Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts

Thursday, April 28, 2011

April 28, 2011

Illiterate Children Reciting the Koran on Film: The Left Gives a Standing Ovation for Islam | NewsReal Blog:
 "One of our stars is a 10-year-old kid from Tajikistan named Nabiollah, an angelic, big-eyed moppet who can recite the entire Quran from memory in an astonishingly pure boyish soprano, with remarkable command of melody and intonation. He’s like the Justin Bieber of Quran recitation, and judges at the Cairo event seize on him as an amazing gift from Allah. But memorizing the Quran (in Arabic, which he does not otherwise speak or read) at a rural madrassa has nearly been Nabiollah’s entire education; he is functionally illiterate in Tajik, his own language.
How does the Left respond to clear anti-education?  They are a bit uncomfortable, but still manage to rise to their feet and applause this pro-Islam film.  In the conflict of education versus Islamic propaganda – Mohammad wins every time."
Salon.com summarzied the film this way:

It’s “Spellbound” plus a poetry slam. Plus Islamic fundamentalism…but if you’re open to the possibility that Islam in practice is an incredibly diverse spiritual and social movement that embraces 1.6 billion human beings and a lot of internal discussion and disagreement, and that the more we know about it the better, then “Koran by Heart” is a movie you’ve got to see...
...She recounts that at the screening Rifdha and her parents were actually there along with the film’s director.  Afterwards they took questions.  And one person had the guts to ask the father directly if he would be open to letting Rifdha get more education and be a scientist.  The Muslim father responded by saying Rifdha must be a housewife.
Just when Osman and all the Progressives are about to come to their senses about Islam, the director of the film speaks up.  Here’s how Osman ends her article: 
The director quickly took the microphone and spoke some words of wisdom. When we go around the world making films we don’t tell people how to live their lives, he said. Nobody tells us how to live our lives, he added. He graciously thanked the family for coming all the way to New York to attend the opening. Inspiring film. Good point. Lesson learned...
...And there you have it.  It doesn’t matter what the Left believes about education, women, or freedom. The spread of Islam must happen.  We must not fear it or reject any part of it.  We can’t push our values on them, no matter how much the culture of Sharia spreads into our own borders.
Many of the articles on the film screenings reported the movie getting large standing ovations" 

It's tricky being a liberal these days, isn't it?  At least if you're trying to be consistent.

~~~~~

Allen West is Right: Leftist Women Castrate Our Men | NewsReal Blog: (HT: Joel)
Author and blogger Suzanne Venkner, who is the niece of Phyllis Schlafly responded to the following statement by Rep. Allen West:
"We need you to come in and lock shields, and strengthen up the men who are going to the fight for you. To let these other women know on the other side — these planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women that have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness — to let them know that we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t, then the debt will continue to grow…deficits will continue to grow."
Venker said,
 ...The problem is that too many Americans, women in particular, are afraid to take a stand against feminism. They think being opposed to feminism means being against women’s rights or being throwbacks to a bygone era when women were at home doing nothing else with their lives but caring for children — which, besides being untrue, is not a bad thing anyway. But that is precisely how liberal women want people to think of feminism: as American women’s saviors.
But feminism did not save the women of America. If anything, it ruined them...
...That’s because feminism is about rejecting the timeless institutions that makes most people happy and any good society flourish: marriage and motherhood.
Liberal women don’t explain it this way, of course. They insist they’re not against the traditional family but merely want women to have choices. Hogwash. Not only do feminists subtly and overtly undermine traditional gender roles, they take credit for something they didn’t do. American women’s choices (a.k.a. “progress”) were expanded not from the bra-burning demonstrations that sought to reform society but from a natural evolution that was aided by technology – technology that was invented by men, I might add. American women should be thanking men, not feminists, for the lives they have today. 
Allen West’s argument that liberal women have neutered men was courageous and spot on. It just wasn’t self-explanatory. West would have done well to quote antifeminist warrior Carolyn Graglia when making his argument:


"The traditional family will remain in peril until we derail the feminist engine of reform by killing the sexual revolution, by replacing no-fault divorce laws with laws that protect homemakers and families, by ending preferential treatment of women in education and workplace, and by reforming all laws that discriminate against one-income families through requiring them to subsidize child care for two-income families.
But these things will not happen until a change occurs in those men who have rejected the value of a woman’s traditional role and of a man’s contributions that make this role viable. Without those contributions, what do men think will define their manhood? If women’s traditional role is expendable, then, as increases in the number of well-educated, never-married mothers indicate, so also are men expendable for all purposes other than sperm donor. The result is a society increasingly like Sweden’s, which has the lowest marriage rate and one of the highest illegitimacy rates and employment rates of working-age women in the western world."
The liberal feminists need to be reminded every now and then that the most significant "liberators" of women were not Gloria Steinem or Margaret Sanger, it was the men who invented the electric washing machine, the electric stove, and running water


It's rather humorous that "The Donald" is getting so much attention for being a straight-talker and not being afraid to say controversial things.  Of course, half of what he says falls into the realm of reality show fiction and the other half is shameless self promotion.   Meanwhile,  Rep. Allen West is saying actual substantive controversial things, speaking about matters of consequence with intelligence and eloquence.  Let's hope we Americans wise up and demand more of West and less of Trump.


~~~~~

(HT: Challies)
"BUFFALO, N.Y. — Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of 'pedophile!' and 'pornographer!' stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents.
That new wireless router. He'd gotten fed up trying to set a password. Someone must have used his Internet connection, he thought.
'We know who you are! You downloaded thousands of images at 11:30 last night,' the man's lawyer, Barry Covert, recounted the agents saying. They referred to a screen name, 'Doldrum. 
'No, I didn't,' he insisted. 'Somebody else could have but I didn't do anything like that.'
'You're a creep ... just admit it,' they said.
Law enforcement officials say the case is a cautionary tale. Their advice:
Password-protect your wireless router."
I happen to be married to a techie who is very fussy about suchs things and I always wondered what the big deal was.   OK....I get it now! Those SWAT team goons would probably confiscate my super-cool Google Chrome CR-48 notebook computer....what a tragedy that would be!  


But seriously, this story does raise some important questions.  Like,  should the internet be free and open to anyone?  Some who were interviewed for the story  and commenting on it thought so and purposely leave their routers open as a courtesy to passersby, hoping others will do the same.   This raises some obvious privacy concerns, although many in the younger generation don't seem to have the same worries their parents do.  I suppose the rise of cloud computing will change this landscape as well.  


The other question is why a heavily armed SWAT team was even needed for this operation.  Could they have just knocked on the door and taken him into custody?  Viewing child pornography, as vile and disgusting as it is, is hardly drug running or gang activity.  What is the likelihood this guy was lying in wait for them with a cache of weapons?  What kind of police state do we live in that an innocent man is subjected to the SWAT team breaking down his door in the middle of the night? 



~~~~~

Do you have questions about Ohio's SB5 and what it means for union members and taxpayers of the state?  The American Policy Roundtable has prepared and excellent guide:


The guide takes on questions such as:
  • What does the collective bargaining process look like under SB5?
  • Will repealing the salary schedules put teachers with higher salary at risk for losing their jobs?
  • Will tenured teachers (continuing contracts) lose their tenure?
  • What does it mean to base salaries or wages on performance? 
  • If public employees can't negotiate for their health care benefits, won't their health coverage be much worse? 
APR has done Ohioans (regardless of which side you're on) a huge service in preparing this detailed FAQ that cuts through the spin.  I hope it makes it into the hands of every Ohio voter as the rhetoric continues and opponents of SB5 prepare to wage a well-funded campaign in their attempt to repeal it.  

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Sprint and the Beauty of Competition and the Free Market

Last night we finally gave up waiting for our family's cell phones to auto-update for daylight savings time and I made the call to Sprint customer service.  After waiting through the obligatory "Para Espanol, marque cinco" and several other prompts, I was directed to a very nice man who noted I was a "Premier Customer" and indicated that he would be especially enthusiastic about resolving my issue.  


After I explained my problem to him and he offered a solution that he was not sure would work, he let me know that I would be receiving a survey about his customer service by e-mail.  He asked me if I would be comfortable answering that yes, he had resolved my issues.  "Yeah....I guess," I mumbled, not quite willing to commit, not knowing yet if my problem was going to be resolved, yet knowing he had been polite and seemed to be trying his best to fix my problem.  "Ma'am....I can see you are hesitant about answering "yes."  Is there anything I can do to help you that would make you more likely to answer "yes" to the survey question?"  I told him that I understood there was nothing else he could do at this point and that I felt he had done his best.  He seemed mostly satisfied with this answer, but reminded me he would be sending me an e-mail with further information and that I should feel free to e-mail him if I had further questions or needed any more help.  We said, "I love you" and "goodnight" and hung up.  OK, that last part didn't happen, but you get the idea.


Before I go on, I have to say that I have had some completely lousy service from Sprint.  I feel like I have wasted entire days of my life on the phone with inept customer service reps in foreign countries who did not have a good grasp of the English language.  However, almost to a person, they have been almost desperate to do whatever it took to keep me as a customer and get a good rating on their surveys.  They've offered me free minutes, discounts on my bill, and even gave us an Airrave when I let them know we were thinking about taking our business (with our four phones) elsewhere because we had such a poor signal at our house. 


This is what happens when the free market and competition are at work - people work harder and give better service.  Contrast this to step-increases or seniority pay, where there is little incentive to improve one's performance or go above and beyond the minimum requirements.  Certainly, there are decent people whose work ethics propel them to give excellent service, whether or not there is an incentive, but the majority of employees will work harder and give better service when their pay and promotions depend upon it.  It's clear that these Sprint employees are rewarded for good reviews from customers.  An ad for a Sprint call center representative says:

  • Starting base pay rate is $10.38 - $12.99 per hour ($21,600 - $27,000 per year), plus commission.  Pay is based on related customer service experience.
  • Commission is based on meeting goals for customer retention and selling products and services. Individuals meeting their goals can earn up to $3,000 per month in incentives, in addition to the base pay.


Prices and innovation are also affected by competition. I grew up in Ohio in the 70's where you could use any phone service provider you wanted, as long as it was Ohio Bell, which was in cahoots with long distance provider AT & T.  At that time, Ohio Bell had a monopoly on phone services and equipment in Ohio.  You rented your phone from Ohio Bell when you ordered your service.  If you wanted an extension in another room, you paid extra for it.  If you wanted to upgrade from a rotary to a push-button phone,  you had to pay an extra monthly charge.  Mechanically inclined customers knew the tricks to disabling the ringers on the extra lines so the phone company didn't know you had an extension.  Don't ask me how I know this.  And our younger friends might not realize that all of our phones were tethered to the wall.  We had an extra long cord that would stretch halfway around the house and out onto the back patio, but even that would only get you about twenty feet, max.  Some families, to save money, had a "party line."  This meant that you shared a line with a neighbor - it worked like an extension.   My friend across the street had a party line and I always thought there was something exciting and mysterious about picking up the phone and hearing the voice of the neighbor across the gully.


If you wanted to call long-distance, everyone knew that you called on Sunday nights after 8:00 p.m. because the rates were cheaper.  In 1970, the price of a 3-minute (unassisted!) call was 70 cents on Sundays.  Adjusted for inflation, that would be $3.82 in 2009 dollars.  When I was away at college,  I was allowed to call home once a week, on Sunday nights.  All the girls in my dorm would line up at our floor's only pay phone to call their parents.  Because most of us didn't have ten dollars or so in change to plunk into the pay phone, we called collect.  Our family had a "code."  I would call the operator and ask to make a collect call to my parents. The operator would get my parents on the phone (as I listened in) and they would refuse to accept the charges.  The operator would apologetically inform me that my parents refused to take my call and after hanging up, my parents would call me back on the pay phone.  Of course, for this system to work, my parents would have to be at home, waiting for my call. We'd talk fast because it would cost over $10.00 to make a 30 minute call.  My parents liked me well enough, but they just wanted to know I was alive and that the 1976 Ford Maverick was still running.  This was the world before the deregulation of the telephone monopolies. 


A lawsuit in 1982 ultimately resulted in splitting the Bell companies from AT & T and began the process of  breaking up the government-supported phone company monopolies. This opened the door to lower prices for consumers and paved the way for innovation we couldn't begin to imagine in 1984. 


While it's still not a completely free market (take a look at your phone bill sometime and see all the state and federal regulatory fees),  it's a vastly different world than 1982, when I started college.  My son started his freshman year at Hillsdale College this fall and he carries a cell phone everywhere he goes.  In fact, everyone in our family does.  Long distance is included in our plan so we can call anytime and talk for as long as we want.  Of course, we all know that actually talking on the phone is so 1982!  Most days, the best I can hope for is a text or a  Facebook message from my busy son, but still, if he wanted to call home and chat for two hours, we wouldn't have to take out a second mortgage on the house!  
  
In addition to cell phones, there is, of course, e-mail, and a magical thing called Skype, where  I can have a live video chat with my son using the little spy camera that came pre-installed on my Google Chrome OS Notebook computer.   I can look into his eyes and see how clean his dorm room is (or not). The other night, my friend, whose son is also a college freshman, was able to "watch" him online via his cell phone's GPS tracking feature as he traveled back to school across several states.  Don't judge her. We still worry about our boys!  If not for the deregulation in the 80's, we might still be tethered to the walls rather than enjoying the fruits of the technological boom that was unleashed in the aftermath. 


The bottom line is that competition tends to make things better.  We need competition in education, healthcare, and technology. None of these areas are properly the domain of the federal government.  As we saw with the phone companies,  when the government stopped playing favorites and got out of the way, amazing things happened.