper - to just shoot on location in any of the thousands of sites worldwide that actually look (and much more realistically) like the environment these idiot spent millions to create? And, to return to a theme mentioned earlier, does nobody realize that what is sort-of cool the first time gets really, really old by the fifth? I mean, is there some closet constituency of geology enthusiasts among the comic-book-geek crowd that the studio is trying to attract?

And these crystal structures, by the way, are the same pieces of real estate that Lex intends to sell to vacationers and others looking for a place to live. Once again - whaaaat?

Aright, I can't write anymore about this movie.

I'll close with this. "Superman Returns" is so bereft of redeeming features that I feel almost compelled to recommend seeing it; it's not every day that you can personally witness a quarter-billion dollars being flushed down the toilet.

Another Qualified Tutor

2006-06-25T15:13:00.000-04:00

See, you got to wonder what these people are thinking. If you're seeking a job in education, literacy would seem to be an essential asset. Right? I mean, look at this:

I am a teacher with duel certifications in elementary education and special education.

Great, just what we need - retards running around with swords.

Update on Omnivision

2006-06-21T01:59:00.000-04:00

This stock is always interesting. Margin buyers beware.

Ok, you might recall that I predicted last week that Omnivision Technologies (OVTI) would slightly exceed estimates for the quarter just past and would increase guidance significantly for the current quarter. I'm happy to report that this is, more or less, what happened during their earnings call this past Friday (June 16).

(For last quarter, revenues beat Street estimates by 5.5%, and earnings exceeded Street estimates by about 2.5%. For the current quarter, OVTI estimated that it would beat Street estimates of revenues by 4-11%, and beat Street estimates of earnings by 4-13%. [And if, as it has the last few quarters, OVTI performs better than it says it will in its estimates, the upside will be even higher]).

Moreover, the normally cautious CEO forecast "a return to solid sequential growth in the July quarter, throughout the second half of calendar 2006 and beyond."

Sounds great, right? Think again. I am unhappy to report that the stock has lost a whopping18.6% of its value since the earnings call (Update: but recovered a small bit on Wednesday).

So what's going on? Well, I'll try to make this factual, though it will be quite obvious where I stand on this matter.

The morning after earnings, two analysts - one from Neeedham, one from Baird - published concerns about margin erosion/falling prices, a supposed glut of handsets in Taiwan, and over-concentration of business in China - all of which, in their view, augured poorly for the company and its stock. These same two analysts, interestingly enough, did not downgrade their rating on the company and in fact raised their guidance based on the upbeat forecast given during the earnings call. Making matters even stranger is the fact that the first 2 of these 3 issues were specifically dealt with in great detail during the earnings, and management explained exactly why they should not be cause for concern. The third issue was brought up as an analyst (seemingly) innocuously asked how much of the company's business for the quarter had been in China. It was not at all clear where he was going with the question and what he thought of the answer - did the 28% (as compared to 20% the previous quarter) in China concern him or please him? Well, he didn't ask a follow-up question, so - conveniently enough - management was not given an opportunity to respond to the matter.

Now, that same Friday morning, Morgan Keegan and Merriman came out positively. In their view, the earnings call went very well and, to put is simply, the future looks bright. (Indeed, anyone who listened to the conference call cannot help but note that virtually every questioner congratulated management on a succesfull quarter and, often, on the promising guidance as well). Over the weekend, JPMorgan reiterated its positive rating on the company and, given the precipitous dop in price, named it one its top 3 recommendations in the sector. JPM also wrote about a response from OVTI management saying, essentially, that the theories leading to the negative evaluations were based on false assumptions. Earlier today, AMTech research put out a note consistent with JPM's. Here are excerpts from the JPM and AMT notes.

JPM

We conducted a one-on-one post earnings conference call with theOVTI CFO, post
earnings.
• Unsurprisingly, the company is disappointed by the market reaction to its F4Q results and guidance. OVTI believes it is winning market share in all handset segments, though particularly strong in budget (VGA) and high-end (2MPx). Handset inventory issues in Asia, if they are happening, are not related to the cameraphone subset of the market, in their view. On the contrary, OVTI believes the camera-phone products may be causing slower sell through of standard (non-camera) handsets. In other words, ovti believes the market is misreading their situation, confusing it withother handset component suppliers in Asia.
• OVTI stated on the conference call that 28% of sales are into China. However the company cannot determine which handsetsthe product is incorporated into, nor where the product finally gets shipped. Hence, it is not appropriate to conclude that its business is increasingly focused on emerging markets (market sees related risks to gross margins).

AMTech

OVTI: OmniVision: Concerns of China exposure overblown and misunderstood -
Amtech
(21.85)Amtech says discussions with various clients have led them to believe that investors perceive that OVTI has too much China exposure. The firm does not believe this to be the case. They note OVTI ships its die into module makers who in turn ship to their end customer, a cell phone OEM/ODM. They also sayOVTI counts the module maker as its customer. If the module makers happen to be in China, it counts the revenue from China. However, they say this module maker could be shipping the finished module to some other country for final cell phone assembly. They note that in the April 2006 quarter business from Hong Kong has ramped down as Taiwan and China have picked up. They do not view the low-cost handset issues in emerging countries as having any bearing on OVTI since most of the low-cost GSM handsets do not have cameras in them.

So, according to management, all of the issues raised are actually non-issues. If the analyst had simply asked the company what the implications were of OVTI's increasing business in China, the company would have given its perfectly plausible answer. In plain English - just because OVTI is physically shipping components to China (so that OVTI's customers, technically, are Chinese) does not mean that the phones being built are being sold in the Chinese market (whose consumers tend toward cheaper, lower margin phones). So Nokia, for example, might pay a Chinese manufacturer to assemble even its most expensive phones, in China, before they are sold anywhere in the world - in the US, Europe, etc. In such a case, OVTI's customer is the Chinese manufacturer, even though the phone will not be sold in China. And, as OVTI stated, according to their data, it is precisely because of the success of camera phones that there is an inventory glut in parts of Asia. The glut is of low-end, non-camera phones, which nobody wants to buy. And insofar as falling prices and margins, the company acknowledged that margins had fallen slightly during the quarter due to their growing share of the low-end market, but they assured the market that they will remain between 35-40% for the next couple of quarters and will tend to increase as handset makers shift towards OVTI's next generation of (more advanced, more expensive) chips.

Aright, I'm sick of writing. Maybe I'll add a bit more soon. Bottom line: I stand by my earlier evaluation and prediction. I would strongly recommend buying more here (with a stop no greater than 10%).

More Grammar Fun (by request)

2006-06-20T11:24:00.000-04:00

yip, it's true. someone actually requested more posts on grammar. what can i say? this is a service-oriented business. so here we go.

1) yet another flawed comparison in the NYT :

But unlike Europe, McDonald's revival in the United States came in recent months partly because of the enormous success of the Dollar Menu, where all items, like double cheeseburgers and fried chicken sandwiches, cost $1.

Hmm. So what's causing Europe's revival in the United States? Or is it the Europe revival in the US? Why can't these writers freaking get it right?! And while we're discussing this sentence, what the heck is the "where" doing there? Is "the Dollar Menu" a small French village known for discount eateries?

2) Ok, this one isn't the fault of the Times. The paper is just quoting Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski talking about the arrest for DUI of former Duke basketball player JJ Redick. But it's still amusing.

"J. J. knows he made a mistake and regrets it," Duke Coach Mike Krzyzewski said in a statement. "As his friend and his coach, he has my total support."

Ok, Redick is talented, but how is he his own friend and coach? And what's the connection between Redick being his own friend/coach and the support of Krzyzewski?

Aright, once I'm doing this, I might as well go all out. Here are a couple of signs that have made me laugh:

a) On the entrance to the Young Israel of Sunny Isles in Florida:

"Please close door when exiting." Ouch.

b) Surgeon General's Warning:

"Pregnant women should not drink alcohol because of the risk of birth defects."

Ok. So why should pregnant women drink alcohol?

c) Sign in UPENN Library:

"15 minutes before closing, an alarm will sound, and the lights will temporarily go out. Wait until the lights come back on and leave the building."

Sad to say, but I've been in the library quite a few times at closing; and I have witnessed the lights go out and come back on. I am still (eagerly) waiting to see the lights leave the building. Maybe this will be the year (fingers crossed).

I'm sorry, what was your name again?

2006-06-18T22:38:00.000-04:00

Just in, from the "Holy crap, i can't believe this is real" department:

Americans paying $3 per gallon at the pump have it relatively cheap when compared with prices globally, say oil and gas company executives who defend their record profits as essential to maintaining supplies.

In parts of Europe and elsewhere in the West, gasoline prices are more like $5 per gallon to $7 per gallon, said the chairman of ConocoPhillips Co., James J. Mulva.

Mulva! Mulva? Poor guy. Just think about it. Nice little Jimmy Mulva. Probably grew up in the South somewhere, maybe in a single-parent household. Ever since his first sex-ed class in junior high, he's dealt with the taunting. It bothered him at first, but he hung tough. Sticks and stones...it's the "inside" that really matters...he tried out alll the hollow platitudes. None of them really helped. In the end, he just accepted it and waited for people to grow up.

Eventually, they did. And the memories started to fade. Like a recovering alcoholic emerging from years of hazy stupor, Jimmy Mulva finally reclaimed his life. He strung together months, then years - and finally decades - without any reminder of his schoolboy shame, or the shame at having been so ashamed, which lasted almost as long. Indeed, Jimmy Mulva even made something of himself, working his way up through the oil industry. It became clear that he would one day be a CEO. It was just a matter of time.

And that's how things looked until March 18, 1993, when the window into little Jimmy Mulva's tortured past was wrenched open. Just picture the scene in Jimmy Mulva's office that Friday morning. "Hey Agnes, could you have those reports by lunch today, please?" "Yeah, sure, Mr., uh, Mr. Mulva...phhhhphhh...whatever you say." Strange, thinks Jimmy Mulva, wonder what's gotten into Anges.

And this scene is repeated again. And again. And again. By Jimmy's superiors. By his associates. Even the mailroom clerks can't conceal a smile as they hand Jimmy his mail. Indeed, Jimmy is almost certain that he hears the pizza delivery boy call him "Bovary" under his breath.

And that's when Jimmy realizes that his past is the past no longer. No, worse. It's still his past, but now it is his present as well. And all the old feelings storm back into his head. Jimmy Mulva, butt of jokes. Jimmy Mulva, the freak. Jimmy Mulva, loser. This time, however, the recovery is somewhat easier. Adults, after all, (often) tire of low-brow comedy more quickly than do young children. And in time, little Jimmy Mulva puts the flareup behind him once.

Until this one sadistic grad student dug it all up once more...

Really Geeky Grammar Point (and Zarqawi Dead!!!)

2006-06-08T05:18:00.000-04:00

Ok, I don't know why I'm writing this. Probly I'm just pissed that this douchebag writes for the NYT and I don't. But shouldn't we expect better from America's preeminent newspaper? Amidst his review of the Motorola Q cell phone, David Pogue makes the following incisive comparision:

Unfortunately, this software's designers must believe that you bill by the hour; getting anything done on this phone requires more steps than the Empire State Building.

Hmm. How might we address the problem here? Oh, I know. "Unfortunately, this sentence's writer must believe that you don't speak English very well; understanding the comparison he makes in his sentece requires more information than a phone book." Huh? My comparison doesn't make sense? Well, of course it doesn't, because I didn't clarify what I was talking about. And that is a good description of (one of) Pogue's problems as well.

Does he mean - (1) that getting anything done on the phone requires a greater number of steps (meaning "elements of a proces") than the number of steps (meaning "incrementally elevated units of a staircase") the builders of the Empire State Building needed when they were building it? [or perhaps even with regard to the Building, he is referring to the number of steps (i.e. process steps) that it took to build it?] (2) that getting anything done on the phone requires a consumer to endure more steps (meaning "elements of a proces") than the number of steps (meaning "incremental elevated units of a staircase") endured by one who climbs up the stairwell of the Empire State Building?

And if (2) is the intended meaning, as I believe it is, what verb is supposed to be modifying the latter part of the sentence - "requires"? But that doesn't make sense. It's not the building that requires the steps; it's the one who goes up the steps who is required to traverse the steps. Basically, the whole comparison is a huge freaking mess. Maaaan, how do these idiots keep their jobs? For those interested in more material on incomplete or unclear comparisons, I recommend this little quiz.

(I dedicate this post to Ethan Keller and the noble editors of Kedma, whose understanding of "copy-editing" is reminiscent of the rental place's understanding of "reservations" in "The Alternate Side" episode of Seinfeld [Episode 28: Season 3, Episode 11]).

Zarqawi dead?!! God bless our men and women in uniform!!!!

Introduction to "Stunt Doubles"

2006-06-07T01:32:00.000-04:00

For those of you who did not go to college with me, the concept of a "stunt double" (who doesn't perform stunts) may sound foreign. But please do not be alarmed; it is easy to understand. The basic idea is to do the following: 1) Identify two or more (unrelated) people who look alike; 2) Display pictures of those people; 3) Convince others that you have in fact come up with a "stunt double" and are not retarded.

I should note that the subjects of a "stunt double" claim may be famous people or not-famous people, or a combination of famous and not-famous people. Today, I will present our first example, involving two famous people: comedian Louis CK (ok, perhaps "famous" is pushing it a bit) and financial analyst/columnist Jim Cramer.

Bargain

2006-06-06T14:25:00.000-04:00

For only $50/hour, you can have this genius tutor your kid:

I want to help your child succeede in school.

Uh, yeah, me too. Maybe you can help my kid learn how to use Spellcheck?

Omnivision

2006-05-31T11:48:00.000-04:00

Aright, I should put this in writing, so I can brag about it (or be ridiculed) in a few months.

Over the past couple of years, I have been investing in and following the vicissitudes of a company called Omnivision Technologies (NASDAQ: OVTI) , which makes image sensors - camera chips - for a whole host of consumer products.

The company first came to my attention as it plummeted from a high of about $35 to a low of $9 in the span of a few months in the summer of 2004. This occurred as the company, due to an accounting error, was forced to restate earnings -- upward. One of the distributors of the company's products was not booking revenue correctly, which was causing a lag in the company's revenue reporting. The company was actually earning more money than it had reported. Yet, Wall Street, led by a number of sky-is-falling/something-here-smells reporters like Herb Greenberg, sold the stock into oblivion. When it sold for $9/share, the company had about $6/share in cash, no debt, and a business growing at a fantastic rate. Needless to say, it was a screaming buy.

Over the subsequent two years, the stock has been volatile, to say the least. After running up to $20 or so, it was shorted back down to $12, amidst ever more pessimistic reporting by Herb Greenberg and others. But then, about 8 months ago, the stock took off once again. Aided by the company's upbeat earnings, future guidance, and $100 million stock repurchase plan, the stock went on an extended tear, reaching as high as nearly $35 in early May. Over the last few weeks, the stock has cooled off, shedding nearly 20% of its market cap and hovering in the $25-30 range.

Ok. OVTI is reporting earnings in a couple of weeks, on June 15th. I predict that the company's earnings will modestly exceed estimates for the quarter just completed and that guidance for the current quarter will be well above average analyst estimates. Furthermore, the company will have very positive things to say about the roll-out of its sensors in the automobile and notebook PC markets, and about its potentially disruptive auto-focus technology (called Wavefront coding or Omnifocus).

Earnings and guidance will be terrific. The one downside risk factor I see is the general weakness of the overall market. If the market recovers or stabilizes, OVTI may never again see a share price south of $30.

Prediction: Absent a total market collapse, OVTI will be above $40 by the end of 2006. Kiddush will ensue.

(Prediction #2: If he runs, John McCain will be the next US President)

More on Jefferson

2006-05-28T14:45:00.000-04:00

In reviewing media reaction to the whle Jefferson fiasco, I am amazed to find that no one - literally, not a single person (that I could find in reputable media outlets) - is actually defending Jefferson, Pelosi, and Hastert in their temper tantrum about the "overreach" of the Justice Department. Here is a partial sample of what I've found:

1) WSJ - Professor Robert Turner, University of Virginia Law School

2) Chicago Tribune - Steve Chapman, columnist

"Northwestern University law professor Ronald Allen, in line with the consensus among legal experts, says the idea that the raid violated the Constitution is 'absurd.' "

3) Chicago Tribune - Editorial

4) National Review - from the Editor

5) NYTimes - Editorial (5/24). Editorial (5/26).

On 5/24, the Times simply conceded that Congressional objections were out of place:

Fuming lawmakers claim that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause — which protects a lawmaker from politically motivated criminal harassment in the course of official business — should extend to making Mr. Jefferson's office inviolable. This would be a stretch, considering the range of criminal activity theoretically possible in Congressional offices and the government's obligation to pursue and prosecute.

But of course, by 5/26, the Times realized that they aren't really supposed to wholeheartedly bless any action taken by the (Bush) Executive Branch. So they proceeded to lecture Congress about their muted reaction to all of the Constitutional abuses that the Bush administration has committed over the years. Yet, the Times admits that, in this instance, "The constitutional claims made by the Congressional leadership on the Jefferson case seem overblown."

6) Washington Post - Editorial 5/25.

7) Washington Post - Republican Senator David Vitter, from Louisiana, of all places, had it right on 5/26: "I think this outcry from congressional leaders just looks self-serving and defensive to the American people...[the arguments made by Hastert and others] are ridiculous on their face."

It's basically unanimous: Hastert and Boehner (hehe, Boehner) are just stupid.

Let's Get This Shit Started!

2006-05-25T17:57:00.000-04:00

I have no idea. I guess we'll see what happens. I imagine this space will feature a lot of material making fun of me. But perhaps there'll be some other stuff, too: politics, comedy, criticism of media, sports, maybe some Jew stuff, or whatever else comes up. Stay tuned. But not too closely tuned. You dont want to be one of those maniacally obsessive freaks who spends all his free time monitoring blogs, right?

Aright, let's get this started with a letter I sent yesterday to the Republican National Committee. Why should anyone be interested in that? I have no idea. But here it is:

Dear Republicans,

Are you guys out of your minds?! The William Jefferson story is a gift! In the midst of Democratic harping on Republican corruption, a prominent Democratic Congressman seems to have been involved in a disgusting bribery scheme. AND YOU ARE BLOWING IT!!!

How do you think it plays in public when Congressmen - including the Republican leadership (!) - claim that their offices, unlike the offices of every other person in America, are immune from a court-ordered search warrant?

I'll tell you how it plays, you braindead ninnies. It implies two things: 1) America's elected officials believe that, unlike other Americans, they alone are beyond the law. 2) Members of Congress must routinely use their tax-payer financed offices as bases for criminal activity; why else would they be so doggedly defending a man who appears to be throughly corrupt?

If you guys can't get these things through your thick heads, you deserve to lose the '06 elections. (And, for the record, I am, by and large, a supporter of Republican control of Congress and the Executive branch). Wake up, you dufuses, before the electorate realizes that you are (about) as out-of-touch with the average American as are the histrionic liberals with whom you now stupidly side.

Yours sincerely,

Kraut