The Sly Fox

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win - WSJ 8/1/08

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:04:00 +0000

Wal-Mart is mobilizing its managers and supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

read more | digg story

WSJ.com - Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 05 May 2008 16:20:00 +0000

Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption. Indiana's primary could be a test of the effectiveness of the Teamster endorsement

read more | digg story

WSJ.com - Opinion: Unions for Free Trade (4/14/08)

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:46:00 +0000

Why Colombia's labor leaders want an FTA.

read more | digg story

WSJ.com - Opinion: The Colombia Trade Stakes

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:32:00 +0000

The world will be watching as Congress debates support for a key ally.

read more | digg story

WSJ.com - Opinion: The Union Agenda

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:30:00 +0000

Labor is betting on an election-year trifecta. Controlling the House the Senate and the White House

read more | digg story

30 min w/ CNN Headline News [pie chart]

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:54:00 +0000

check out what you get in 30 mins of CNN Headline News

Click for Picture | digg story

Huckabee wants Ten Commandments in the White House

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 02:48:00 +0000

As the campaign unfolds, Mike Huckabee sounds less like a former governor, and more like a religious right activist with reporters following him around.

read more | digg story

Short Fight Fat Kid Knockout

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 03:29:00 +0000

Fat kid fights Asian kid and gets knocked out. Bigger they are the harder they fall.

read more | digg story

CRAIG's LIST- How can I find a rich husband?... and response

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:11:00 +0000

THIS APPEARED ON CRAIG'S LIST - must read down to the reply...

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think
I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could
you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around
200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get
me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married
to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as
I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I
get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my
feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.

it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial
interests
PostingID: 432279810

THE ANSWER
Dear Pers-431649184:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a
crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you
suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring
my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my
money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely
that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't
be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in
earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy
and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense
to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case
you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were
to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's
as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So,
I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful"
as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to
believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K
hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump."
I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of
lease, let me know.

Iranian Leader, Calling Introductory Remarks Insulting, Addresses Columbia

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:27:00 +0000

a live blog from Mr. Ahmadinejad's speech at Columbia
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/protests-at-columbia-over-iran-leaders-speech/index.html?8au&emc=au

Bank of America raises ATM fee to $3 for non-customers

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 02:16:00 +0000

Bank of America Corp has raised the fee it charges non-customers to withdraw cash from most of its automated teller machines to $3 from $2, a move that may prompt rivals to follow.
Article

There has been a lot of bitching about this and personally its absurd. Absurd that anyone who is a reasonable person could complain about this. Even union groups are complaining (no surprise).
Why should B of A not charge people who aren't its customers money to use its ATMs? One it costs money to operate them so giving away the service for free (which they do to actual customers) costs them enough. Why should they give it away for free? If you don't want to pay the fee then don't! Go to your actual bank to take out money, isn't that why you have an account there? What would be the point of choosing one bank over another if you could just use all their ATMs interchangeably. People who are saying this is unfair are the typical anti-corporate America types who think any time a company does something that benefits the company is criminal and should be investigated.
The main part of this that no one seems to notice is why are people bitching about getting cash from ATMs in the first place? Who in their right mind uses cash to pay for stuff. Plastic is a safer, more efficient, and more fiscally sound way to pay for things. This author uses cash maybe two times a month and always hates to do it.

As Bonds ties record, Bud Selig disgraces baseball

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:02:00 +0000

High above the field in a private box, baseball commissioner Bud Selig was a reluctant witness to history. Choosing to overlook the steroid allegations that have dogged the San Francisco slugger, Selig watched Bonds tie Hank Aaron's home run record - his mouth agape, hands stuffed in pockets and nary a cheer on his lips.
Read story

Bud Selig, a commissioner I once respected has shown to be a disgrace to the game of baseball. His mute response to one of the greatest achievements in professional sports is shameful considering his position as commissioner. He claims that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Well if he actually practiced what he preached that then he would be cheering for Bonds as he would assume Bonds is innocent of any wrongdoing. Instead he stands there as head representative of professional baseball and fails to acknowledge Bonds' great achievement.
If Selig actually believes Bonds did something than launch some sort of investigation or do something. His current actions reveal him to be an ineffective manager incapable of handling the situation and asserting himself. Until he takes action on the supposed steroid issue and publicly states that Bonds is guilty of wrongdoing then he should be standing and clapping like everyone else.

Congress Out Of Control: Pork Earmarks Now Prized As Measure Of Clout

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:40:00 +0000

If the idea was to shame lawmakers into restraint, it did not work. Eight months after Democrats vowed to shine light on the dark art of “earmarking” money for pet projects, many lawmakers say the new visibility has only intensified the competition for projects by letting each member see exactly how many everyone else is receiving. read more

This is a complete sham and a slap in the face to the American people, or at least those which were dumb enough to believe that a Democrat controlled Congress would be any different in terms of corruption and government waste. Anyone who expected the Democrats to change anything with regard to earmarks must have either been in a dreamworld or just dumb. The bad part about this is that the Democrats actually had the audacity to proclaim that they would fix this problem, implying it was a symptom of the Republican controlled Congress. For them to make this audacious claim and then pass this legislation is shameful. What's even better is that Nancy Pelosi and John Murtha are both two of the greatest benefactors of earmarks. As the article points out, both have a ton of pet project funds attributed to them.
Republicans are no more corrupt than Democrats. Anyone that believed otherwise was turning a blind eye to reality.

8 Prisoners are being prosecuted for masterbating alone in their cells

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:30:00 +0000

A Florida inmate convicted this week of masturbating while alone in his jail cell is reportedly only one of eight targets—along with state taxpayers—of what a Miami Herald columnist describes as "a spectacular case of selective prosecution." read more | digg story

Florida taxpayers should go and complain to their Congressional representatives or any public officials for that matter. This is a gross misuse and waste of taxpayer funds. In the first place, masturbation should not be persecuted. In this case its even worse. The prisoners were masturbating in the privacy of their own cells and a female deputy watched on a TV monitor and was offended. This was not indecent exposure. Second, why are prosecutors wasting their time and taxpayers money on prosecuting these supposed crimes. These prisoners are already in jail for other crimes and you certainly aren't making society any safer by prosecuting them on this charge. It's awful and rather stupid.

No-sex programmes 'not working'

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:58:00 +0000

Sex abstinence programmes do not stop risky sexual behaviour or help prevent unwanted pregnancy, a research team has concluded. The Oxford University team reviewed 13 US trials involving over 15,000 people aged 10 to 21.
read more | digg story

Yet another news story affirming the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only programs.

Our view on sex education: Abstinence-only fails to stop early pregnancies, diseases

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 11:00:00 +0000

After graduating from college last year, Sarah Audelo joined Teach for America and was assigned to the tiny Texas border town of La Joya. There, at Jimmy Carter High School, she noticed something odd. Despite the fact that her school enrolled only ninth- and 10th-graders, a noticeable number of girls were mothers caring for babies or pregnant. Midway through the school year, one of her 14-year-old students became pregnant. Digg story
Read more

This is an excellent article that highlights the dangers and ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education programs. I feel great sorrow for those poor teenagers that are subjected to such programs.

Texas Governor Rick Perry appoints creationist to head Board of Ed.

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:38:00 +0000

Via the DefCon blog comes news that Texas governor Rick Perry has appointed a creationist to head the Texas State Board of Education.I’ll give you a moment to clean off your screen ... read more digg story

As with the previous post yesterday, this post relates to a politician making a decision that befuddles me. With Bush, I was under the impression that he understood our health care crisis but then he suggested that kids could just go to the emergency room. With Governor Perry, I was under the impression he was a reasonably intelligent individual who, despite being in a morally conservative state, could comprehend the difference between what was science and what was religion. My basis for this was his decision, in an effort to protect women from cervical cancer, to require young girls in Texas to get vaccinated for HPV in order to attend school. This went against his morally conservative constituents since HPV is sexually transmitted. The evangelicals fail to recognize that a woman can still get HPV at any point in her life and could receive it from having sex with her husband, it doesn't only effect women who have premarital sex.
Now, after such an impressive display Perry's once shining star has fallen from the sky. Appointing a creationist to any department that is associated with public funds is nonsensical and for it to be the Board of Education is outrageous. Those who preach creationism are essentially telling the world that they are unable to entertain complex arguments in their heads, are unsophisticated, believe in fairy tales, and are just dumb. Hopefully people in Texas will revolt against this decision, otherwise, Texas will join Kansas (a state that put creationism into its schools) as the laughing stock of the nation.

President Bush suggests uninsured children go to hospital emergency rooms

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:30:00 +0000

After the Senate Finance Committee approved an expansion of the federal Children's Health Insurance Program to cover nearly 10 million kids, President Bush offered a strange rationale for threatening to veto it. "People have access to health care in America," he told an audience in Cleveland. "After all, you just go to an emergency room." read more Digg story

One begs to question what the President was thinking when he made that statement. One would assume he is aware that going to an emergency room is precisely the reason we have a health care crisis in this country. Dare I suggest that he wasn't thinking?
The article correctly points out why it is so costly when an uninsured person goes to the emergency room and is treated (as required by law).

Since emergency care is far more expensive than a scheduled visit to a doctor or
clinic, hospitals wind up with large costs that they then pass on to insured
patients using their overtaxed facilities. As a result, insurance companies
raise their rates ever higher to cover the increased payouts, making their
policies too expensive for more working families. The result is a health
care system spiraling out of control and more children left unprotected and
in poor health.

I certainly wasn't under the impression that the President's basis behind whatever plan he has for health care is to send people to the emergency room.

Circumcision could save millions from AIDS

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:00:00 +0000

Millions of new HIV infections in Africa could be avoided if more men were circumcised, an International AIDS Society conference was told on Tuesday. Studies in Africa have found that male circumcision, the world's oldest surgical procedure dating back to 2300 BC, reduces HIV transmission from females to males by 60 percent. Story

Finally this well known fact is getting some publicity. It would certainly be excellent if all males in Africa were circumcised but the reality is that it will not happen. However, in the US this possibility might one day come to fruition. Many people in the US scoff at the idea of circumcision and classify it as some type of religious ceremonial procedure. It is on the contrary a medical procedure that can have great benefit. Few realize that an uncircumcised penis is a very dirty one and is far more prone to disease. Requiring (or encouraging) newborn male babies to be circumcised would bring great public health benefits to this Country. Most hospitals, if they don't already, should be able to quickly and safely perform this procedure. Perhaps now that circumcision has been acknowledged to reduce HIV transmission more American potential parents will consider the procedure.

Sex Ed for Kindergarteners 'Right Thing to Do' Says Obama

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:15:00 +0000

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools." read more digg story

This blog is no fan of Barack Obama, however he should be commended for standing up for this issue. Especially in light of the lack of science-based and lack of sexual education posts that have previously been posted to this blog. Obviously most politicians wouldn't stand up and say this for fear that they would be chastised. At least the man has some guts, too bad he is running on a populist campaign and is a borderline socialist.

Networks say "No" to Trojan ads

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:30:00 +0000

Controversy over a new advertising campaign by Trojan, the condom maker, has trickled down to the local level, with television stations in Pittsburgh roundly refusing to show it, and stations in Seattle giving it the green light.
When Trojan introduced the condom commercial last month, it was rejected as national advertising by both CBS and Fox. Fox said it objected to the message that condoms can prevent pregnancy, while CBS said it was not “appropriate,” drawing a firestorm of criticism from public health advocates and bloggers.
But Trojan, which is owned by Church & Dwight, was in for more unhappy surprises last week. Local affiliates in Pittsburgh for ABC and NBC, two networks that had agreed to run the ad nationally, also snubbed it.
read more Digg story

This is an absolute disgrace. These networks promote sex every day on their shows but refuse to show ads aimed at promoting safe sex. The level of hypocrisy is beyond comprehension. The fact that Fox "objected to the message that condoms can prevent pregnancy" is absurd. Condoms are extremely effective at preventing pregnancy just as a seatbelt is in preventing a death in a car accident or a helmet when riding a bike. No one objects when you see seatbelt ads. Why should CBS find the ads inappropriate? They show ads for drugs aimed at treating erectile disfunction in men. Don't these promote sex more than a condom ad? A condom ad is merely encouraging safe sex, not telling you to engage in it. What about sexually transmitted infections? Condoms are extremely useful in preventing those.

Does this country really want to send the message that it promotes unsafe sex? It would create more unwanted children and sicken the whole population. The US would turn into Madagascar.

An Embarrassment of Earmarks: $7.5 Billion Unclaimed

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:00:00 +0000

As a proposal to require full disclosure of all Senate earmarks languishes, senators have not claimed responsibility for at least $7.5 billion worth of projects approved by the Appropriations Committee, according to an analysis by a budget watchdog group. read more Digg story

It should disgust every tax paying American that our elected officials refuse to acknowledge their wasteful ways. Pork-barrel spending is a massive problem within our government and it should infuriate everyone that our own elected officials won't sign off on this. The worst part of it is that since nearly every politician has their fair share of pork projects, no one will rally against those who are the worst offenders for fear of not getting their own pork projects across. Pork is arguably the most visible example of how corrupt our system can be.

Supporters seek 11th hour reprieve for US death row inmate

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 21:30:00 +0000

Last-ditch efforts were underway Monday to spare the life of a 38-year-old black man condemned to death for the murder of a white police officer, even though most of the witnesses have admitted lying under police duress. read more Digg story

This case is another example of why the death penalty should probably be abolished in this country.

Twenty years old at the time of the shooting, Davis, who was singled out by several witnesses as the triggerman, told investigators that although he had been at the crime scene, he had no role in the killing. In the years since his conviction, seven of nine witnesses have changed their stories, and now insist Davis was not the gunman. They said earlier statements implicating him had been coerced by strongarm police tactics. Despite this new evidence that could serve to exonerate him, no state and federal courts have been willing to rehear Davis's case. A petition for a US Supreme Court appeal was denied in June.

How can a court refuse to review the case when new evidence that possibly exonerates the individual has been discovered, not to mention the admitted false testimony of witnesses? If a society is going to assume the right to take someone's life in a controlled manner then it needs to be absolutely sure it is executing the correct person. It is the obligation of the state to examine all possible evidence. All Type I error must be eliminated in these cases. To execute an innocent person is far worse than a guilty person going free.
Our justice system has so far been unable to handle death penalty cases effectively. That is, there have been situations where possibly innocent victims have been executed. Even if this were to be false, the fact that there are questions regarding guilt in anyone's mind should be enough of a reason not to go forward with executions.
The act of executing people itself is a rather barbaric act. Certainly many of those executed have committed heinous crimes and seem not to deserve to live. However, taking a life is no small matter. It is hypocritical to tell people not to kill while the state does that same thing. Furthermore, strapping someone down and killing them seems rather cold-blooded. Most other civilized nations do not have the death penalty yet the United States, the model of prosperity and all things fair and just still does.
Lastly, the death penalty does not prevent crime. No one that is committing murder thinks in the back of their mind that they might receive the death penalty and thus should not kill another person.

U.S. to pour $750 million into Pakistani tribal areas

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:00:00 +0000

This would be 'aid' over the next five years as part of a "hearts and minds" campaign to win over the lawless region from Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. But even before the plan has been fully carried out, officials involved in the planning are warning of the dangers of distributing so much money in an area so hostile that oversight is impossible. read more Digg story

This appears to be a smart idea and should be given hesitant applause. An important part of the war on terror is winning over the local tribal leaders and their constituents in the highly volatile and contested areas of South and Central Asia. Many of these groups support the Taliban and Al Queda not because of what they stand for, but because they could possibly bring change and help to many of these beleaguered areas. While we know that this isn't true, many of these groups do not view their governments in Kabul and Islamabad as representative of them. They see their respective local tribal leaders as their government. Add in the fact that they are poor and joining an opposition group doesn't seem so bad. This aid package, if put properly to use should help sway many of these groups to help their national goverments and NATO in the fight against terrorists.
The reason for hesitant applause is that the money could always end up in the wrong hands or simply not be put to good use. If the plan fails, its end result would be the armorment of many potential new opposing groups which will fight against the governments that help finance them. The most well known example of thiswas the support of the Mujahideen of Afghanistan during their fight against the Soviet Union in the 80s. This got Osama bin Laden his start.
While the consequences of this action could be potentially disaterous, the benefit is certainly there and it may be worth the risk.

Christian extremists disrupt first ever Hindu prayer in the US Senate

noreply@blogger.com (The Sly Fox) — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 23:00:00 +0000

For the first time in history, a Hindu today delivered the Senate’s morning invocation. But three protesters belonging to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America loudly interrupted the invocation, stating, “Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight.” Digg story

What is it that scares extremist Christians so much about other religions in this country? We ask the same question about Islamic extremists and attempt to hold our nation as an example above the rest. However, we have many similar ideological fears that plague other nations. Luckily, religious violence resulting from intolerance is generally not that issue in the US that it is elsewhere is the world.