Who am I?Where am I?

19 December 2010

Travel Agency

Just announcing the formation of my own travel agency!

Read More...

24 September 2010

Oppose South Africa's Proposed Media Tribunal


South Africa's democracy is at risk -- an unconstitutional new secrecy Bill is in Parliament and a Media Tribunal could be endorsed by the ANC Council this week, muzzling the media and threatening our freedoms. Only a massive citizens' outcry could push the ANC to reverse the proposals -- sign the urgent petition now:

Read More...

28 August 2010

New 7 Wonders of the World


There is currently a global campaign to nominate the New 7 Natural Wonders of the World. Have your say now!

Read More...

04 July 2010

Old Friend

I loved these motivational words and I hope you do as well.

Read More...

27 June 2010

English Football

Yesterday it was the turn of the Americans to have a disappointing day on the pitch. Taking their cue, today it was the turn of England.

There were so many things lacking about the English performance today that I hardly know where to begin. Let's list them:


1. The defending was atrocious. Each of the four German goals either involved an egregious breakdown in defense or an English defender beaten by pace. This cannot happen at this level by a team as skilled as Germany.

2. The English team, like the Americans before them, rely much to heavily on a vaunted midfield for scoring. The English strikers are wastrels. Wayne Rooney failed to find the back of the net during the entire tournament, as did Emile Heskey (whose introduction today seemed to amount to a capitulation.) So England's three goals came from a defender, a mid-fielder, and a striker (and Dafoe's goal against Slovenia was just bad goal-keeping, which England know a little about...right Mr. Green?)

3. Fabio Capello is abysmal as a manager (and not because of his choice of Speedos...but serioulsy man..what were you thinking in these pictures?) The penumbra he now finds himself in is his own making. While Wayne Rooney and Heskey were clearly weak links, Peter Crouch spent most of this tournament on the bench. What was the reasoning for this? Would it not have not have been better to be viewed as a mugwump who waffled back and forth between players in search of the right combination than one who stubbornly stuck with a losing formula? Mr. Capello failed to do anything creative to give his team a chance to overcome the lack of cohesion.

4. We have now confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that Steven Gerrard and Frank Lampard cannot play together. Why is it that everyone underestimates the rivalries in English football and overestimates the ability of the players who take part in these weekly battles to overcome this and gel as a unit? In some cases it may be feasible, but in the case of Gerrard and Lampard they cannot.

5. Quick question: Was David James selected because, as the GK for Portsmouth, he is used to making do with an incompetent backline? While he did not play poorly, England need to develop some quality goalkeepers in the near future.

The bottom line is that English fans need to adjust their expectations. The non-goal did not cost England this game. They played lousy football. This team is and was always overrated in both talent and heart. Four years is a long time to wait for a chance to ameliorate the stench of this performance.

The Mick and Limey Show Returns to discuss taxes and future World Cups

So my good buddy, Limey, and I have had a discussion over the past few days about FIFA taxes and the World Cup. What spawned this discussion was an article on BBC about the taxes FIFA pays (or does not pay.) With his permission, I am posting our edited comments.

Dear Mick, While I've loved the world cup since I was a little kid but after reading the attached article I am reminded that ignorance is not always bliss. It's about some of the hidden costs of hosting a world cup. Let me know if you think you find it an interesting read or not.

Dear Limey, That is really interesting. I did not know any of that. It is kind of sickening in a way, especially in South Africa. Collecting tax revenue would be a great way to stage World Cups in smaller poorer countries. Thus, it irritates me though I am not sure how much money in South Africa is lost by this since a lot of the sales are going to be in the informal sector anyway and hotels and restaurants are already taxed via VAT.

However, here is where it really irritates and annoys me. Sepp Blatter is a lying if the US doesn't get the World Cup 2018. Now before you dismiss this, follow my logic. According to FIFA policy, there is supposed to be a continental rotation of the World Cup. In 2018, it is the turn of CONCACAF. The US, like Brazil in 2014, is the only federation bidding. That did not stop Brazil from procuring it becuase it was going to CONMEBOL anyway. However, now they are supposedly opening up 2018 to European bids (four of them.) I am not saying that the USA has to have the World Cup again, though it still stands as the World Cup with the highest attendance despite having 8 fewer teams than the current allotment of 32 (and thus fewer matches.) What I am saying is that is should go to CONCACAF...period. I would love to see Mexico, Canada, or a confederation of say 8-10 Carribbean Islands bid. It would be a bonanza. Can you imagine? Matches in Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, St. Kitts, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, etc? Have those teams qualify regularly through the process so obviously not all would make it, but then allow the non-qualifiers to play a tournament for the one host country automatic bid. These islands have the tourism infratstructure to hold the people and by upgrading the stadia, it could work. Why not have a truly Central American World Cup by having a joint Costa Rica/Panama bid. Simple. Because of this stupid greed, the small countries cannot afford it. FIFA is backwards. If the game is going to truly help the world, this tax policy has to go. South Africa made it over the line to host this because they could afford to...barely. Other countries that might be very suitable (Costa Rica and Panama would be amazing as would the islands)...will not be able to do so and that stinks. What do you think?

Dear Mick, I am pretty much in agreement with you although and there is always a but... given the cost of new stadiums there is little chance of the Caribbean or Central American nations hosting the world cup with it being a joint bid. That leaves it to being a North American affair with only Mexico and the US standing a real chance to host the event as attested by the US bid to host the 2018 World Cup. In my heart I would love to see some sort of joint bid within CONCACAF but as that is not likely to happen and I believe hosting the world cup means more to the people here in Europe, especially in the UK, than it would for the average Joe in the US I'm pretty much backing the UK bid. If you ask the average Brit would they trade the Olympics for the world cup the answer would be "Hell YES!"

What really gets my goat is this rumor that FIFA is discouraging joint bids. Without joint bits moving forward how will smaller countries ever be able host a World cup due to the prohibitive cost? The last time a small to midsized nation hosted the WC was back in 1978 Argentina and that was with 16 teams; since the larger format no country with less than approx. 40 million has hosted it. Shoot the last joint bid, which was bad mouthed by the way, had a combined population of 175 million people and were both developed nations (South Korea and Japan 2002). It is bad enough the fact that the last time a small nation won the world cup was back in 1950 Uruguay and the only country with a population of or about 20 million to win was Argentina. Let's face it, the odds are heavily against small nations on the pitch ever winning and now FIFA wants to make it virtually impossible for them to host it. The FIFA World Cup is starting to look more and more like the UN security counsel than the General Counsel in terms of winning and hosting. If not for the qualifying rounds they should not even use the title "World Cup" maybe they should just call it the FIFA CUP.

Read More...

20 June 2010

British Petroleum and British Attitudes

Ever since the explosion of Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill, I have been glued to news reports about the progress being made to contain the spill, plug the leak, drill a relief well, and clean up the mess. Coincidentally, I was recently reading Collapse by Jared Diamond (which is an excellent book.)

In this book, Diamond is discussing Chevron and some of the reasons the company has taken such a pro-environment stance in New Guinea and why mining companies do not behave in a similar manner. "No one in the oil industry today would deny that spilled oil is harmful, but mine executives do deny the harm of spilled metals and acid." Mr. Diamond, I would like you to meet a scapegrace named Mr. Tony Hayward, CEO of BP.

Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20 (yes over two months ago), Mr. Hayward has repeatedly made comments that are repugnant to the senses. For example, Mr. Hayward was quoted as saying, "I want my life back." Well Mr. Hayward, so too do the residents of the Gulf. Unfortunately, your company created a mess that you and your colleagues seemingly cannot deal with.

While I have watched this environmental catastrophe unfold second by second, I am struck by the lunacy of the British public. I have seen numerous interviews on BBC where someone interviewed has stated something like this: "President Obama is treating BP too harshly."

This attitude is ridiculous! Let us think about this for a moment. A company is responsible for a disaster, cannot find a way to fix the problem, and the people affected ask for compensation. Hmmm. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

I recently expressed my frustration with BP to a British colleague. His response, "Remember that it was your government that asked and allowed BP to drill there." Fair enough. SAFELY. My astonished response included me asking him whether or not he would like it if Exxon had dumped this much oil in the North Sea, English Channel, or Irish Sea? I also pointed out that had this been a US company, nothing different would be happening. There would still be a public outcry. You would not see Americans discussing how poorly Mr. Obama was treating Exxon. Another difference is that BP stock forms a significant portion of many 401k retirement and pension funds. Therefore, the lack of dividend payouts is adversely affecting these funds. Guess what? If you own a stock, you own a piece of a company. If you own a company, you are responsible for what it does. Here is a newsflash: You own a company with an abysmal environmental record and this was bound to happen. Please stop complaining about the amount of money this is costing BP. It is not as if BP is a company with exiguous resources

In the time it has taken me to write this, approximately 43500 gallons (164,665.4126 liters for you metric types) of oil have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. (Just for the sake of reference, that's enough fuel to drive a Hummer H2, one of the least efficient cars on the planet--using its worst case city MPG--around the circumference of the globe--at the equator--over 15 times.) Until BP can stop the spill, clean up the mess, and compensate those affected by this spill, BBC and the media, as well as the British public need to cease with this ridiculous spin and focus on fixing this mess.

Read More...

17 June 2010

Vuvuzela

I am huge football/soccer fan. I love going to matches and watching on television. I am disgusted with the coverage of the World Cup because of the vuvuzela. Why I am disgusted may surprise you.

Read More...

04 April 2010

Kids Humor

I received an e-mail this morning that had me cracking up. Kids do say the darnedest things

Read More...

Islam and Europe

As I read through the newspaper late last week, I started thinking about two seemingly unrelated articles detailing events in Europe and Islam and how they are somehow related.

Read More...

02 April 2010

Iran and Sanctions

When Barack Obama arrived in Washington last year, there was limitless optimism. I remember watching a Jib-Jab.com original that accurately illustrated the hopes the rest of the world had for his administration. Afterall, Obama was replacing one of the most devisive Presidents in American history and promised change on myriad issues.

While Barack has already delivered on many of the promises he made during the campaign, the United States policy towards Iran needs some adjustment. The recent announcement that the United States and France would pursue another round (this will be the 4th) of UN sanctions against Iran is a mistake for a myriad reasons. Though Russia recently announced it would tacitly support this round of sanctions, China will not. China has veto power on the UN Security Council so any action will require their abstention or approval. Thus, any sanctions passed by the United Nations, no matter how bedizened with tough rhetoric, will be denuded and toothless.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will gleefully point out that the United States and France are hypocritical for allowing India, Pakistan, South Africa, and Israel to flout the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and acquire nuclear weapons (though South Africa has dismantled their weapons) while placing an immense amount of pressure on Iran, which is part of the NPT. This hugger-mugger approach to the NPT reeks of ambiguity, which will undoubtedly be exploited by the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad will also point out how Iran has in fact stuck to the letter of the law (if not its spirit) and the International Atomic Energy Agency has not yet found any evidence of a nuclear program. No matter how one feels about Iran and its current government, a new round of sanctions is a losing proposition.

Barack Obama initially hoped to engage the Iranian government. When this was rebuffed, the American administration sought to focus its energy on other issues, especially domestic ones. With the recent passage of the health-care bill, the Obama administration seems to be re-engaging in foreign affairs and on the issue of Iran's nuclear program. Sanctions are not the answer for this re-engagement. This sanctions policy will fail and give the Iranian government invaluable propaganda points. Instead, the Obama administration needs to engage the Iranian government and work with it if the United States is to have any influence on Iran's policies.



Read More...

16 March 2010

Bumper Sticker

I thought this was one of the funniest bumper stickers I have seen recently!






Read More...

10 February 2010

National Criminal Justice Commission Act (S.714)

This Senate Bill is designed to overhaul the current American penal system. Since its introduction in March 2009, the bill has garnered the bi-partisan support of 35 Senators and a broad array of organizations from across the political spectrum, including Human Rights Watch, American Jail Association, Prison Fellowship, American Society of Criminology, the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association, and many other stakeholders.

If S.714 is passed into law, the National Criminal Justice Commission will be created. This commission will be comprised of experts from a diverse range of relevant fields, including criminal justice, law enforcement, public heath, national security, prison administration, social services, prisoner reentry, and victims' rights. Commissioners will be tasked with proposing tangible, wide-ranging recommendations for changes in oversight, policies, practices, and laws designed to prevent, deter, and reduce crime and violence, improve cost-effectiveness, and ensure the interests of justice.



So why is this law neccessary? Here are eight reasons why:





  1. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration on the planet. We currently have roughly 5% of the world's population, yet our country contains 25% of the world's reported inmates. More than 2.3 million Americans are now serving time in prison. Another 5 million are on probation or parole.


  2. During the past 20 years, our prison population has skyrocketed. More and more people have been incarcerated for non-violent acts driven by mental health related issues and/or drug dependence.


  3. Despite the economic crisis, the cost of our current penal system continues to grow exponentially. Many of those incarcerated are repeat offenders. Thus, true rehabilitation could ease this financial burden on the taxpayer.


  4. We currently lock up people who do not necessarily belong in prison, using valuable corrections resources that could be used against serious perpetuators of violent crime.


  5. Transnational criminal activity has increased in the United States and resources need to be devoted to fighting this problem.


  6. The incarceration of illegal drug users has done nothing to curb drug usage. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that has been largely unscathed. Despite the billions spent to combat the illegal drug industry, these drugs still reach our streets.

  7. Incarceration of for drug crimes has had a disproportionate impact on minority communities, despite virtually identical levels of drug use across racial and ethnic lines.


  8. It is extremely difficult for released inmates to become fully functioning members of society since post-incarceration re-entry programs either do not exist or are haphazard. This leads to repeat offenders and an undermining of public safety. Furthermore, the euphemism for prisons across the country is Department of Corrections. If we are to imply that prison corrects problems, then we need to ensure that rehabilitation has occurred when prisoners have completed their sentence.


What can you do to help? This bill is currently before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If a Senator from your state serves on this committee, write to him/her and ask for support for this important initiative.





Read More...