Granted, I do write for myself, which is why I get very few comments - if any - that would be a rare form of schitzophrenia, wouldn't it? But I bloviate way too much and most of the time probably cause people's eyes to bleed....
So, copied from Patum Peperium, here is a great quote: "The story as I was told it is that in the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed. When it was over she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials. Mrs. Thatcher said, "I will have beef."Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?""They will have beef too."
While we have that "fawning vegetable" from the press today over "dear leader", I daresay that he doesn't have the wit to actually comment on it! What I wouldn't give for an "Aw Shucks" type approach of Sarah Palin in the office.....
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
The problem with Republican Politics
Quick - off the top of your head, name five Republican Leaders......a million different combinations and permutations, but the connotation of "Leader" should be significant. For me, I came up with Reagan, Teddy Rooseveldt, Lincoln, Gingrich and Nixon.....others might include Eisenhower, or there may be a Hoover...but does anyone throw either President Bush in as a Leader? Granted, emotions are high these days and I am sure that 20 years from now, the view of "W" may be different, but there is one stark difference between both Presidents' Bush and the other leaders....and that may be substance.
Before I get skewered, let me explain - I follow all sorts of things across the political spectrum. About half the time John Stewart pisses me off and I have to change channels, but that anger is worth it because when he turns his focus on his own party the results are magical. I have never bought the collected works of Doonesbury, but I can still laugh at his jokes - most of the time. It has taken me a while, but I am starting to come around on his characterization of Bush 41 however....
The empty form characterized by the father in the earlier and the Roman Helmet in the latter speak volumes towards this characterization - empty suits looking for a cause, a meaning, or a voice. I am loathe to slam on either man personally - I voted for both, and hold shaking Bush 41's hand at my graduation from Annapolis as a personal highlight. But the problem may not be too little marketing, but too much.
When challenged, both men relied on collected beliefs and core instincts. We saw the "real" Bush 43 on the pile of rubble, shirt sleeves rolled up, megaphone in hand after 9/11. Honestly, can anyone really see Algore doing anything so convincing, or presidential? How about John Kerry? In either case, the only danger our enemies may have been in would be in trying to escape the extreme lethargy brought on by spending any more than three minutes of listening to them speak. Even with Bush 41 - many thought the "1000 points of light" were a gimmick in an attempt to leave a legacy or find a voice. But that was the real Bush 41 - he was "kindler, gentler" in the best of Dana Carvey homages. He honestly was trying to appeal to the humanistic side of the country. We see this as well in 43's "compassionate conservative" speeches. The problem is the same that every politician who tries to govern from the center finds - One cannot be violently or passionately "moderate". Granted, there are a few idiots out there that prefer to blow $1.99 a minute to call into a pay-per-vote poll only to answer "not sure"....but for those of us in the real world, we think, we believe, we act. And we should have no time, nor quarter for those that do not want to engage the enemy.
We say that the GOP is the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan. By saying so, the GOP makes a vain attempt at invoking the names of past leaders in a plea for votes. Yes, Reagan and Lincoln are our history - but HOW did they become our history? Lincoln abandoned the Whig party for lacking the spine to denounce slavery. As a fresh face to the new political movement, he took the beliefs in constitutional limitations and the fight against the autocracy consistent with the Whig views of Jefferson and from his own time Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and molded the beliefs that ALL men are created equal - adding the anti slavery plank to the platform, molding from it the core beliefs of the then-newly formed Republican Party.
In his own time, our national consciousness doesn't awaken to Ronald Reagan's legacy until 1980, but there is so much evidence of his passion and his war as a footsoldier in the political trenches well into the early 60's. Yes, the man was a master at communication and acting - but instead of having some spin meister take that as an asset and try to feed him lines that would play in a focus group, Reagan took his core anti-communist beliefs and his God-given abilities to battle. He wasn't a great leader BECAUSE he was a great communicator - quite the contrary. He was a great leader because he LED - communication and acting were tools that he used to bring his beliefs and visions to fruition.
Which brings me full circle to where we are today. Much is made in the past week of John Stewart and Bill Maher using their comedian's "bully pulpit" if you will to slam the opponents of Chairman O. Andrew Breitbart appeared on the latter's show and documented the slings and arrows received in the Washington Times -http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/my-real-time-with-bill-maher/. The line in his article that resonated with me the most was "People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"
He goes on to argue that fighting the good fight and appearing in the face of the absurd is a win regardless of what people say. I tend to agree to that - as a first step - engage the enemy and determine the political landscape. But FAR more importantly is the core of the problem of the GOP. There are many footsoldiers in this battle, looking for a flag to rally around. Thanks to the state of today's focus-group centric view of politics and the echo chamber gauntlet that every candidate must run through flawlessly, spotlessly, without any hidden errors or mistakes from years past is ludicrous. (Keep in mind Ronaldus Maximus was a divorced actor, former Democrat with a B-list repetoire of chimp movies....but he had a vision and beliefs)
Which, roundabout brings me to my title - our failure as a party to attract more voters and win elections has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the legacy of both President Bushes', with failure in Iraq (even though we are succeeding!!!), nor with the state of the american electorate. It has everything to do with a dearth of leadership. Romney has core beliefs and executive experience, but was willing to sacrifice those beliefs to make "progress" as governor of Massachusetts. Huckabee has core beliefs and a weekend show on Fox News to show how "folksy and down to earth" he is - but some of his views and beliefs take the party off of the rhetorical "moral majority" cliff. In either case, I think that they miss the point - our roots lie in limited government and maximized opportunity. Limited government can't be compromised in any way - from a historical perspective the Defense of Marriage Act is just as indefensible as the Anti-Flag burning amendment movement of the late 80's, as is the current movement to restrict gun ownership. Limited government means LIMITED government - we have no right imposing religious views on those persons who act in ways that we don't agree with. We also have no right to assume every gun owner is a bad day away from shooting up his or her neighborhood. Where we must draw the line is simple - in the battle flag that flies from every Naval Ship currently - Don't Tread on Me. When the actions of an individual or group are imposed upon those of someone else is the proper role of government.
Granted in viewing today's society, Lincoln would be shocked and immediately have a stroke, and many of our forefathers would be in tears. But isn't that the role of society to handle? If government is limited and loosens the shackles of regulation, isn't it the role of churches, youth groups, communities and corporations to renew their "personnel resources" and to provide personal service? THIS is Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism" - he just tried to accelerate things by having Government try its hand.....
Leaders lead - we don't need conservative activists. We don't need focus group communicators that are eloquent teleprompter readers. Who cares about looks - I need someone with passion, a fire in their belly that is ready to return us to the party of Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. Belief in the amazing abilities of man and the promise of a place in that shining city on a hill. I want someone with a damn backbone to stand up and in the words of the Irish Brigade - the Fighting 69th at Antietam.... "Raise the Colors, boys! Follow Me! Charge Bayonets! Forward March!"
http://www.sixtyninth.net/gpage3.html
Before I get skewered, let me explain - I follow all sorts of things across the political spectrum. About half the time John Stewart pisses me off and I have to change channels, but that anger is worth it because when he turns his focus on his own party the results are magical. I have never bought the collected works of Doonesbury, but I can still laugh at his jokes - most of the time. It has taken me a while, but I am starting to come around on his characterization of Bush 41 however....
The empty form characterized by the father in the earlier and the Roman Helmet in the latter speak volumes towards this characterization - empty suits looking for a cause, a meaning, or a voice. I am loathe to slam on either man personally - I voted for both, and hold shaking Bush 41's hand at my graduation from Annapolis as a personal highlight. But the problem may not be too little marketing, but too much.
When challenged, both men relied on collected beliefs and core instincts. We saw the "real" Bush 43 on the pile of rubble, shirt sleeves rolled up, megaphone in hand after 9/11. Honestly, can anyone really see Algore doing anything so convincing, or presidential? How about John Kerry? In either case, the only danger our enemies may have been in would be in trying to escape the extreme lethargy brought on by spending any more than three minutes of listening to them speak. Even with Bush 41 - many thought the "1000 points of light" were a gimmick in an attempt to leave a legacy or find a voice. But that was the real Bush 41 - he was "kindler, gentler" in the best of Dana Carvey homages. He honestly was trying to appeal to the humanistic side of the country. We see this as well in 43's "compassionate conservative" speeches. The problem is the same that every politician who tries to govern from the center finds - One cannot be violently or passionately "moderate". Granted, there are a few idiots out there that prefer to blow $1.99 a minute to call into a pay-per-vote poll only to answer "not sure"....but for those of us in the real world, we think, we believe, we act. And we should have no time, nor quarter for those that do not want to engage the enemy.
We say that the GOP is the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan. By saying so, the GOP makes a vain attempt at invoking the names of past leaders in a plea for votes. Yes, Reagan and Lincoln are our history - but HOW did they become our history? Lincoln abandoned the Whig party for lacking the spine to denounce slavery. As a fresh face to the new political movement, he took the beliefs in constitutional limitations and the fight against the autocracy consistent with the Whig views of Jefferson and from his own time Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and molded the beliefs that ALL men are created equal - adding the anti slavery plank to the platform, molding from it the core beliefs of the then-newly formed Republican Party.
In his own time, our national consciousness doesn't awaken to Ronald Reagan's legacy until 1980, but there is so much evidence of his passion and his war as a footsoldier in the political trenches well into the early 60's. Yes, the man was a master at communication and acting - but instead of having some spin meister take that as an asset and try to feed him lines that would play in a focus group, Reagan took his core anti-communist beliefs and his God-given abilities to battle. He wasn't a great leader BECAUSE he was a great communicator - quite the contrary. He was a great leader because he LED - communication and acting were tools that he used to bring his beliefs and visions to fruition.
Which brings me full circle to where we are today. Much is made in the past week of John Stewart and Bill Maher using their comedian's "bully pulpit" if you will to slam the opponents of Chairman O. Andrew Breitbart appeared on the latter's show and documented the slings and arrows received in the Washington Times -http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/my-real-time-with-bill-maher/. The line in his article that resonated with me the most was "People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"
He goes on to argue that fighting the good fight and appearing in the face of the absurd is a win regardless of what people say. I tend to agree to that - as a first step - engage the enemy and determine the political landscape. But FAR more importantly is the core of the problem of the GOP. There are many footsoldiers in this battle, looking for a flag to rally around. Thanks to the state of today's focus-group centric view of politics and the echo chamber gauntlet that every candidate must run through flawlessly, spotlessly, without any hidden errors or mistakes from years past is ludicrous. (Keep in mind Ronaldus Maximus was a divorced actor, former Democrat with a B-list repetoire of chimp movies....but he had a vision and beliefs)
Which, roundabout brings me to my title - our failure as a party to attract more voters and win elections has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the legacy of both President Bushes', with failure in Iraq (even though we are succeeding!!!), nor with the state of the american electorate. It has everything to do with a dearth of leadership. Romney has core beliefs and executive experience, but was willing to sacrifice those beliefs to make "progress" as governor of Massachusetts. Huckabee has core beliefs and a weekend show on Fox News to show how "folksy and down to earth" he is - but some of his views and beliefs take the party off of the rhetorical "moral majority" cliff. In either case, I think that they miss the point - our roots lie in limited government and maximized opportunity. Limited government can't be compromised in any way - from a historical perspective the Defense of Marriage Act is just as indefensible as the Anti-Flag burning amendment movement of the late 80's, as is the current movement to restrict gun ownership. Limited government means LIMITED government - we have no right imposing religious views on those persons who act in ways that we don't agree with. We also have no right to assume every gun owner is a bad day away from shooting up his or her neighborhood. Where we must draw the line is simple - in the battle flag that flies from every Naval Ship currently - Don't Tread on Me. When the actions of an individual or group are imposed upon those of someone else is the proper role of government.
Granted in viewing today's society, Lincoln would be shocked and immediately have a stroke, and many of our forefathers would be in tears. But isn't that the role of society to handle? If government is limited and loosens the shackles of regulation, isn't it the role of churches, youth groups, communities and corporations to renew their "personnel resources" and to provide personal service? THIS is Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism" - he just tried to accelerate things by having Government try its hand.....
Leaders lead - we don't need conservative activists. We don't need focus group communicators that are eloquent teleprompter readers. Who cares about looks - I need someone with passion, a fire in their belly that is ready to return us to the party of Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. Belief in the amazing abilities of man and the promise of a place in that shining city on a hill. I want someone with a damn backbone to stand up and in the words of the Irish Brigade - the Fighting 69th at Antietam.... "Raise the Colors, boys! Follow Me! Charge Bayonets! Forward March!"
http://www.sixtyninth.net/gpage3.html
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Shameless plug for Rick Reilly of ESPN
The guy not only is a damn good writer, but "gets it" - what is really important and in the world of multimillion dollar contracts and business deals that sports really is just a game and the people that play them are really lucky. Some of the lucky few not only are true hall of famers in ability, but in character as well...
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3930609
Not to say that Elway is a transformative character - we all have our flaws. But if anything else, he embodies in some aspects of his life the sort of person we would like to be. That is why years ago, the coke commercial with Mean Joe Green sparks not only memories but touches our psyche - the warrior ethos of a football player taking time to give back to someone totally unexpectedly. Some say the extension of that into the celebrity culture has sent us down a path of destruction we are on today... The difference between most hollywood actors and most sports athletes, is that for at least today on the sports field there isn't a movement to elevate everyone's "self worth"....professional sports teams still lose.
Elway lost four straight superbowls before finally succeeding. The fact that he hasn't acted like Barry Bonds, been the egomaniac that A-Roid has been, or that he has understood that while he is undeniably human that there are some 13 year old boys who worship him as a god incarnate. I would throw Charles "The Mouth" Barkley in there as well. Granted, back in the day he claimed he wasn't a role model. But in failing publicly and getting arrested for DWI he could have chosen to fight, lawyer up, or deny. Instead, like many adults that take care of their personal affairs every day, he admitted to his faults, apologized to his fans and took his punishment. Whether or not he learns from this is immaterial - the cynic will always point to a relapse not as a symptom of deeper problems, but as indication that previous apologies were lip service....maybe so. But in these two microcosms of life - the good and the bad - we see not only our heroes falling, but our heroes living up to the ideals of their fans. Proof that there is good in the world. Refreshing....
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3930609
Not to say that Elway is a transformative character - we all have our flaws. But if anything else, he embodies in some aspects of his life the sort of person we would like to be. That is why years ago, the coke commercial with Mean Joe Green sparks not only memories but touches our psyche - the warrior ethos of a football player taking time to give back to someone totally unexpectedly. Some say the extension of that into the celebrity culture has sent us down a path of destruction we are on today... The difference between most hollywood actors and most sports athletes, is that for at least today on the sports field there isn't a movement to elevate everyone's "self worth"....professional sports teams still lose.
Elway lost four straight superbowls before finally succeeding. The fact that he hasn't acted like Barry Bonds, been the egomaniac that A-Roid has been, or that he has understood that while he is undeniably human that there are some 13 year old boys who worship him as a god incarnate. I would throw Charles "The Mouth" Barkley in there as well. Granted, back in the day he claimed he wasn't a role model. But in failing publicly and getting arrested for DWI he could have chosen to fight, lawyer up, or deny. Instead, like many adults that take care of their personal affairs every day, he admitted to his faults, apologized to his fans and took his punishment. Whether or not he learns from this is immaterial - the cynic will always point to a relapse not as a symptom of deeper problems, but as indication that previous apologies were lip service....maybe so. But in these two microcosms of life - the good and the bad - we see not only our heroes falling, but our heroes living up to the ideals of their fans. Proof that there is good in the world. Refreshing....
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Failure can be a good thing...
It never ceases to amaze me how low the bar is set on level of knowledge for some journalists. Most mornings we turn on Fox News and listen to the banter as we get ready for work. Even on a conservative leaning program where one would expect some level of edumacation, it floors me some of the statements that are made. In a debate with Glenn Beck this morning, Steve Doocy vehemently asserted (paraphrasing here of course) that 'we can't let the financial / bank system fail...it is the fundamental basis for our economy'........Why do the call it BANKruptcy????
A quick aside - roughly 10 years ago, we were damn near to bankruptcy ourselves...Living in LA on 3400 a month, with a $1400 a month rent, many many bills, a five year old and a newborn, recently having combined two salaries and two debt loads to one salary and two debt loads (whatever anyone ever tells you about Mary Kay is a load of crap - Hobby? Yes! Tax write off? Absolutely. Means to get out of the house and away from the kids from time to time? Sure. Unless your wife is constantly surrounded by a horde of makeup addicted, addle-brained pink-loving women with disposable income and a preternatural desire to participate in multi-level marketing programs, don't EVER consider it an income!!!!) Shannon was pretty responsible with her bills, I was the epitome of the "drunken sailor" in my approach to credit. So what did we do? We PAID....and paid and paid.... Got "credit counseling" which is a nice way of saying "don't call us anymore - call these guys..." They helped us reduce some interest, get other bills prioritized. The credit companies loved us... What also happened is that our approach to credit became ingrained in our psyche... We learned to spend first and save later. As a result of that debacle, we are now nearing retirement (thank God for the pension) with no "nest egg" save for some accumulation in our TSP account, still many bills, and little disposable income. The late payments and "black marks" on our credit history are gone now that more than seven years is under the bridge, but we are still haunted by the "debt to income" monster....
So why didn't we declare bankruptcy? Mainly because that little caveat that it is REALLY difficult to maintain a TOP SECRET security clearance with a bankruptcy on your record...kind've bad career wise. But what if that hadn't been a concern? What would have happened in a Bankruptcy? We would have stopped any and all bill collection, our debts would have been negotiated down...(i.e. you have been paying $250 a month for the past three years on this $10,000 debt and it now stands at $7500.....you have paid enough) The monster of cyclical compound interest would have been slaughtered. The "valid" debts - signature loans, car loans, etc would have been renegotiated, and we would have been able to set a new budget based upon savings, our finances and finally debtors.....guess what? If we would have declared ten years ago, that too would have been off of our credit history (or nearly so - can't remember if they stay on ten or fifteen years) and we would have ten extra years of retirement / college tuition investments growing.
So why in the @#$@#$%$#@% is it so difficult for punditry to understand the concept of bankruptcy? NO - the bank doesn't "go under" or cease to exist....No, mom and pop don't lose their life savings - that is why the FDIC exists... Those organizations or activities that lose money because their deposits were not covered by FDIC should have diversified and shouldn't have taken that much risk. (tough love works!)
GM could have given the finger to the unions, had bankruptcy court sell off their bad assets and they could have re-emerged leaner and more competitive....the reason GM "couldn't fail" had nothing to do with their size - it had everything to do with the UAW's backing of the Democratic Party.
Bank of America and Citibank are not "too big" to fail.... Same thing - bankruptcy court would allow them to shed bad debt and move on. And what is this bad debt? The same financial instruments that poisoned the well - high risk mortgage instruments who's "owners" don't have the means to repay. Well bankruptcy court can handle that too - set up a bad debt receivership, go after the "poor people that got taken by the evil predatory lenders".... "Predatory lenders"??? give me a break - I wish someone would have broken into my home, put a gun to my temple and forced me to sign paperwork that will give me hundreds of thousands of dollars that I couldn't payback in a bear market.... Let the buyer beware.... it is exactly that sort of me first, nanny state, kindergarten cry-baby attitude that created this situation in the first place. Maybe by putting a little heat on these people instead of having ACORN come around and help them squat in property that they don't own anymore, that would teach them next time to look a little more closely at the terms of their contract.
Let the banks fail - eliminate the cancer, then start healing. "Nationalization" is just a form of chemotherapy, and I would like to see this nation get better before it loses all its hair, and is stuck in bed with an IV surrounded by doctors who upon realizing that your bank account is empty "can't do anything for you anymore but to make you comfortable...."
A quick aside - roughly 10 years ago, we were damn near to bankruptcy ourselves...Living in LA on 3400 a month, with a $1400 a month rent, many many bills, a five year old and a newborn, recently having combined two salaries and two debt loads to one salary and two debt loads (whatever anyone ever tells you about Mary Kay is a load of crap - Hobby? Yes! Tax write off? Absolutely. Means to get out of the house and away from the kids from time to time? Sure. Unless your wife is constantly surrounded by a horde of makeup addicted, addle-brained pink-loving women with disposable income and a preternatural desire to participate in multi-level marketing programs, don't EVER consider it an income!!!!) Shannon was pretty responsible with her bills, I was the epitome of the "drunken sailor" in my approach to credit. So what did we do? We PAID....and paid and paid.... Got "credit counseling" which is a nice way of saying "don't call us anymore - call these guys..." They helped us reduce some interest, get other bills prioritized. The credit companies loved us... What also happened is that our approach to credit became ingrained in our psyche... We learned to spend first and save later. As a result of that debacle, we are now nearing retirement (thank God for the pension) with no "nest egg" save for some accumulation in our TSP account, still many bills, and little disposable income. The late payments and "black marks" on our credit history are gone now that more than seven years is under the bridge, but we are still haunted by the "debt to income" monster....
So why didn't we declare bankruptcy? Mainly because that little caveat that it is REALLY difficult to maintain a TOP SECRET security clearance with a bankruptcy on your record...kind've bad career wise. But what if that hadn't been a concern? What would have happened in a Bankruptcy? We would have stopped any and all bill collection, our debts would have been negotiated down...(i.e. you have been paying $250 a month for the past three years on this $10,000 debt and it now stands at $7500.....you have paid enough) The monster of cyclical compound interest would have been slaughtered. The "valid" debts - signature loans, car loans, etc would have been renegotiated, and we would have been able to set a new budget based upon savings, our finances and finally debtors.....guess what? If we would have declared ten years ago, that too would have been off of our credit history (or nearly so - can't remember if they stay on ten or fifteen years) and we would have ten extra years of retirement / college tuition investments growing.
So why in the @#$@#$%$#@% is it so difficult for punditry to understand the concept of bankruptcy? NO - the bank doesn't "go under" or cease to exist....No, mom and pop don't lose their life savings - that is why the FDIC exists... Those organizations or activities that lose money because their deposits were not covered by FDIC should have diversified and shouldn't have taken that much risk. (tough love works!)
GM could have given the finger to the unions, had bankruptcy court sell off their bad assets and they could have re-emerged leaner and more competitive....the reason GM "couldn't fail" had nothing to do with their size - it had everything to do with the UAW's backing of the Democratic Party.
Bank of America and Citibank are not "too big" to fail.... Same thing - bankruptcy court would allow them to shed bad debt and move on. And what is this bad debt? The same financial instruments that poisoned the well - high risk mortgage instruments who's "owners" don't have the means to repay. Well bankruptcy court can handle that too - set up a bad debt receivership, go after the "poor people that got taken by the evil predatory lenders".... "Predatory lenders"??? give me a break - I wish someone would have broken into my home, put a gun to my temple and forced me to sign paperwork that will give me hundreds of thousands of dollars that I couldn't payback in a bear market.... Let the buyer beware.... it is exactly that sort of me first, nanny state, kindergarten cry-baby attitude that created this situation in the first place. Maybe by putting a little heat on these people instead of having ACORN come around and help them squat in property that they don't own anymore, that would teach them next time to look a little more closely at the terms of their contract.
Let the banks fail - eliminate the cancer, then start healing. "Nationalization" is just a form of chemotherapy, and I would like to see this nation get better before it loses all its hair, and is stuck in bed with an IV surrounded by doctors who upon realizing that your bank account is empty "can't do anything for you anymore but to make you comfortable...."
Sunday, February 22, 2009
On the lighter side
I have to apologize - the main reason I write here is for my own therapy. I play the role of the fuddy-duddy, frustrated dad 24/7/365. Since virtually noone out there is dying to listen to my lectures and pontifications, I allow myself the fantasy of believing that by publishing my random thoughts online that a - I am an "author", and b - that they are even mildly interesting. So for the three or so people that check in here from time to time, sorry to be so boring. I don't mean to sound like I am a know-it-all academic type...it just happens.
That having been said, I have to relate what happened with the dogs the other night. Harley is our 140 pound, nine year old Bull Mastiff. He has one reconstructed knee with a metal plate, and one elbow swollen to twice its size with arthritis. Dexter is our 190 pound, one year old English Mastiff who is all puppy. Because he has a habit of getting into trouble if not supervised, Dexter usually sleeps upstairs with us. Harley sleeps downstairs because he usually doesn't want to deal with the stairs - they are a bit steep.
Two nights ago, we head off to bed and Harley is pacing at the foot of the stairs and grumbling a bit. After listening to this for about five minutes, I go to the top of the stairs to see whats up - sure enough he needs little more than an "OK" before he starts hobbling up the stairs. He has been a bit "clingy" lately, but it is cute. In the meantime, Dexter is lying down on his pillows over in the corner. The carpet upstairs is generally well padded, but we try to get Dex to lay on the pillows as of late - both elbows are a bit swollen with what looks like gout / bursitis from lying on the hard floor too much - typical mastiff issue.
So Harley goes over to Dex and sniffs around then paces over by the fish tank, finally settling down with a thump near the foot of the bed. This then is where my argument begins for Dogs having feelings, souls, and generally big hearts..... Dexter gets up from where he is laying, goes over to Harley and sniffs, and nudges him a bit. Harley gets up and goes over to lay on the pillows, followed by Dexter laying down by his side on the carpet with his nose nuzzled up against his "big brother".....
Yeah, you can explain that in about a million ways of pack animal theory. I just like to think that he felt sorry for his achey big brother and wanted him to be comfortable!
That having been said, I have to relate what happened with the dogs the other night. Harley is our 140 pound, nine year old Bull Mastiff. He has one reconstructed knee with a metal plate, and one elbow swollen to twice its size with arthritis. Dexter is our 190 pound, one year old English Mastiff who is all puppy. Because he has a habit of getting into trouble if not supervised, Dexter usually sleeps upstairs with us. Harley sleeps downstairs because he usually doesn't want to deal with the stairs - they are a bit steep.
Two nights ago, we head off to bed and Harley is pacing at the foot of the stairs and grumbling a bit. After listening to this for about five minutes, I go to the top of the stairs to see whats up - sure enough he needs little more than an "OK" before he starts hobbling up the stairs. He has been a bit "clingy" lately, but it is cute. In the meantime, Dexter is lying down on his pillows over in the corner. The carpet upstairs is generally well padded, but we try to get Dex to lay on the pillows as of late - both elbows are a bit swollen with what looks like gout / bursitis from lying on the hard floor too much - typical mastiff issue.
So Harley goes over to Dex and sniffs around then paces over by the fish tank, finally settling down with a thump near the foot of the bed. This then is where my argument begins for Dogs having feelings, souls, and generally big hearts..... Dexter gets up from where he is laying, goes over to Harley and sniffs, and nudges him a bit. Harley gets up and goes over to lay on the pillows, followed by Dexter laying down by his side on the carpet with his nose nuzzled up against his "big brother".....
Yeah, you can explain that in about a million ways of pack animal theory. I just like to think that he felt sorry for his achey big brother and wanted him to be comfortable!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Victimology, the Republican Party, and doing the dishes
I'm long-winded, full of sea stories and as Dad's go, I probably am in the top ten pantheon all time in my ability to bore the crap out of my kids when I try to make a point. It happened tonight, but as a result of ANOTHER of my lectures, I am starting to get some insight into things...either that or maybe just reading too many political blogs these days.
It all started with "The Other McCain"...a blog by Robert Stacy McCain on a variety of right-wing issues, and political thoughts. One of his more recent ventures is as a producer / supporter of documentaries. The one that caught my eye today was a discussion against slavery reparations - http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-video-who-should-pay.html Overall an excellent piece but about halfway through the 30 minute "clip" it went in a direction that lost my interest - granted focused on it's core thesis - who should pay? But my mind wandered....How did it happen that after breaking down how the party of Lincoln and the so-called "radical Republicans" railed against slavery as an evil institution unworthy of support, did Republicans manage to lose the African American vote?
Now without sounding like ANOTHER anti-welfare diatribe and going off in a rathole of a discussion thread, I managed to hold on to at least one idea from the video. Be it anti-slavery in the post Civil War and Reconstruction period, the amazing growth period of Eisenhower, or the Reagan Revolution one thing was consistent - a Republican party that didn't bang away at one and only one issue, but struck out as the party of morals and beliefs. Reagan was anti-tax, pro-freedom, strong national defense and was not afraid to call the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Don't get me wrong - Alan Keyes is an excellent example of a well grounded, articulate, morally sound "one issue" candidate - discussion of morals for the sake of discussing morals is a one issue candidacy into and of itself. But what we saw in the "Great Republican Presidents" was an election of a man, and a system of beliefs - not one issue. President Obama managed to pull that one on us this cycle - "hopey change" was an ideal - a "be anything" sort of belief. People were able to project their own hopes and desires into the candidacy and hear whatever they wanted to coming out of his mouth. Brilliant coup, but a recipe for disaster as well as a one-term presidency because of the nagging little issue that results count. Those people who believed that they would get a house and a car for free if Obama was elected will be fairly disappointed when they are out on the street and still walking four years from now. Here is my FIRST point however - When the Republican Party drafts a core set of undeniable principles that are based on an ideal and a moral basis, they lead and expand the party. When they explicitly try to "expand the party" by backing off of those ideals to appease the "moderates", they lose.
(By the way - what is a "moderate"??? You either believe something or you don't. By saying you are a moderate, you are admitting to the fact that you firmly are committed to being wishy-washy)
Which brings me to being a victim. The video made an excellent point - many african american former slaves took their 40 acres and a mule and made something of it. There were thousands of Black-owned farms in the years following the end of the Civil War. Gradually their numbers decreased as a function of the spread of the Klu Klux Klan, the advent of the southern Democrat lobby and Jim Crow laws. This tension and fight continued throughout the early part of the 20th century right up until the 60's and the Civil Rights Movement. Keep in mind that the "Evil Republican Party" of today - that can't hold 1% of the black vote was the same party that 100% supported passage of the Civil Rights act. George W. Bush's grandfather voted for Civil Rights, and Al Gore's father voted against it. A funny thing happened however on the way to the forum....Johnson's "Great Society" expanded on the 40 acres and a mule. Prior to this time, the civil rights movement was one of equal rights and the value of a man's labor and effort. Then came quotas, set asides, government welfare, and the expansion of "benefits" to the downtrodden. A new culture grew, and the fire in their bellies was fueled by the civil rights movement. It was no longer good enough that all men had equal opportunities - those "less fortunate" needed "expanded" opportunity just to catch up. But just like open markets, darwinism and water seeking the lowest ground level - when something is made easier to accomplish it is less valued. The creation of the "victim" class guaranteed that the Republican Party would never again get the african american vote, and that the age of class warfare had begun. How far we march down this road to socialism remains to be seen....
So later on in the night, I get into a discussion with our 15 year old, angst ridden, "victim" of a teenager. Simple issue - doing the dishes. Everyone does their own, he is responsible to start the dishwasher when full, and empty it when it is done. This with the understanding that if he fails to empty it, the rest of us can't help load it, therefore he has the additional responsibility of doing the "backed up" dishes......So I get the bright idea of going off on another rant and tangent (Yeah, I know - you are all falling off your chairs in utter shock) and approaching this from the point of eliminating the "victimology". His main point against my logical approach to how we should clean our eating implements was "well what about last night - the dishwasher wasn't full, but everyone just put their dishes in the sink..." I counter "did you say anything?".....then the shoulders slump, the lower lip comes out and a heavy sigh fills the room..... We have met the enemy and they are us....
Yes folks, even the biggest supporter, most ardent follower of St. Ronaldus the Great, original card carrying reactionary Republican can create their own victimology state. Maybe it has been the military in me - it is a hard habit to break - you issue orders and expect enthusiastic responses. For too many years I have confronted this failure to take responsibility with the all-too-familiar "boot camp" mentality. Not that I am naturally a screamer...heck there are plenty of my "former plebes" from the class of '94 that would be happy to tell you that they fought valiantly not to laugh at me as I tried to be intimidating....
I am trying to use it as a learning tool however - I try to point out to him that "feeling bad" and shying away from responsibility - be it in doing homework, chores, or studying - because it was too hard, I was too late in starting, or I didn't understand things - is a copout. Whenever excuses are made, it is an abdication of responsibility and a leap into the role of a victim. A victim has nothing expected of them except the reception of our pity and support. And when that support and pity comes - in the form of government handouts, or dear-old-dad fighting the "evil school administration" for makeup work, extra time or a better grade - the motivation to work harder dies. While I have been thinking that by instilling order and discipline that I have been building confidence, it has been a faulty confidence - one based upon following certain rules. When those rules, standards or bars have been missed - as they often are in the face of adversity, the only recourse is to play the victim card.
So, thanks to James Lehman's "total transformation", a BUNCH of internet research and a whole load of self censorship, I am trying desperately to back away from the cliff of "immediate and unthinking following of an order" into more of a discussion of responsibility and accountability for our actions. Maybe something the party can do as well - some issues we face today are black and white (no pun intended on the racial issue) but they don't require 100% and total allegiance from all members of the party - take abortion, teen pregnancy, and religion just to name a few... But a broader discussion of what is right, what is good - naming our principles and asking people to follow our lead instead of demanding that they take our position on Roe v. Wade....maybe then the party of Lincoln and Reagan can have a hand on the tiller of our ship of state once again....and maybe I can get the dishes done with less drama!
It all started with "The Other McCain"...a blog by Robert Stacy McCain on a variety of right-wing issues, and political thoughts. One of his more recent ventures is as a producer / supporter of documentaries. The one that caught my eye today was a discussion against slavery reparations - http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/02/new-video-who-should-pay.html Overall an excellent piece but about halfway through the 30 minute "clip" it went in a direction that lost my interest - granted focused on it's core thesis - who should pay? But my mind wandered....How did it happen that after breaking down how the party of Lincoln and the so-called "radical Republicans" railed against slavery as an evil institution unworthy of support, did Republicans manage to lose the African American vote?
Now without sounding like ANOTHER anti-welfare diatribe and going off in a rathole of a discussion thread, I managed to hold on to at least one idea from the video. Be it anti-slavery in the post Civil War and Reconstruction period, the amazing growth period of Eisenhower, or the Reagan Revolution one thing was consistent - a Republican party that didn't bang away at one and only one issue, but struck out as the party of morals and beliefs. Reagan was anti-tax, pro-freedom, strong national defense and was not afraid to call the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Don't get me wrong - Alan Keyes is an excellent example of a well grounded, articulate, morally sound "one issue" candidate - discussion of morals for the sake of discussing morals is a one issue candidacy into and of itself. But what we saw in the "Great Republican Presidents" was an election of a man, and a system of beliefs - not one issue. President Obama managed to pull that one on us this cycle - "hopey change" was an ideal - a "be anything" sort of belief. People were able to project their own hopes and desires into the candidacy and hear whatever they wanted to coming out of his mouth. Brilliant coup, but a recipe for disaster as well as a one-term presidency because of the nagging little issue that results count. Those people who believed that they would get a house and a car for free if Obama was elected will be fairly disappointed when they are out on the street and still walking four years from now. Here is my FIRST point however - When the Republican Party drafts a core set of undeniable principles that are based on an ideal and a moral basis, they lead and expand the party. When they explicitly try to "expand the party" by backing off of those ideals to appease the "moderates", they lose.
(By the way - what is a "moderate"??? You either believe something or you don't. By saying you are a moderate, you are admitting to the fact that you firmly are committed to being wishy-washy)
Which brings me to being a victim. The video made an excellent point - many african american former slaves took their 40 acres and a mule and made something of it. There were thousands of Black-owned farms in the years following the end of the Civil War. Gradually their numbers decreased as a function of the spread of the Klu Klux Klan, the advent of the southern Democrat lobby and Jim Crow laws. This tension and fight continued throughout the early part of the 20th century right up until the 60's and the Civil Rights Movement. Keep in mind that the "Evil Republican Party" of today - that can't hold 1% of the black vote was the same party that 100% supported passage of the Civil Rights act. George W. Bush's grandfather voted for Civil Rights, and Al Gore's father voted against it. A funny thing happened however on the way to the forum....Johnson's "Great Society" expanded on the 40 acres and a mule. Prior to this time, the civil rights movement was one of equal rights and the value of a man's labor and effort. Then came quotas, set asides, government welfare, and the expansion of "benefits" to the downtrodden. A new culture grew, and the fire in their bellies was fueled by the civil rights movement. It was no longer good enough that all men had equal opportunities - those "less fortunate" needed "expanded" opportunity just to catch up. But just like open markets, darwinism and water seeking the lowest ground level - when something is made easier to accomplish it is less valued. The creation of the "victim" class guaranteed that the Republican Party would never again get the african american vote, and that the age of class warfare had begun. How far we march down this road to socialism remains to be seen....
So later on in the night, I get into a discussion with our 15 year old, angst ridden, "victim" of a teenager. Simple issue - doing the dishes. Everyone does their own, he is responsible to start the dishwasher when full, and empty it when it is done. This with the understanding that if he fails to empty it, the rest of us can't help load it, therefore he has the additional responsibility of doing the "backed up" dishes......So I get the bright idea of going off on another rant and tangent (Yeah, I know - you are all falling off your chairs in utter shock) and approaching this from the point of eliminating the "victimology". His main point against my logical approach to how we should clean our eating implements was "well what about last night - the dishwasher wasn't full, but everyone just put their dishes in the sink..." I counter "did you say anything?".....then the shoulders slump, the lower lip comes out and a heavy sigh fills the room..... We have met the enemy and they are us....
Yes folks, even the biggest supporter, most ardent follower of St. Ronaldus the Great, original card carrying reactionary Republican can create their own victimology state. Maybe it has been the military in me - it is a hard habit to break - you issue orders and expect enthusiastic responses. For too many years I have confronted this failure to take responsibility with the all-too-familiar "boot camp" mentality. Not that I am naturally a screamer...heck there are plenty of my "former plebes" from the class of '94 that would be happy to tell you that they fought valiantly not to laugh at me as I tried to be intimidating....
I am trying to use it as a learning tool however - I try to point out to him that "feeling bad" and shying away from responsibility - be it in doing homework, chores, or studying - because it was too hard, I was too late in starting, or I didn't understand things - is a copout. Whenever excuses are made, it is an abdication of responsibility and a leap into the role of a victim. A victim has nothing expected of them except the reception of our pity and support. And when that support and pity comes - in the form of government handouts, or dear-old-dad fighting the "evil school administration" for makeup work, extra time or a better grade - the motivation to work harder dies. While I have been thinking that by instilling order and discipline that I have been building confidence, it has been a faulty confidence - one based upon following certain rules. When those rules, standards or bars have been missed - as they often are in the face of adversity, the only recourse is to play the victim card.
So, thanks to James Lehman's "total transformation", a BUNCH of internet research and a whole load of self censorship, I am trying desperately to back away from the cliff of "immediate and unthinking following of an order" into more of a discussion of responsibility and accountability for our actions. Maybe something the party can do as well - some issues we face today are black and white (no pun intended on the racial issue) but they don't require 100% and total allegiance from all members of the party - take abortion, teen pregnancy, and religion just to name a few... But a broader discussion of what is right, what is good - naming our principles and asking people to follow our lead instead of demanding that they take our position on Roe v. Wade....maybe then the party of Lincoln and Reagan can have a hand on the tiller of our ship of state once again....and maybe I can get the dishes done with less drama!
Friday, February 20, 2009
A little humor....
Are you a Democrat, Republican or Texan???
Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist (Muslim Fascist?) with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at your children. You are carrying a Glock 40 caliber, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches your family. What do you do?
................................................................
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it with a Democratically approved gun lock?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing!I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus
................................................................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!BANG!
................................................................
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click.....(Sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"
Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"
Here is a little test that will help you decide. The answer can be found by posing the following question:You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, an Islamic Terrorist (Muslim Fascist?) with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises the knife, and charges at your children. You are carrying a Glock 40 caliber, and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches your family. What do you do?
................................................................
Democrat's Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the Glock have appropriate safety built into it with a Democratically approved gun lock?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing!I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus
................................................................
Republican's Answer:
BANG!BANG!
................................................................
Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click.....(Sounds of reloading).
BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?"
Son: "Can I shoot the next one!"
Wife: "You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist!"
Have we already lost the war of hearts and minds?
In my nine month "all expenses paid excursion" to Iraq, the mantra was "winning hearts and minds"....getting the people of Iraq to believe in democracy, freedom and open markets. I am concerned that thanks to the current spread of socialism in our own country, we may have already lost that battle.... It didn't matter how many times the democrats repeated the chant during the election about "corporate greed and excess"....greed didn't cause this crisis. Wall street didn't decide to destroy itself in an orgy of "greedy trading". Mortgage traders and bank executives didn't set out to kill their very lifeblood of credit by preying upon the "little man".
Plain and simple, government pressure and democratic congressmen lobbied for and got authorization for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue high risk loans to people that could not pay them back. They then participated in a bundling of these risky mortgages together for sale on the credit market. It would be no different than a hacker selling copies of "halo 3" for PC that contained a virus....customers buy the game, the virus spreads and suddenly we wake up and half of our computer infrastructure is gutted....
What we hear though, is "Corporate Greed"..."Shame on you CEO's - we will mandate that you don't earn over $300K a year"....People assume that CEO's spring from the womb in Armani suits and silver spoons. Keep in mind, Jeff Bezos (granted the fact that he is a FLAMING liberal) started Amazon.com from his garage. He "earns" $81K per year, but has benefits of $1.1M (according to wikipedia).....he only has about $8 Billion in net worth.... But he didn't just stumble over Amazon - he worked his liberal butt off to make it what it is today...he earned every penny of his net worth....so why do we gnash our teeth when all us "common folk" who weren't smart enough, determined enough, or hard working enough to build a company like that see their houses, boats, and cars?
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2
Check out "someguy's" comments and the subsequent backlash....
Thanks to the Dems and the media, we have repeated the chant "corporate greed" so many times that perception becomes reality. It is assumed that if a CEO has a salary of $10M a year and a pre-arranged termination fee of many Millions, that they didn't "need" the money and therefore were greedy. Let me ask you a question - why is it that on Valentine's day it is soooo much more beneficial to the males of our species if they plan ahead and get reservations at an expensive restaurant instead of going through the Mickey Dee's drive through? I mean come on - the difference between Value Meal #1 and a steak at Ruth's Chris is about three times the beef (maybe $10 a pound for high grade), a scoop or two of cooked veggies (an extra $1.75?) some mashed potatoes (same as the fries, just cooked differently) and throw in an extra $20 for the "share" of extra salaries, rent, ambience, etc. BUT, even getting a "cheap" bottle of wine and the meal at Ruth's Chris runs in the low $100's for two, up to $250 if there are appetizers, extra drinks and a good tip.....They didn't "need" that extra money, right? Aren't they just being "greedy"???
The short answer of course is no. The "long" explanation of this is best given by Ayn Rand in the "money speech" by Francisco D'Anconia in "Atlas Shrugged" - http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826. Far and away the best treatise on the events we are facing today. The "medium" answer that your spouse or significant other inherently understands in the paradigm of valentine's is that the free and open market has put a value on effort. They are impressed with the extra effort (over the drive thru) that you would go to in cleaning yourself up, putting on a suit, making reservations, saving your sheckles and taking them to a nice restaurant. The "greedy" restaurant exists because of enough of society values high quality food and "ambience" over the golden arches that they have been allowed to raise their prices high enough to put a true value on their services. Too high, and not enough people would show to make a profit. Lower the price too much and not only could they not feed everyone that shows up (maximum throughput, not to mention no reservations available) but the quality would drop because they wouldn't have enough money after paying employees, suppliers, landlords, etc to buy higher quality supplies.....the free and fair market has placed a value commensurate with their skill and effort at serving food. Concurrently that same market has dictated the acceptable price of a Big Mac.....the difference between those two prices is the "effort and value" theoretically you place on your sweetie.....
So why when it is so easy to understand the folly of taking your wife to McDonald's on Valentine's Day, is it so difficult for the general populace to understand the fact that some companies place an appropriate value on the enormous risk and personal effort that these multinational corporate CEO's must take upon themselves to improve shareholder value????
Plain and simple, government pressure and democratic congressmen lobbied for and got authorization for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue high risk loans to people that could not pay them back. They then participated in a bundling of these risky mortgages together for sale on the credit market. It would be no different than a hacker selling copies of "halo 3" for PC that contained a virus....customers buy the game, the virus spreads and suddenly we wake up and half of our computer infrastructure is gutted....
What we hear though, is "Corporate Greed"..."Shame on you CEO's - we will mandate that you don't earn over $300K a year"....People assume that CEO's spring from the womb in Armani suits and silver spoons. Keep in mind, Jeff Bezos (granted the fact that he is a FLAMING liberal) started Amazon.com from his garage. He "earns" $81K per year, but has benefits of $1.1M (according to wikipedia).....he only has about $8 Billion in net worth.... But he didn't just stumble over Amazon - he worked his liberal butt off to make it what it is today...he earned every penny of his net worth....so why do we gnash our teeth when all us "common folk" who weren't smart enough, determined enough, or hard working enough to build a company like that see their houses, boats, and cars?
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-stimulus-saves-microsoft-billionaire-hundreds-of-millions-phew-2009-2
Check out "someguy's" comments and the subsequent backlash....
Thanks to the Dems and the media, we have repeated the chant "corporate greed" so many times that perception becomes reality. It is assumed that if a CEO has a salary of $10M a year and a pre-arranged termination fee of many Millions, that they didn't "need" the money and therefore were greedy. Let me ask you a question - why is it that on Valentine's day it is soooo much more beneficial to the males of our species if they plan ahead and get reservations at an expensive restaurant instead of going through the Mickey Dee's drive through? I mean come on - the difference between Value Meal #1 and a steak at Ruth's Chris is about three times the beef (maybe $10 a pound for high grade), a scoop or two of cooked veggies (an extra $1.75?) some mashed potatoes (same as the fries, just cooked differently) and throw in an extra $20 for the "share" of extra salaries, rent, ambience, etc. BUT, even getting a "cheap" bottle of wine and the meal at Ruth's Chris runs in the low $100's for two, up to $250 if there are appetizers, extra drinks and a good tip.....They didn't "need" that extra money, right? Aren't they just being "greedy"???
The short answer of course is no. The "long" explanation of this is best given by Ayn Rand in the "money speech" by Francisco D'Anconia in "Atlas Shrugged" - http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826. Far and away the best treatise on the events we are facing today. The "medium" answer that your spouse or significant other inherently understands in the paradigm of valentine's is that the free and open market has put a value on effort. They are impressed with the extra effort (over the drive thru) that you would go to in cleaning yourself up, putting on a suit, making reservations, saving your sheckles and taking them to a nice restaurant. The "greedy" restaurant exists because of enough of society values high quality food and "ambience" over the golden arches that they have been allowed to raise their prices high enough to put a true value on their services. Too high, and not enough people would show to make a profit. Lower the price too much and not only could they not feed everyone that shows up (maximum throughput, not to mention no reservations available) but the quality would drop because they wouldn't have enough money after paying employees, suppliers, landlords, etc to buy higher quality supplies.....the free and fair market has placed a value commensurate with their skill and effort at serving food. Concurrently that same market has dictated the acceptable price of a Big Mac.....the difference between those two prices is the "effort and value" theoretically you place on your sweetie.....
So why when it is so easy to understand the folly of taking your wife to McDonald's on Valentine's Day, is it so difficult for the general populace to understand the fact that some companies place an appropriate value on the enormous risk and personal effort that these multinational corporate CEO's must take upon themselves to improve shareholder value????
Friday, February 13, 2009
A time for choosing
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=reagan&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wv#It was chilling in 1964, it is terrifying and yet uplifting today. Terrifying from the standpoint that every prediction that Ronald Reagan made in support of Barry Goldwater to be true. Uplifting from the standpoint that we lost that turning point, plunged into a "great society", tried to ignore our social failings with smoke and mirrors of foreign policy over eight or so years, plunged again into self loathing and hatred, only to emerge in 1980 into the most productive, brilliant and great restoration that the world has ever seen. Uplifting from the standpoint that one can possibly hope that this is merely the cyclical self flagellation that we do every twenty or so years, so that the "youth vote" can think that they will change the world and foster harmony...until they look at the price tag in taxes and our freedom.
Reagan was a principled man who spoke to men of principle. Freedom, wealth, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness were real concepts that only came from God and man's labor, not by fiat from government. For lack of a few principled men today, we have to travel through these dark valleys until we can emerge once more from the darkness and re-enter the realm of the "shining city on the hill". The king is dead, the king is dead....long live the king.
I just wish that the once and future king would show himself...
Saturday, February 07, 2009
Canseco was right again
Don't you just hate that guy? That one guy you may work with, or be forced to eat lunch with? That one braggart, brash A-Hole who always is talking about "me, me, me....I, I, I....." You sit there in agony, unable to get a word in, having to listen to his every opinion and rant. Then he drops the proverbial deuce on the table - he says something soooo outrageous and stupid that you see an opening to jump all over him and prove that he is an idiot......only he turns out to be right. Dammit, Canseco did it again. I was listening to the opening show in 2005 when XM first started "MLB Home Plate". Rob Dibble brought on Pete "Charley Hustle" Rose (pre-book, mea culpa, etc) and Kevin Kennedy brought on Jose Canseco. At the time, Canseco's first book was just out and he was getting ANNIHILATED by the press as being sensationalist and a liar. Then Bonds became what he has become, MLB instituted its drug testing program, Roger "The Rocket" Clemens became 'Roid Roger, and one by one our heroes became idiots.....
There were allegations of course, but there were a few hopes and beliefs still out there - A-Rod was still A-Rod. Truly an A-Hole, but amazing talent. Even stories in SI.com and ESPN about how he had sought counsel from Charley Hustle on handling the pressure. He almost had slipped by. He stood as the lone hope to push us past the "steroids era" because Bonds wouldn't be working anymore, and just a few more years with the Yankees and we would have a new HR king.....
I read the story on SI by Selena Roberts and David Epstein. The quote from A-Hole said it all..."When approached by an SI reporter on Thursday at a gym in Miami, Rodriguez declined to discuss his 2003 test results. "You'll have to talk to the union," said Rodriguez, the Yankees' third baseman since his trade to New York in February 2004. When asked if there was an explanation for his positive test, he said, "I'm not saying anything."
I was quiet - didn't get mad, just frustrated. By that time the show the boys and I had been watching "Man vs. Food" on the Travel Channel (awesome concept - I highly recommend it!) had ended and I had switched over to Fox News to find out how the Senate was going to ruin the country and on what time table.....when the news on A-Rod came out....I saw another hero of a 10 year-old fall. "A-Rod used steroids??" he asked. "Yeah, sorry Aleks - A-Rod is a cheater"......he was quiet for a moment. Then summed up what we all had felt...."I actually thought he was good enough to do all that by himself....."
Yeah, me too....
There were allegations of course, but there were a few hopes and beliefs still out there - A-Rod was still A-Rod. Truly an A-Hole, but amazing talent. Even stories in SI.com and ESPN about how he had sought counsel from Charley Hustle on handling the pressure. He almost had slipped by. He stood as the lone hope to push us past the "steroids era" because Bonds wouldn't be working anymore, and just a few more years with the Yankees and we would have a new HR king.....
I read the story on SI by Selena Roberts and David Epstein. The quote from A-Hole said it all..."When approached by an SI reporter on Thursday at a gym in Miami, Rodriguez declined to discuss his 2003 test results. "You'll have to talk to the union," said Rodriguez, the Yankees' third baseman since his trade to New York in February 2004. When asked if there was an explanation for his positive test, he said, "I'm not saying anything."
I was quiet - didn't get mad, just frustrated. By that time the show the boys and I had been watching "Man vs. Food" on the Travel Channel (awesome concept - I highly recommend it!) had ended and I had switched over to Fox News to find out how the Senate was going to ruin the country and on what time table.....when the news on A-Rod came out....I saw another hero of a 10 year-old fall. "A-Rod used steroids??" he asked. "Yeah, sorry Aleks - A-Rod is a cheater"......he was quiet for a moment. Then summed up what we all had felt...."I actually thought he was good enough to do all that by himself....."
Yeah, me too....
Friday, February 06, 2009
Playing Catch Up
Wow...it never ceases to amaze me how much time can go by, and how many times I can think "I really need to write about that" and never do....So much has happened. Laying wreaths at Arlington in December. Christmas vacation, skiiing again and putting on wayyyy too much weight. Recovering from vacation, travel to Hawaii on business (not a bad gig if you can get it!) and battling the mother of all flu bugs. Not to mention the "our country will cease to exist unless we spend $44M to renovate the Department of Agriculture building" (courtesy of Glennbeck.com) mechanations in progress.
I was listening to a local radio show this morning in the shower - Star 98.7 (local FM) the "T-Bone and Heather" show. Nice folks, somewhat entertaining, AMAZINGLY uninformed and ignorant. Their primary rant on the "stimulus" was that all this money would disappear into another "military" $400 hammer type program. Then they went on a typical rant about "throw the bums out" term limits. It occurred to me that most people have NO concept about how government budgets work with the congress. The pork and corruption are inherent in the system. A quick primer:
A. Term limits / Elected Officials and why the "bums" we need to throw out aren't the problem - The current stimulus package is over 800 pages. Given that there are 435 representatives in the congress, and that this bill started in the house, that means each congressman typed up personally about 1 1/2 pages and submitted them, right? Yeah, sure. I would bet a paycheck that the last time ANY and I mean ANY legislator in congress ACTUALLY penned legislation him/herself, it was on an Underwood typewriter (http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-history.html) in the early 1900's..... Suppose if you will, you decided to run for congress on a homegrown campaign. Your wife was your Public Affairs / Secretary, brother did logistics and planning, Dad was your security, Mom was your treasurer, and sister handled speech writing / policy research. Suppose your little tiny operation got you elected. When you walked into the door of your office at the Rayburn building in DC, you would be introduced to a professional staff, and they would have all of your party's resources / connections / etc to help coordinate your "opinions" with the party, your constituency, and the state party apparatus......in other words we elect figureheads and puppets that direct, manage, and try to wrangle the steer that they are riding into a coordinated direction, but that will never be broken to follow the will of the elected official...(maybe in Ted Kennedy's position, or Harry Reid - those dinosaurs that have been there forever...) Which leads me to my second point
B. Spending bills and government funding. In my current position, I manage the execution of more money than I could make in a lifetime. If I directed that some of that were spent improperly, I could go to jail. For example, I get X dollars from organization 1 to do a project that costs X plus $1Million. I get Y dollars from organization 2 to do a project that costs Y - $1Million dollars. In one project, I am a million short, in another I am a million rich. If I took the surplus from project 2 and spent it on project 1, I would be guilty of misappropriation and could go to jail. That having been said, every government entity (military and non-military) has a budget of projects that are funded, and a list of "unfundeds" - those things that they would like to do, but can't afford (say for example, renovation of the Department of Agriculture building). On a regular basis, there are calls for "unfunded lists" by each department - defense, agriculture, HHS, etc. which get sent to.....(drumroll).....congress! The professional staffers (those people that greeted you as your mom and pop election committee walked into your new office) maintain these lists - especially highlighted on their list are all the unfunded projects that are in your home state or home district. Sooooooo, when the call goes out to "stimulate" the economy, the professional staffers regurgitate their list of spending, and it gets conglomerated into one bill that has ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM to do with stimulating the economy - it is merely a list of what your friendly governement wanted to spend money on, but couldn't justify it by any other means.
Here is a silly little idea...there is what 304 Million men, women and children in the US today? How about they write a one-paragraph "stimulus" bill that takes whatever random number they decide upon...say $900 BILLION as a stimulus and divide it equally....that means every man, woman and child would get a government check for $2960.53. That means our little family of four would net almost $12K. Hmmm....lets see, off the top of my head, that would pay off the loan we have on our Suburban. That would put us in a position where we could use the ASSET value of the car as a trade in and get a new (or better yet slightly used) one for a cheaper monthly payment. Retiring that debt would put more money in Navy Federal's coffers, allowing them to give us (and/or someone else) a new loan, breaking free some of the capital crunch, and based upon the practically world-wide education on the evils of debt and credit cards we are all now gaining would dramatically increase on hand savings and the savings rate in this country. Greater balances in savings accounts means more capital, right? That would help liquidate the bad debt, let the market work out the write off of toxic debt and market correction would be complete.
Funny thing too - a recent CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ - compare the comments on the current director's blog for HR 1 to those in the "budget projections" link) shows that if we did NOTHING, we would be better off in 2019 debt wise than if we passed this "Stimulus" package.
But then again, what the hell do I know? I am just a lowly manager that can't begin to understand the complexities of budgets, funding, and government execution....at least that is what they would have us ALL want to believe.
I was listening to a local radio show this morning in the shower - Star 98.7 (local FM) the "T-Bone and Heather" show. Nice folks, somewhat entertaining, AMAZINGLY uninformed and ignorant. Their primary rant on the "stimulus" was that all this money would disappear into another "military" $400 hammer type program. Then they went on a typical rant about "throw the bums out" term limits. It occurred to me that most people have NO concept about how government budgets work with the congress. The pork and corruption are inherent in the system. A quick primer:
A. Term limits / Elected Officials and why the "bums" we need to throw out aren't the problem - The current stimulus package is over 800 pages. Given that there are 435 representatives in the congress, and that this bill started in the house, that means each congressman typed up personally about 1 1/2 pages and submitted them, right? Yeah, sure. I would bet a paycheck that the last time ANY and I mean ANY legislator in congress ACTUALLY penned legislation him/herself, it was on an Underwood typewriter (http://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-history.html) in the early 1900's..... Suppose if you will, you decided to run for congress on a homegrown campaign. Your wife was your Public Affairs / Secretary, brother did logistics and planning, Dad was your security, Mom was your treasurer, and sister handled speech writing / policy research. Suppose your little tiny operation got you elected. When you walked into the door of your office at the Rayburn building in DC, you would be introduced to a professional staff, and they would have all of your party's resources / connections / etc to help coordinate your "opinions" with the party, your constituency, and the state party apparatus......in other words we elect figureheads and puppets that direct, manage, and try to wrangle the steer that they are riding into a coordinated direction, but that will never be broken to follow the will of the elected official...(maybe in Ted Kennedy's position, or Harry Reid - those dinosaurs that have been there forever...) Which leads me to my second point
B. Spending bills and government funding. In my current position, I manage the execution of more money than I could make in a lifetime. If I directed that some of that were spent improperly, I could go to jail. For example, I get X dollars from organization 1 to do a project that costs X plus $1Million. I get Y dollars from organization 2 to do a project that costs Y - $1Million dollars. In one project, I am a million short, in another I am a million rich. If I took the surplus from project 2 and spent it on project 1, I would be guilty of misappropriation and could go to jail. That having been said, every government entity (military and non-military) has a budget of projects that are funded, and a list of "unfundeds" - those things that they would like to do, but can't afford (say for example, renovation of the Department of Agriculture building). On a regular basis, there are calls for "unfunded lists" by each department - defense, agriculture, HHS, etc. which get sent to.....(drumroll).....congress! The professional staffers (those people that greeted you as your mom and pop election committee walked into your new office) maintain these lists - especially highlighted on their list are all the unfunded projects that are in your home state or home district. Sooooooo, when the call goes out to "stimulate" the economy, the professional staffers regurgitate their list of spending, and it gets conglomerated into one bill that has ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM to do with stimulating the economy - it is merely a list of what your friendly governement wanted to spend money on, but couldn't justify it by any other means.
Here is a silly little idea...there is what 304 Million men, women and children in the US today? How about they write a one-paragraph "stimulus" bill that takes whatever random number they decide upon...say $900 BILLION as a stimulus and divide it equally....that means every man, woman and child would get a government check for $2960.53. That means our little family of four would net almost $12K. Hmmm....lets see, off the top of my head, that would pay off the loan we have on our Suburban. That would put us in a position where we could use the ASSET value of the car as a trade in and get a new (or better yet slightly used) one for a cheaper monthly payment. Retiring that debt would put more money in Navy Federal's coffers, allowing them to give us (and/or someone else) a new loan, breaking free some of the capital crunch, and based upon the practically world-wide education on the evils of debt and credit cards we are all now gaining would dramatically increase on hand savings and the savings rate in this country. Greater balances in savings accounts means more capital, right? That would help liquidate the bad debt, let the market work out the write off of toxic debt and market correction would be complete.
Funny thing too - a recent CBO report (http://www.cbo.gov/ - compare the comments on the current director's blog for HR 1 to those in the "budget projections" link) shows that if we did NOTHING, we would be better off in 2019 debt wise than if we passed this "Stimulus" package.
But then again, what the hell do I know? I am just a lowly manager that can't begin to understand the complexities of budgets, funding, and government execution....at least that is what they would have us ALL want to believe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
