+with+quote+sized+for+web.jpg)
For some reason, I don't remember a lot of quotable lines from my college literature classes. One I do remember is from Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay, Self Reliance. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Today, I think Emerson would add community organizers who become president to his list of those with hobgoblins.
President Obama has shown a tendency to react from his gut. From his first month in office when he made his off-teleprompter "it is apparent the police acted stupidly" remark, the president has to use his own words, acted stupidly and then stubbornly stood by those actions. In the case of this remark, Obama was barely a month into office, and most of us were still giving him the benefit of the doubt. He had no experience in a position where his every word and action was being watched and scrutinized. So most of us gave him the chance to retract, or at least soften his remarks, especially since he admitted that he did not have "all the facts." But, Emerson's hobgoblins got to the president. He never backed off his comments.
Then we had Arizona passing state legislation making illegal immigration illegal in their state. When asked for a reaction, President Obama called the legislation "misguided." Without reading the legislation. After learning that the law mirrored already existing federal law, the president stuck to his comments and went even further by ordering an investigation of the civil rights ramifications of the law. A little reflection should lead "the smartest man in the room" to the conclusion that civil rights are applicable to citizens, and illegal immigrants by definition are not citizens, but the hobgoblins have struck again. The federal government has decided to pursue legal action against the state. Again, the president has had ample time to adjust his stance as he has learned the facts and learned the opinion of the voters. But once again, he is remaining "foolishly consistent."
Last week Senator Jon Kyl told a town hall meeting that the president, in a private meeting, told Kyl that he had no reason to close the American borders, as citizens of border states and citizens in general, are begging him to do. President Obama told Senator Kyl that if he closed the borders and enforced federal immigration laws, Congress would have no motivation to compromise on immigration reform, or amnesty. Think this is a case of Kyl making up the president's quotes to advance Arizona's view? Well once again, President Obama's got that hobgoblin issue.
More recently, in reaction to the British Petroleum leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the president announced a moratorium on drilling in the gulf. Upon further review, the moratorium would do nothing but cost the region jobs, not only for the six months announced, but probably forever. Some estimates of the loss of payroll, and tax revenue, reach the billions. Those estimates do not include the loss caused by the leak itself. So when a federal judge suspended the moratorium, the president had the perfect opportunity to adjust his stance and in essence, save both face and jobs. He could have said something along the lines of "we tried, but a judge overturned our action. That's the way checks and balances works." He could then let the drilling continue, especially since this is the first spill in more than 4,000 wells drilled in the Gulf. Instead of letting the judge's decision stand and moving on, within minutes of the announcement of the judge's decision, the Obama administration announced their decision to appeal the decision. Not only is the government appealing the decision, but today Secretary of Interior Salazar announced a new moratorium!
Three days after the accident and resulting leak, the Dutch, Norwegians, and British offered to help with the clean up effort with tankers, skimmers, and booms. The federal government declined the offers, citing the Jones Act. The Jones Act requires all ships working between U.S. ports be American built, American flagged, and consist of American crews, all to protect unions. While the Act has been suspended many times, the Obama administration refused to do so. After more than two months of massive amounts of oil moving to beaches along the Gulf coast, commentators started questioning the application of the Jones Act. The British and Dutch again offered their help with the clean up. The president had the opportunity to exorcise his hobgoblins and suspend the Jones Act, but, once again, has acted foolishly consistently and refused the help.
We have been told that President Obama is one of most intelligent people ever to hold the office of president. So, while is he repeatedly the victim of the hobgoblins of a little mind? It could be that he knows all the facts, but is working to advance his agenda. It's either part of his plan, or we were lied to all along and the president's not as intelligent as we were led to believe. And if that's the case, what is the agenda of those who led us to believe we were electing "the smartest man in the room?" I think we have more than hobgoblins to worry about.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Feel Better Now?
With BP's accident in the Gulf of Mexico, a lot of reports have referred back to 1989 and the spill of the Exxon Valdez. So, here's a little history of the spill and its consequences. First of all, Exxon paid for the cleanup, estimated at about $2 Billion. In addition to the cleanup cost, Exxon paid about $6 billion in damages. No one feels bad for Exxon, they deserved to pay for their negligence. And it was negligence. The captain was sleeping off a bender below deck and the third mate was navigating without a sonar. The Valdez's sonar had been inoperable for over a year.
Now for the unforeseen consequences. After paying out somewhere around $8 billion for the accident, Exxon's lobbyists went to the federal government to request limits to the damages an oil company would be liable for in the case of future accidents. A Republican Congress passed a bill limiting future oil company's liability to $75 million in the case of future accidents. The bill was signed into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. The law also gave the federal government final say on drilling locations. Starting to get a little queasy?
Now come forward to 2008. British Petroleum requested permission to drill in 500 (that's 5 hundred) feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. Louisiana's state government approves the plan. The federal government then denies the request. So, BP moves to its second option, a deep water project, 5,000 (that's 5 thousand) feet underwater to be specific. You know what happened next. An explosion and massive leak.
Three days after the accident, Norwegian, Dutch, and British companies offered use of their skimmers and booms to aid BP in the cleanup efforts. The federal government declined the offer, citing the Jones Act which requires all ships working in U.S. waters to be American made, American flagged, and manned by American crews. The Jones Act was a concession to unions in 1920, as a protection to American shipbuilding jobs. The Jones Act has been waived many times, most recently in the days after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, to accept aid from other countries.
Within a week of the accident, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, requested permission from the federal government to allow the state to build sand barrier walls between barrier islands off the coast of his state. His request was denied, citing the need for further study of the affects of the proposed sand barriers. After repeatedly denied requests to the federal government to allow the barriers, on June 14, Jindal ordered the National Guard to start building the barriers.
For the first time in his 16+ month reign, the president started to receive criticism from the mainstream media, and some pressure from Democrats. His get tough response? Let's suspend all offshore drilling projects for at least six months. The consequence? It will only cost the region about 14,000 high paying jobs and untold payroll, and coincidentally tax revenue. Again coincidentally, the deepwater drilling equipment will move on to other projects, notably in Brazil, where Petrobas stands to make huge money with its deepwater wells. Oh yeah, the Petrobas projects will receive billions of dollars in aid from U.S. Export-Import Bank either through loans or loan guarantees. Turns a U.S. disaster into a giant windfall for the Brazilian state-owned company, huh? Also a nice turn of profit for one of Petrobas' large investors, George Soros. Soros, again coincidentally, contributed thousands personally, and who knows how much through his various foundations to the presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama. Another coincidence, Soros' socialist foundations promote the view of America as an "institutionally oppressive nation." Just as a coincidental link to other hot issues of our time, his foundations also campaign for open borders and social benefits and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Since destroying the economy of the region was not tough enough to satisfy the president's critics, he took on British Petroleum. From the first day of the crisis, BP did everything possible to stop the leak. They also said from the first day they would pay all legitimate claims. The president said he didn't need to talk to the CEO of BP. He said that in his experience, CEO's will tell you what you want to hear. But the president's not interested in talk, he wants action. So, 58 days after the accident, the president meets with BP officials. For 45 minutes. The president is a busy man after all. Lunch with Joe Biden after all. That and an arm-twisting scheduled with senators who oppose his cap and tradescam legislation. Give the man credit though. In 45 minutes, the president got a promise of a $20 billion escrow account to be set up by BP to pay for claims. Oh yeah, the account will be managed by the federal government. The same government that handled the TARP theft and Stimulus ripoff so well. That loud KA-CHING you just heard? That came from the adding machines of unions all over the country. You gulf shrimpers and resort owners better not hold your breath waiting for your money.
Feel better now?
President Obama finally found out whose a$$ to kick. Yours. Again.
Now for the unforeseen consequences. After paying out somewhere around $8 billion for the accident, Exxon's lobbyists went to the federal government to request limits to the damages an oil company would be liable for in the case of future accidents. A Republican Congress passed a bill limiting future oil company's liability to $75 million in the case of future accidents. The bill was signed into law by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. The law also gave the federal government final say on drilling locations. Starting to get a little queasy?
Now come forward to 2008. British Petroleum requested permission to drill in 500 (that's 5 hundred) feet of water in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana. Louisiana's state government approves the plan. The federal government then denies the request. So, BP moves to its second option, a deep water project, 5,000 (that's 5 thousand) feet underwater to be specific. You know what happened next. An explosion and massive leak.
Three days after the accident, Norwegian, Dutch, and British companies offered use of their skimmers and booms to aid BP in the cleanup efforts. The federal government declined the offer, citing the Jones Act which requires all ships working in U.S. waters to be American made, American flagged, and manned by American crews. The Jones Act was a concession to unions in 1920, as a protection to American shipbuilding jobs. The Jones Act has been waived many times, most recently in the days after Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, to accept aid from other countries.
Within a week of the accident, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal, requested permission from the federal government to allow the state to build sand barrier walls between barrier islands off the coast of his state. His request was denied, citing the need for further study of the affects of the proposed sand barriers. After repeatedly denied requests to the federal government to allow the barriers, on June 14, Jindal ordered the National Guard to start building the barriers.
For the first time in his 16+ month reign, the president started to receive criticism from the mainstream media, and some pressure from Democrats. His get tough response? Let's suspend all offshore drilling projects for at least six months. The consequence? It will only cost the region about 14,000 high paying jobs and untold payroll, and coincidentally tax revenue. Again coincidentally, the deepwater drilling equipment will move on to other projects, notably in Brazil, where Petrobas stands to make huge money with its deepwater wells. Oh yeah, the Petrobas projects will receive billions of dollars in aid from U.S. Export-Import Bank either through loans or loan guarantees. Turns a U.S. disaster into a giant windfall for the Brazilian state-owned company, huh? Also a nice turn of profit for one of Petrobas' large investors, George Soros. Soros, again coincidentally, contributed thousands personally, and who knows how much through his various foundations to the presidential campaign of Barack Hussein Obama. Another coincidence, Soros' socialist foundations promote the view of America as an "institutionally oppressive nation." Just as a coincidental link to other hot issues of our time, his foundations also campaign for open borders and social benefits and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Since destroying the economy of the region was not tough enough to satisfy the president's critics, he took on British Petroleum. From the first day of the crisis, BP did everything possible to stop the leak. They also said from the first day they would pay all legitimate claims. The president said he didn't need to talk to the CEO of BP. He said that in his experience, CEO's will tell you what you want to hear. But the president's not interested in talk, he wants action. So, 58 days after the accident, the president meets with BP officials. For 45 minutes. The president is a busy man after all. Lunch with Joe Biden after all. That and an arm-twisting scheduled with senators who oppose his cap and trade
Feel better now?
President Obama finally found out whose a$$ to kick. Yours. Again.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Free Market or Economic Freedom
Capitalism has become a dirty word. Those greedy capitalists only want to get rich off your hard work, or by taking your money. So, political strategists have recommended candidates avoid the terms capitalism or free market. The new term is "economic freedom."
I like the term, but think that the free market or capitalism refers to much more than just the economy. As I have written before, our entire form of federal government was intended to encourage a free market among states. The federal government is supposed to have extremely limited powers. Policy is supposed to be determined on the state level. For instance, if you want a high tax rate, but a government that also takes care of your health care, retirement benefits, and tightly regulates other aspects of your life, you could choose to live in Massachusetts or California. If you want little government regulation, low taxes, and few state provided benefits, you could choose to live in Texas or Montana. The idea of the founders was to allow each individual state to choose the level of service and the rate of taxation for their state. American citizens would choose where to live, based in part on state policies. The system works when left alone. The problem is that it is just human nature to interfere. People in Massachusetts think those poor fools in Idaho aren't being treated fairly. They have to pay for their own health care. So they make it their mission to get the federal government involved in Idaho's affairs. Soon, we have 50 (or 57, depending on your sources) states with the same policies and no freedom of choice.
Rand Paul, Republican nominee from Kentucky, has been criticized recently for his comments about 1960's civil rights legislation. His statement was that he does not want it repealed, and if a senator at the time, he would have voted for it. But, as a Libertarian (minimal government), he thinks the market would more effectively and permanently solve the problem of discrimination.
An excellent example of his theory is in, if you know me yet you should have guessed by now....... SPORTS! One of the heroes of the civil rights movement is Jackie Robinson. I would say that everyone knows the Jackie Robinson story by now, but I have very little faith left in the way history, or even what history, is being taught. So, I'll just say that Robinson was the first black athlete in any of the major professional sports in America. If you don't know his story, or just want a little more of his biography, click here. So, what legislation was passed to force baseball to allow Jackie Robinson his chance to become a professional baseball player? Would you believe none?
That's right, no one forced Branch Rickey of the Dodgers to give Robinson a chance. Rickey saw a great talent in Robinson, and a great pool of talent that was only being utilized in the Negro League. Not only would he get a great player and be the first to tap into a large number of talented players, his Dodgers would be the team of choice for a huge market of baseball fans - the black baseball fan. While Branch Rickey may have been a civil rights proponent, his job was to sell tickets and win baseball games. By signing Jackie Robinson, he did both. The following year, Larry Doby was signed by the Cleveland Indians, becoming the first black player in the American League. Soon black and Latino players were common in professional baseball. As I said in yesterday's post, sports is a copycat business. So it wasn't long before other professional sports followed baseball's lead.
The NFL did not enjoy the popularity of baseball and was not considered a major professional sport until the 1960's. So the first black player in the NFL is hardly recognized. Charles Follis played professional football for the Shelby Athletic Club in 1906, or possibly earlier. Black players came and went from football rosters throughout the first half of the 20th century. By the 1960's black players dominated the league. In 1951, the NBA drafted three black players, the most famous being Nat "Sweetwater" Clifton. Again, NBA rosters today are dominated by black players.
So, why did the three major sports in America choose to employ black players years before civil rights legislation would have forced them to do so? They were the most qualified candidates for the position. They helped their employer make money - sell tickets, and be more productive - win games. When the free market system is allowed to work unimpeded, it works as illustrated in sports. People in business, as in sports, are interested in success. They will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Very few successful businessmen will allow a personal prejudice to influence their business decisions. And if they do, the market will eventually eliminate them. Without influence from government regulations.
I like the term, but think that the free market or capitalism refers to much more than just the economy. As I have written before, our entire form of federal government was intended to encourage a free market among states. The federal government is supposed to have extremely limited powers. Policy is supposed to be determined on the state level. For instance, if you want a high tax rate, but a government that also takes care of your health care, retirement benefits, and tightly regulates other aspects of your life, you could choose to live in Massachusetts or California. If you want little government regulation, low taxes, and few state provided benefits, you could choose to live in Texas or Montana. The idea of the founders was to allow each individual state to choose the level of service and the rate of taxation for their state. American citizens would choose where to live, based in part on state policies. The system works when left alone. The problem is that it is just human nature to interfere. People in Massachusetts think those poor fools in Idaho aren't being treated fairly. They have to pay for their own health care. So they make it their mission to get the federal government involved in Idaho's affairs. Soon, we have 50 (or 57, depending on your sources) states with the same policies and no freedom of choice.
Rand Paul, Republican nominee from Kentucky, has been criticized recently for his comments about 1960's civil rights legislation. His statement was that he does not want it repealed, and if a senator at the time, he would have voted for it. But, as a Libertarian (minimal government), he thinks the market would more effectively and permanently solve the problem of discrimination.
An excellent example of his theory is in, if you know me yet you should have guessed by now....... SPORTS! One of the heroes of the civil rights movement is Jackie Robinson. I would say that everyone knows the Jackie Robinson story by now, but I have very little faith left in the way history, or even what history, is being taught. So, I'll just say that Robinson was the first black athlete in any of the major professional sports in America. If you don't know his story, or just want a little more of his biography, click here. So, what legislation was passed to force baseball to allow Jackie Robinson his chance to become a professional baseball player? Would you believe none?
That's right, no one forced Branch Rickey of the Dodgers to give Robinson a chance. Rickey saw a great talent in Robinson, and a great pool of talent that was only being utilized in the Negro League. Not only would he get a great player and be the first to tap into a large number of talented players, his Dodgers would be the team of choice for a huge market of baseball fans - the black baseball fan. While Branch Rickey may have been a civil rights proponent, his job was to sell tickets and win baseball games. By signing Jackie Robinson, he did both. The following year, Larry Doby was signed by the Cleveland Indians, becoming the first black player in the American League. Soon black and Latino players were common in professional baseball. As I said in yesterday's post, sports is a copycat business. So it wasn't long before other professional sports followed baseball's lead.
The NFL did not enjoy the popularity of baseball and was not considered a major professional sport until the 1960's. So the first black player in the NFL is hardly recognized. Charles Follis played professional football for the Shelby Athletic Club in 1906, or possibly earlier. Black players came and went from football rosters throughout the first half of the 20th century. By the 1960's black players dominated the league. In 1951, the NBA drafted three black players, the most famous being Nat "Sweetwater" Clifton. Again, NBA rosters today are dominated by black players.
So, why did the three major sports in America choose to employ black players years before civil rights legislation would have forced them to do so? They were the most qualified candidates for the position. They helped their employer make money - sell tickets, and be more productive - win games. When the free market system is allowed to work unimpeded, it works as illustrated in sports. People in business, as in sports, are interested in success. They will do whatever is necessary to succeed. Very few successful businessmen will allow a personal prejudice to influence their business decisions. And if they do, the market will eventually eliminate them. Without influence from government regulations.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Life as Sport
Fans are constantly reminded that the NBA, or NFL, or whatever league is a copycat league. In the mid 1970's, Tom Landry brings back the shotgun formation to the NFL. Soon every team in the league is using the formation. Jerry Glanville used a maximum pressure defense with his "Grits Blitz" philosophy in Atlanta. Soon Mike Ditka's Bears are dominating the league with their pressure 46 defense. In baseball, teams have tried with varying degrees of success to copy Billy Beane's "Moneyball" style of management to build teams on a budget.
Pat Riley won three championships with the Lakers before moving on to the New York Knicks. His New York team did not have the talent Riley was accustomed to coaching, so he moved to a defensive philosophy. His Knick teams were built around an aggressive, very physical defense. Their philosophy boiled down to "foul them on every possession. The referees, not only won't call every foul, but they will soon call fewer fouls as they become accustomed to the physical play. It was a variation of the Overton Window theory I wrote about a couple of months ago. Riley's Knicks were successful, at least until they ran into either Jordan's Bulls or Olajuwon's Rockets in the playoffs.
A few years later, Bill Belichick used the same tactic to beat the St. Louis Rams in the Super Bowl. The Rams used their high powered passing offense, known as the "Greatest Show on Turf," to win a Super Bowl and were favored to beat Belichick's Patriots. Belichick knew his defensive backs were no match for the Ram's speed receivers, so his defensive backs held the Ram's receivers on virtually every play. After a couple of calls, the referees stopped calling the violation. The Ram receivers were frustrated and the Patriots won a close game.
Our president is an admitted sports fan. He learned the lessons of Belichick and Riley. Just keep hitting the public with outrageous tax after outrageous policy after outrageous decision and soon we will stop calling him on it. Remember the outrage when the stimulus package was passed with no Republican support? Followed by an outright takeover of the largest automaker in the nation? Followed by "the police acted stupidly" comment? Followed by an "apology tour" of the middle east? Followed by the health care takeover? Followed by public condemnation of Arizona's "misguided" immigration law (that neither he nor his attorney general had yet read)? Followed by a lack of interest in helping the Louisiana governor prepare for the arrival of oil from the worst environmental accident in U.S. history? Followed by a drilling moratorium that will cost the same regions affected by the spill thousands of jobs and millions of dollars? Now, about to be followed by a cap and trade, energy independence, clean energy, whatever they are calling it today, legislation that will effectively take over the energy industry in the country. Rumored to soon be followed by turning against Israel and its right to defend itself against terrorist neighbors.
We are the referees. We can't let this administration keep getting away with the violations of our rights and principles. We've got to keep blowing the whistle until they stop.
Pat Riley won three championships with the Lakers before moving on to the New York Knicks. His New York team did not have the talent Riley was accustomed to coaching, so he moved to a defensive philosophy. His Knick teams were built around an aggressive, very physical defense. Their philosophy boiled down to "foul them on every possession. The referees, not only won't call every foul, but they will soon call fewer fouls as they become accustomed to the physical play. It was a variation of the Overton Window theory I wrote about a couple of months ago. Riley's Knicks were successful, at least until they ran into either Jordan's Bulls or Olajuwon's Rockets in the playoffs.
A few years later, Bill Belichick used the same tactic to beat the St. Louis Rams in the Super Bowl. The Rams used their high powered passing offense, known as the "Greatest Show on Turf," to win a Super Bowl and were favored to beat Belichick's Patriots. Belichick knew his defensive backs were no match for the Ram's speed receivers, so his defensive backs held the Ram's receivers on virtually every play. After a couple of calls, the referees stopped calling the violation. The Ram receivers were frustrated and the Patriots won a close game.
Our president is an admitted sports fan. He learned the lessons of Belichick and Riley. Just keep hitting the public with outrageous tax after outrageous policy after outrageous decision and soon we will stop calling him on it. Remember the outrage when the stimulus package was passed with no Republican support? Followed by an outright takeover of the largest automaker in the nation? Followed by "the police acted stupidly" comment? Followed by an "apology tour" of the middle east? Followed by the health care takeover? Followed by public condemnation of Arizona's "misguided" immigration law (that neither he nor his attorney general had yet read)? Followed by a lack of interest in helping the Louisiana governor prepare for the arrival of oil from the worst environmental accident in U.S. history? Followed by a drilling moratorium that will cost the same regions affected by the spill thousands of jobs and millions of dollars? Now, about to be followed by a cap and trade, energy independence, clean energy, whatever they are calling it today, legislation that will effectively take over the energy industry in the country. Rumored to soon be followed by turning against Israel and its right to defend itself against terrorist neighbors.
We are the referees. We can't let this administration keep getting away with the violations of our rights and principles. We've got to keep blowing the whistle until they stop.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Got a Funny Feeling?
Survival books, whether they be outdoor survival, or about surviving in the city, tell you to trust your instincts. We can all sense danger, it's just that we usually ignore our instincts. As Americans, we trust until we are given a reason not to trust. That makes us easy targets for everything from e-mails from Nicaraguan check-cashing scams, to 9/11 terrorists taking flying lessons in our country. Or for that matter, immigrants entering our country illegally, counting on us to let them stay. Our trust makes us an easy target.
So, let's put a couple of things in writing and see if it gives us a "funny" feeling. I'm not even going to list all our president's socialist/communist/maoist advisers. That's so old that we don't even get any feeling about it. So let's start with the president's reaction to the incident involving the D.C. police and Harvard professor Gates. When asked for a reaction, President Obama said, "I don't have any details, but it is apparent that the police acted stupidly." I don't have any facts, but I have a strong opinion anyway. Kind of funny coming from the most powerful leader in the free world, huh?
President Obama on his cap and trade legislation, changed to green job creation legislation, now changed to American energy independence legislation: "under my plan, the cost of electricity would necessarily skyrocket." What politician in their right mind would say his plans would make any utility cost, not just increase, but "skyrocket?" Seems like he is not worried about our support. It's like the issue has already been decided. And why would he want it to take effect during the worst recession of the lifetime of the average American and before an already hotly contested midterm election? A little funny, huh? Then we learn that the president was the conduit for the Joyce Foundation's grant to start the only energy exchange in the United States, and that he worked on the grant while still an unknown state senator. A little funny. A little, very little actually, research is required to learn that other investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange are a company with Al Gore on the board (An Inconvenient Truth, huh Al?); a bank, Goldman Sachs, who not only was a major contributor to the economic recession, but also received huge taxpayer funded bailouts; and several of the board members of the Chicago Climate Exchange came from Goldman Sachs. Funny.
Exxon-Mobil decided a couple of years ago not to form a separate department to do research for alternate forms of energy. They decided it was best to do what they have always done, look for oil. Seeing how fast the world is changing, it seemed a little funny that they would not at least hedge their bets by starting to adapt to future alternative energy demands. Fuji Films and Kodak are examples of how quickly an established company can go from the top to broke by not being on the leading edge of innovation. But Exxon-Mobil seemed oblivious to the danger of falling behind. Funny.
One of the president's first acts when he took office was to freeze leasing on shallow water offshore oil drilling, and a federal takeover, or much tighter restrictions of western land where drilling was planned, or already taking place. No freeze on deepwater drilling though. Oil companies complained a little, but were strangely quieter than you would expect about the restrictions. Some just adapted and went to more deepwater drilling projects. Now we all know what happened with British Petroleum's well in the Gulf of Mexico. Strangely enough, the president was very reasonable in his early reaction. He said BP would be responsible for the clean-up and loss of business revenue caused by the explosion and leak. Again, strangely enough, BP has seemed relatively unconcerned about the cost of the lost rig, its eleven employees killed, the loss of sales of a minimum 5000 barrels of oil a day, at $70+ per barrel for more than 40 days and counting, that turns into real money pretty quickly. Kind of funny how calm and reasonable BP has been about this loss, and the potential cost of the clean up. Funny too how unconcerned about the huge decline in their stock market value they have been.
Now, all offshore drilling leases have been frozen for a minimum of 6 months. Effectively a minimum of a year for projects off the coast of Alaska where many projects had been planned. Land-based drilling restrictions still have not been eased to compensate. The cap and trade bill in the senate has now been re-named an American Energy Independence bill, and it still will cause costs to skyrocket. But little to no complaints or comments from the media or oil companies like Exxon-Mobil or British Petroleum who would potentially be hurt the most by the legislation. Funny.
The Chicago Climate Exchange estimates business transactions of $10 trillion a year if the legislation passes. They stand to make a boatload, make that an oil tankerload, of money if the legislation passes. Yet, only a couple of days after the Canadian Free Press ran stories showing the suspicious links of the Exchange to the president, his backers and advisers, to Goldman Sachs, to Al Gore, and more, the founders of the Exchange sold their controlling interest. Funny. Sold their interest to an Atlanta based company called Intercontinental Exchange (ICE on the New York Stock Exchange). Thirty minutes on their site and a couple of business news sites and you will learn that major shareholders in ICE include Exxon-Mobil. Funny. British Petroleum holds a large share. That's funny. Why isn't MSNBC investigating? General Electric holds a big piece of ICE. General Electric owns all the NBC networks. Now that's funny.
For as long as I can remember, oil prices have gone up around Memorial Day, as Americans hit the road for summer vacations. Oil prices traditionally go up when hurricane season arrives in June and potentially threatens to interfere with our coastal refineries and oil shipments. Oil prices always go up with increased regulation, like the recent offshore freezes by the president. Oil prices always go up when tension in the middle east increases, like it has with the recent incident with Israel blockade of Gaza. So, in the past 60 days, we have had the worst offshore drilling accident in U.S. history, followed by tightened government restrictions, followed by the arrival of summer vacation season, followed by the start of hurricane season in the Gulf, topped off by extreme tension in the middle east. Oil prices have gone down in that time. That's funny.
That's just the oil-related funny feelings. Throw in the funny worldwide and media reaction to Israel's defending itself against terrorist organizations whose goal is the absolute annihilation of Israel. Add the president's funny labeling of Arizona's immigration law as "misguided" before he, his attorney general, his Homeland Security secretary, or anyone else in the administration had even read it. Add the continued criticism of the law even though an estimated 65% of Americans and over 70% of registered voters nationwide support the law. Add the passage of a health care law that over 60% of registered voters oppose; a bill whose cost upon analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office keeps going up. And finally add the seeming indifference to an unemployment rate staying near 10%, even with funny hiring practices by the Census department reducing the number of unemployed temporarily.
We should have a very funny feeling about all this. Either they have another crisis planned that they will take advantage of to keep and increase their control, or this Democratic/Progressive Congress and President are the political equivalent of a suicide bomber that is just trying to do as much damage and leave as big a hole as possible when all this blows up. I have a funny feeling that a large hole is not their goal.
So, let's put a couple of things in writing and see if it gives us a "funny" feeling. I'm not even going to list all our president's socialist/communist/maoist advisers. That's so old that we don't even get any feeling about it. So let's start with the president's reaction to the incident involving the D.C. police and Harvard professor Gates. When asked for a reaction, President Obama said, "I don't have any details, but it is apparent that the police acted stupidly." I don't have any facts, but I have a strong opinion anyway. Kind of funny coming from the most powerful leader in the free world, huh?
President Obama on his cap and trade legislation, changed to green job creation legislation, now changed to American energy independence legislation: "under my plan, the cost of electricity would necessarily skyrocket." What politician in their right mind would say his plans would make any utility cost, not just increase, but "skyrocket?" Seems like he is not worried about our support. It's like the issue has already been decided. And why would he want it to take effect during the worst recession of the lifetime of the average American and before an already hotly contested midterm election? A little funny, huh? Then we learn that the president was the conduit for the Joyce Foundation's grant to start the only energy exchange in the United States, and that he worked on the grant while still an unknown state senator. A little funny. A little, very little actually, research is required to learn that other investors in the Chicago Climate Exchange are a company with Al Gore on the board (An Inconvenient Truth, huh Al?); a bank, Goldman Sachs, who not only was a major contributor to the economic recession, but also received huge taxpayer funded bailouts; and several of the board members of the Chicago Climate Exchange came from Goldman Sachs. Funny.
Exxon-Mobil decided a couple of years ago not to form a separate department to do research for alternate forms of energy. They decided it was best to do what they have always done, look for oil. Seeing how fast the world is changing, it seemed a little funny that they would not at least hedge their bets by starting to adapt to future alternative energy demands. Fuji Films and Kodak are examples of how quickly an established company can go from the top to broke by not being on the leading edge of innovation. But Exxon-Mobil seemed oblivious to the danger of falling behind. Funny.
One of the president's first acts when he took office was to freeze leasing on shallow water offshore oil drilling, and a federal takeover, or much tighter restrictions of western land where drilling was planned, or already taking place. No freeze on deepwater drilling though. Oil companies complained a little, but were strangely quieter than you would expect about the restrictions. Some just adapted and went to more deepwater drilling projects. Now we all know what happened with British Petroleum's well in the Gulf of Mexico. Strangely enough, the president was very reasonable in his early reaction. He said BP would be responsible for the clean-up and loss of business revenue caused by the explosion and leak. Again, strangely enough, BP has seemed relatively unconcerned about the cost of the lost rig, its eleven employees killed, the loss of sales of a minimum 5000 barrels of oil a day, at $70+ per barrel for more than 40 days and counting, that turns into real money pretty quickly. Kind of funny how calm and reasonable BP has been about this loss, and the potential cost of the clean up. Funny too how unconcerned about the huge decline in their stock market value they have been.
Now, all offshore drilling leases have been frozen for a minimum of 6 months. Effectively a minimum of a year for projects off the coast of Alaska where many projects had been planned. Land-based drilling restrictions still have not been eased to compensate. The cap and trade bill in the senate has now been re-named an American Energy Independence bill, and it still will cause costs to skyrocket. But little to no complaints or comments from the media or oil companies like Exxon-Mobil or British Petroleum who would potentially be hurt the most by the legislation. Funny.
The Chicago Climate Exchange estimates business transactions of $10 trillion a year if the legislation passes. They stand to make a boatload, make that an oil tankerload, of money if the legislation passes. Yet, only a couple of days after the Canadian Free Press ran stories showing the suspicious links of the Exchange to the president, his backers and advisers, to Goldman Sachs, to Al Gore, and more, the founders of the Exchange sold their controlling interest. Funny. Sold their interest to an Atlanta based company called Intercontinental Exchange (ICE on the New York Stock Exchange). Thirty minutes on their site and a couple of business news sites and you will learn that major shareholders in ICE include Exxon-Mobil. Funny. British Petroleum holds a large share. That's funny. Why isn't MSNBC investigating? General Electric holds a big piece of ICE. General Electric owns all the NBC networks. Now that's funny.
For as long as I can remember, oil prices have gone up around Memorial Day, as Americans hit the road for summer vacations. Oil prices traditionally go up when hurricane season arrives in June and potentially threatens to interfere with our coastal refineries and oil shipments. Oil prices always go up with increased regulation, like the recent offshore freezes by the president. Oil prices always go up when tension in the middle east increases, like it has with the recent incident with Israel blockade of Gaza. So, in the past 60 days, we have had the worst offshore drilling accident in U.S. history, followed by tightened government restrictions, followed by the arrival of summer vacation season, followed by the start of hurricane season in the Gulf, topped off by extreme tension in the middle east. Oil prices have gone down in that time. That's funny.
That's just the oil-related funny feelings. Throw in the funny worldwide and media reaction to Israel's defending itself against terrorist organizations whose goal is the absolute annihilation of Israel. Add the president's funny labeling of Arizona's immigration law as "misguided" before he, his attorney general, his Homeland Security secretary, or anyone else in the administration had even read it. Add the continued criticism of the law even though an estimated 65% of Americans and over 70% of registered voters nationwide support the law. Add the passage of a health care law that over 60% of registered voters oppose; a bill whose cost upon analysis by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office keeps going up. And finally add the seeming indifference to an unemployment rate staying near 10%, even with funny hiring practices by the Census department reducing the number of unemployed temporarily.
We should have a very funny feeling about all this. Either they have another crisis planned that they will take advantage of to keep and increase their control, or this Democratic/Progressive Congress and President are the political equivalent of a suicide bomber that is just trying to do as much damage and leave as big a hole as possible when all this blows up. I have a funny feeling that a large hole is not their goal.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Tell Me, Who Are You?
Here's my daily football reference. The featured band at this past year's Super Bowl was The Who. Thanks to CSI on television, their most well-known song is Who Are You. That's a question we should be hearing a lot between now and November's elections.
I read a lot of news and opinions from sites as diverse as Big Government and The Huffington Post. Even more informative than the articles themselves are the comments that follow. On one site, you will see a lot of "Obama's the anti-christ" type comments. Of course on the other, they claim that it's all Bush's fault, you racist! Read enough of the comments, and you really start to worry about where our country is heading, and even more importantly, why our politicians are encouraging the division. There is very little discussion of the topic. Mainly a lot of name-calling. Both sides of our national arguments strongly believe they are right, and that the other side is stupid, evil, or possibly just stupidly evil.
In the past four months or so, I have become a Glenn Beck fan. The thing that first attracted me to his show was his level-headedness. He would lay out the facts, tell his listeners to check them out for themselves, and then decide for themselves. He has never, at least that I have heard, read, or seen, said that our president or his supporters were evil. Beck has repeatedly said that they have an agenda for the transformation of America. That happens to be a progressive/socialist agenda and they have been very upfront about their intentions, but only if you are listening. The progressives truly believe that their plan is what is best for America. Beck has also said that he believed that when he laid out the facts, the national media would take the story and run with it and the American public would wake up. Well, the national media has not covered the story. They seem to be part of the progressive/socialist movement. So then Beck laid out the connections between the media (GE-owned NBC networks), the president, Al Gore, Fannie Mae, the economic collapse, the global warming hoax, the cap and trade legislation, and the trillions of dollars the legislation would bring to each of them. Still no public outrage.
So, for the sake of comparison, say you see flames bursting out of the upstairs window of a crowded theater. You run inside yelling "fire!!!" Only a few patrons glance your direction. So you yell louder. Still no response. You run outside, take a picture with your handy dandy cell phone camera. Run back inside, waving the photo over your head, while still screaming "fire" at the top of your lungs. When only a couple of patrons follow you outside, you get mad. Now, instead of trying to inform the movie-goers of the danger they are in, you start name-calling. "Moron" comes to mind. How can they not see the peril. They just must be stupid. Maybe in reality, they are very cold-natured. Burning the theater for warmth is the best idea they have. They truly believe you are a conspiracy theory loving idiot; they are not trying to kill everyone. A really big fire is the best way to get warm.
Ok, it's a stretch. But that's where we are as a nation. While Beck and others are yelling "socialism, you idiots," Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, and NBC are yelling, "we know, you idiots!" We've got stop the name-calling and birth certificate checking and educate ourselves and those great masses of uninformed about what is really at stake. Progressive sounds good. We all like progress, right? Well, kind of like the change we were promised, we'd better find out what we are progressing toward. History does not paint a very pretty picture of past socialist movements.
And history is what we all need to learn. A big part of the country is waking up to the fact that the progressive movement began to change our history almost a century ago. The changes to the Texas curriculum could be a start in the change back to the truth. David Barton was part of the board that made the changes. Check out his book, Original Intent for the real history of our founders, especially their belief that they were led by God. As Barton says repeatedly, the founders were Christians. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The founders did not believe in government sponsoring a religion, but neither was religion banned from government.
Another extremely hot topic is race. So, take a look at Barton's American History in Black and White. It tells the true roles of black Americans in the formation of our country, starting with patriots who were instrumental in the winning of the revolution. The 3/5 compromise (slaves only counted as 3/5 a citizen in deciding representation in Congress) was a powerful anti-slavery provision. That's not Barton's opinion, Glenn Beck's, or mine. That's the opinion of Frederick Douglas. Just in case you went to public school between 1980 and today, Douglas was a former slave and abolitionist leader who became great friends with Abraham Lincoln. At first glance, it looks like the founders believed that blacks should not count as a whole person. Then think logically. When counting population to determine representation, southern slave states wanted slaves counted. Northern states said, they count when freed. Southern states threatened not to sign the Constitution, so a 3/5 compromise was reached. Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and John and Samuel Adams believed that slaves would be eventually freed in response to the free market and in order to increase southern states' representation. But counting slaves for representation would only tilt the congress toward making slavery permanent. When was the civil rights bill first passed? How about during the Grant (R) administration. Some was overthrown by courts, then the rest repealed by the Wilson (D) administration. Who re-introduced it? Eisenhower (R) re-introduced it. It never made it out of a Democratic senate. Kennedy(D) and Johnson(D) both voted against it. The vast majority of Americans believe that Republicans have consistently fought against rights for minorities and that Democrats have been leaders in the fight for equality. At least since President Lincoln (R) got it all started. But we all know that he would be a Democrat today!
Those are just some of the things that were taught at one time. We need to learn why the texts were changed and make sure all Americans know true American history. Americans need to make informed decisions at the next election. We need to know who we are and where we want to go. We can't again vote for change without asking "change to what?" Obama's idea of what America is, is not my idea of what America is.
Glenn Beck is very good at distilling issues to their core. On his television show today, he said Americans need to look to the summer of 1969. Are we the Americans that went to the moon? Or are we the Americans who, three weeks after the moon landing, rolled in the mud smoking pot at Woodstock? As Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who (they played at Woodstock by the way) asked, "Who are you?"
I read a lot of news and opinions from sites as diverse as Big Government and The Huffington Post. Even more informative than the articles themselves are the comments that follow. On one site, you will see a lot of "Obama's the anti-christ" type comments. Of course on the other, they claim that it's all Bush's fault, you racist! Read enough of the comments, and you really start to worry about where our country is heading, and even more importantly, why our politicians are encouraging the division. There is very little discussion of the topic. Mainly a lot of name-calling. Both sides of our national arguments strongly believe they are right, and that the other side is stupid, evil, or possibly just stupidly evil.
In the past four months or so, I have become a Glenn Beck fan. The thing that first attracted me to his show was his level-headedness. He would lay out the facts, tell his listeners to check them out for themselves, and then decide for themselves. He has never, at least that I have heard, read, or seen, said that our president or his supporters were evil. Beck has repeatedly said that they have an agenda for the transformation of America. That happens to be a progressive/socialist agenda and they have been very upfront about their intentions, but only if you are listening. The progressives truly believe that their plan is what is best for America. Beck has also said that he believed that when he laid out the facts, the national media would take the story and run with it and the American public would wake up. Well, the national media has not covered the story. They seem to be part of the progressive/socialist movement. So then Beck laid out the connections between the media (GE-owned NBC networks), the president, Al Gore, Fannie Mae, the economic collapse, the global warming hoax, the cap and trade legislation, and the trillions of dollars the legislation would bring to each of them. Still no public outrage.
So, for the sake of comparison, say you see flames bursting out of the upstairs window of a crowded theater. You run inside yelling "fire!!!" Only a few patrons glance your direction. So you yell louder. Still no response. You run outside, take a picture with your handy dandy cell phone camera. Run back inside, waving the photo over your head, while still screaming "fire" at the top of your lungs. When only a couple of patrons follow you outside, you get mad. Now, instead of trying to inform the movie-goers of the danger they are in, you start name-calling. "Moron" comes to mind. How can they not see the peril. They just must be stupid. Maybe in reality, they are very cold-natured. Burning the theater for warmth is the best idea they have. They truly believe you are a conspiracy theory loving idiot; they are not trying to kill everyone. A really big fire is the best way to get warm.
Ok, it's a stretch. But that's where we are as a nation. While Beck and others are yelling "socialism, you idiots," Obama, Ayers, Van Jones, and NBC are yelling, "we know, you idiots!" We've got stop the name-calling and birth certificate checking and educate ourselves and those great masses of uninformed about what is really at stake. Progressive sounds good. We all like progress, right? Well, kind of like the change we were promised, we'd better find out what we are progressing toward. History does not paint a very pretty picture of past socialist movements.
And history is what we all need to learn. A big part of the country is waking up to the fact that the progressive movement began to change our history almost a century ago. The changes to the Texas curriculum could be a start in the change back to the truth. David Barton was part of the board that made the changes. Check out his book, Original Intent for the real history of our founders, especially their belief that they were led by God. As Barton says repeatedly, the founders were Christians. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The founders did not believe in government sponsoring a religion, but neither was religion banned from government.
Another extremely hot topic is race. So, take a look at Barton's American History in Black and White. It tells the true roles of black Americans in the formation of our country, starting with patriots who were instrumental in the winning of the revolution. The 3/5 compromise (slaves only counted as 3/5 a citizen in deciding representation in Congress) was a powerful anti-slavery provision. That's not Barton's opinion, Glenn Beck's, or mine. That's the opinion of Frederick Douglas. Just in case you went to public school between 1980 and today, Douglas was a former slave and abolitionist leader who became great friends with Abraham Lincoln. At first glance, it looks like the founders believed that blacks should not count as a whole person. Then think logically. When counting population to determine representation, southern slave states wanted slaves counted. Northern states said, they count when freed. Southern states threatened not to sign the Constitution, so a 3/5 compromise was reached. Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and John and Samuel Adams believed that slaves would be eventually freed in response to the free market and in order to increase southern states' representation. But counting slaves for representation would only tilt the congress toward making slavery permanent. When was the civil rights bill first passed? How about during the Grant (R) administration. Some was overthrown by courts, then the rest repealed by the Wilson (D) administration. Who re-introduced it? Eisenhower (R) re-introduced it. It never made it out of a Democratic senate. Kennedy(D) and Johnson(D) both voted against it. The vast majority of Americans believe that Republicans have consistently fought against rights for minorities and that Democrats have been leaders in the fight for equality. At least since President Lincoln (R) got it all started. But we all know that he would be a Democrat today!
Those are just some of the things that were taught at one time. We need to learn why the texts were changed and make sure all Americans know true American history. Americans need to make informed decisions at the next election. We need to know who we are and where we want to go. We can't again vote for change without asking "change to what?" Obama's idea of what America is, is not my idea of what America is.
Glenn Beck is very good at distilling issues to their core. On his television show today, he said Americans need to look to the summer of 1969. Are we the Americans that went to the moon? Or are we the Americans who, three weeks after the moon landing, rolled in the mud smoking pot at Woodstock? As Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey of The Who (they played at Woodstock by the way) asked, "Who are you?"
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Capitalist Frogs
Most of us know the story about how to boil a frog. Toss a live frog in boiling water, and it will jump right back out. Even a frog's not stupid. Put a frog in a pot of warm water, and it's comfortable. When you turn on the burner under the pot, it adjusts to the slowly heating water. And stays perfectly comfortable as it is boiled to death.
Woodrow Wilson threw our capitalist society into the boiling water. Americans, being at least as smart as your average tail-less amphibean, jumped out of that pot. When FDR cranked up the heat, only because of the emergency brought on by the depression and then World War II, Americans endured the heat because it seemed to be the right thing to do. But as soon as the twin crises passed, the country jumped out and swore that we'd never get back in!
So, we sat in our pot of water, perfectly comfortable in our little free enterprise beliefs. Soon, our elected officials suggested that we subsidize farmers. You know, pay them to not grow crops while the land recovered. Kind of goes against free enterprise principles, but the water's fine, so a little heat can't hurt. Minorities and women have been held down by our system for years, so let's give them a little help getting started. I know, a real free market would eventually reward them if their work was worthwhile. But that would take too long. They deserve a break. The water's barely warm, turn the heat up just a little. No problem.
Nuclear power's really clean and we will never run out of it. But wow, it's really expensive and innefficient. Let's give them a little government money to get started. The market will eventually catch up to our wisdom and pay us all back. Turn up that burner a little more. Well, the earth's getting a little toowarm cold warm, we need some friendly energy. Let's give a little tax money to solar panel makers and windmill generators. Just to get them
started. Getting warm yet?
Those darn rich Americans aren't giving their money to ACORN like they should. Give them some tax money. And then finally, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Bank of America, those guys are all too big to fail. We'd better throw boatloads of tax money at them, or free enterprise will fall apart. Now, it's definitely getting hot!
The water finally got hot enough to wake up us free enterprise frogs. We've got to stop the subsidies and let the market decide who succeeds and who fails, from the doughnut shop on the corner all the way to the state level. If Krispy Kreme knocks Sunshine out of the market, so be it. Don't toss loads of money to Sunshine to keep them afloat. If California keeps going further and further into debt to pay retirement benefits for 50 year old retirees, don't give them federal money to keep putting solar panels on their schools. If $1000 of each Government Motors vehicle sale goes to retired union members, don't buy that Impala, unless of course, their car is $1000 better than the competition's. And our tax dollars better not go to bail them out!
A recent poll showed that just over 25% of respondents don't know that subsidies, bailouts, and welfare checks come from the taxpayers! They think the government just has extra money laying around. The report did not say how many of these 25% were actually members of congress. Ribbit.
Woodrow Wilson threw our capitalist society into the boiling water. Americans, being at least as smart as your average tail-less amphibean, jumped out of that pot. When FDR cranked up the heat, only because of the emergency brought on by the depression and then World War II, Americans endured the heat because it seemed to be the right thing to do. But as soon as the twin crises passed, the country jumped out and swore that we'd never get back in!
So, we sat in our pot of water, perfectly comfortable in our little free enterprise beliefs. Soon, our elected officials suggested that we subsidize farmers. You know, pay them to not grow crops while the land recovered. Kind of goes against free enterprise principles, but the water's fine, so a little heat can't hurt. Minorities and women have been held down by our system for years, so let's give them a little help getting started. I know, a real free market would eventually reward them if their work was worthwhile. But that would take too long. They deserve a break. The water's barely warm, turn the heat up just a little. No problem.
Nuclear power's really clean and we will never run out of it. But wow, it's really expensive and innefficient. Let's give them a little government money to get started. The market will eventually catch up to our wisdom and pay us all back. Turn up that burner a little more. Well, the earth's getting a little too
started. Getting warm yet?
Those darn rich Americans aren't giving their money to ACORN like they should. Give them some tax money. And then finally, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, Bank of America, those guys are all too big to fail. We'd better throw boatloads of tax money at them, or free enterprise will fall apart. Now, it's definitely getting hot!
The water finally got hot enough to wake up us free enterprise frogs. We've got to stop the subsidies and let the market decide who succeeds and who fails, from the doughnut shop on the corner all the way to the state level. If Krispy Kreme knocks Sunshine out of the market, so be it. Don't toss loads of money to Sunshine to keep them afloat. If California keeps going further and further into debt to pay retirement benefits for 50 year old retirees, don't give them federal money to keep putting solar panels on their schools. If $1000 of each Government Motors vehicle sale goes to retired union members, don't buy that Impala, unless of course, their car is $1000 better than the competition's. And our tax dollars better not go to bail them out!
A recent poll showed that just over 25% of respondents don't know that subsidies, bailouts, and welfare checks come from the taxpayers! They think the government just has extra money laying around. The report did not say how many of these 25% were actually members of congress. Ribbit.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Barack Hussein Obama is a Jewish Mother??
A commentary on the average American's response to Arizona's new immigration law quoted poll results from Newsweek illustrating that Americans overwhelmingly support Arizona's position. The question was phrased in several different ways. In the different versions of the question, Americans' support of the law ranged from 65% to 78%. The lowest positive rate was of the question, "would you support your state passing a similar law. "Only" 58% answered yes. So, why is everyone in the Obama administration criticizing the law, without ever reading it? What is their goal? In an already contentious mid-term election year, when most experts predict Democrats losing control of at least one branch of congress, why fly into the face of such overwhelming public opinion?
At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother. You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children? "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day. I know you are busy and all. I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule. I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."
The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way. That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign. Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist. They couldn't question his choice of religion. So what if he is a Muslim? They couldn't question his choice of a pastor. So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God? They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers. His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him. They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America." They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator. Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism. Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words." And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.
Now immigration policy is the hot topic. Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law. The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law. It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions. So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality. Without ever reading it! He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!
Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives. His topic? The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law. His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House! And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans. What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments. The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working. Or are they trying to divide the country even further. It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what. So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism. Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment. And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed. So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them. What could be their endgame? The possibilities are a little scary to think about.
Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.
Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up. Just the cities, as the case in most of the country. It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity! Hope that wasn't too racist. I'm feeling a little guilty.
At the risk of sounding racist, I'm going to bring up the stereotypical Jewish mother. You know how they are portrayed as using guilt to get their way with their children? "No, son, you don't have to visit this Mother's day. I know you are busy and all. I wouldn't want to interfere with your hectic schedule. I'm only 98, I'm sure I'll be around for many more Mother's days that I will be able to celebrate with you."
The president's big stick is our collective guilt over slavery, abolished about 145 years ago, by the way. That's why he was never criticized or even challenged during his campaign. Republicans were afraid of being labeled racist. They couldn't question his choice of religion. So what if he is a Muslim? They couldn't question his choice of a pastor. So what if he was a twenty year member of Jeremiah Wright's church that taught, among other outrages, that the 9/11 attacks were justified and even a message from God? They couldn't question his relationship with domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers. His political career started with a meeting in Ayers' basement, but that doesn't mean Obama knew him. They couldn't question his wife's opinion of America when she said "for the first time in my life, I'm proud of America." They couldn't even question his habit of voting "present" as a senator. Any question or challenge was immediately met with charges of racism. Even now, when Tea Party supporters carry signs with slogans such as "I want my country back," they are charged with using racist "code words." And like the Jewish son, we get defensive and give in.
Now immigration policy is the hot topic. Anyone who has read Arizona's law knows that it is only a repeat of current federal law. The law only empowers local and state law enforcement to aid the federal government in enforcing current law. It goes to great lengths to make illegal any type of racial profiling, with strictly worded definitions of restrictions of who can be questioned and why, and punishments for violating those restrictions. So immediately after the law, actually a state bill at the time, was reported on national news, the president publicly called it misguided and requested a department of justice review of its legality. Without ever reading it! He was quickly followed with public condemnations of the law by his attorney general, homeland security secretary, and numerous governors and mayors, most of whom still claim not to have read the law!
Now, last week, the president of Mexico was invited to speak on the floor of the House of Representatives. His topic? The racist components of the United States immigration policy and specifically the Arizona law. His speech was followed by a standing ovation by Democratic members of the House! And remember this is a policy overwhelmingly favored by Americans. What is the progressives' purpose in making these comments. The whole guilt over slavery thing is getting a little tired to most Americans, so if that's the plan, it's obviously not working. Or are they trying to divide the country even further. It is apparent that many Americans will blindly follow the Democratic party no matter what. So they are inclined to believe the charges of racism. Some legal immigrants and minorities are genuinely worried about harassment. And admittedly some have read the law, know that it mirrors federal law, but believe that the federal law should be changed. So at the very least, the progressives seem to be trying to widen a gap between the approximately 60% who oppose them and the 40% who support them. What could be their endgame? The possibilities are a little scary to think about.
Here's a video of Representative McClintock's, a Republican congressman from California, response to Mexican president Calderon's speech last week.
Just to be fair, California gets slammed a lot, but it's obviously not all California that is so completely screwed up. Just the cities, as the case in most of the country. It's just that the rest of us that have to pay for their stupidity! Hope that wasn't too racist. I'm feeling a little guilty.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
My Hometown
On my drive to and from Texas, I had only three unscratched CD's, and no good radio for several hundred miles. So these three CD's got a lot of playing time. One was a collection of my favorites from Bruce Springsteen. I can't remember the name of the music critic of the Dallas Morning News in the 1990's, but he had one of my favorite comments. He said, "when it comes to poets in rock music, there's Bob Dylan and Bruce Springsteen, and then there's many others who wish they were." One of the songs from Springsteen that I love is My Hometown. The song starts with the singer saying, "I'd sit on his lap in that big ol' Buick, Steer as we drove through town. He'd tousle my hair and say son, take a good look around. This is your hometown." The song goes on to describe how the town declines with racial tensions and then the loss of jobs at the textile mill. "Now main street's whitewashed windows and vacant stores. Seems like there ain't nobody wants to come down here no more."
Graham never, at least that I was aware of, had problems with race relations, but there has been plenty of upheaval with loss of jobs. When I was a kid, Graham Magnetics and Hexcel were two of the largest employers in the town. Both closed shortly after I graduated from high school. The other major industry, oil, has seen numerous ups and downs in my lifetime. I drove around downtown and recognized very few stores that still had the same occupants from my childhood. But few had whitewashed windows or were vacant stores. What makes some areas bounce back from hard times, while others wait for the government to come rescue them?
Check out Youtube for videos of Detroit today. Not only is the city practically dead, but there is a sense of hopelessness. None of the stories you hear or the articles you read talk about exciting new plans for developing the abandoned neighborhoods. Everyone seems to be waiting around for, not a hand up, but a handout. Or in the case of one widely circulated video, "get me some of that Obama money." Why?
I think that it is all about the way the people in those cities and industries are educated. Educated not only by their public schools, but by their unions. "The man" is out to get the little guy. "The man" uses the little guy to make million$, then tosses him aside when he's done. The only hope for the little guy is the union. They will stand up to "The man." Oh yeah, be sure to elect democrat/progressives. They work with the unions to make sure you won't be taken advantage of. Of course, the union support will cost you. You will have dues taken out of each check, but it's worth the money. Who else is going to stand up for you? You are helpless on your own. Now the unions have all their candidates in place in Washington D.C. They will take tax dollars out of your check too. But only to pay for programs to protect you when "The man" fires you, takes his million$ and leaves Detroit. Well, GM got its bailout. Chrysler got its dollars. The UAW seems to be doing fine, or at least the union itself is. Not the little guy though. Seems like the union took all its dues and gave them to elect its candidates. The government took its taxes, and bailed out the union with them. Where does that leave the little guy? Trying to survive and mostly seeming to be waiting for their rescue by their beloved unions and caring elected officials.
In contrast, ranchers, farmers, and small oil companies are independent. They go through just as many, if not more, economic ups and downs as any other industry. But they survive and adapt. Businesses close, but a new one steps in. Drilling rigs sit idle for 5, 10 years or more. But as soon as the business climate is healthy again, they are ready to work and thrive again. All the while knowing that just as surely as a boom came, a bust is around the corner. People help each other out when they can, because they realize that soon the tables will turn. They know better than to count on the government or paid unions to rescue them.
It really seems like there are some tumultuous times ahead, as the self-reliant, mostly westerners (not including California or California lite aka Oregon) adapt and recover from the latest hard times. Even in California, it seems that the smaller towns and farming/ranching communities are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately their state politics are dominated by their cities, who like the union dominated areas of the country wait for the payoff from their campaign contributions to bail them out. There seems to be a great divide in the country now about things as basic as who we are, and what kind of country we want to live in. It also seems that our elected officials in Washington are not trying to close this divide, but expand it. We need to figure out why. But first we have to make sure we know who we are, and what America is.
Graham never, at least that I was aware of, had problems with race relations, but there has been plenty of upheaval with loss of jobs. When I was a kid, Graham Magnetics and Hexcel were two of the largest employers in the town. Both closed shortly after I graduated from high school. The other major industry, oil, has seen numerous ups and downs in my lifetime. I drove around downtown and recognized very few stores that still had the same occupants from my childhood. But few had whitewashed windows or were vacant stores. What makes some areas bounce back from hard times, while others wait for the government to come rescue them?
Check out Youtube for videos of Detroit today. Not only is the city practically dead, but there is a sense of hopelessness. None of the stories you hear or the articles you read talk about exciting new plans for developing the abandoned neighborhoods. Everyone seems to be waiting around for, not a hand up, but a handout. Or in the case of one widely circulated video, "get me some of that Obama money." Why?
I think that it is all about the way the people in those cities and industries are educated. Educated not only by their public schools, but by their unions. "The man" is out to get the little guy. "The man" uses the little guy to make million$, then tosses him aside when he's done. The only hope for the little guy is the union. They will stand up to "The man." Oh yeah, be sure to elect democrat/progressives. They work with the unions to make sure you won't be taken advantage of. Of course, the union support will cost you. You will have dues taken out of each check, but it's worth the money. Who else is going to stand up for you? You are helpless on your own. Now the unions have all their candidates in place in Washington D.C. They will take tax dollars out of your check too. But only to pay for programs to protect you when "The man" fires you, takes his million$ and leaves Detroit. Well, GM got its bailout. Chrysler got its dollars. The UAW seems to be doing fine, or at least the union itself is. Not the little guy though. Seems like the union took all its dues and gave them to elect its candidates. The government took its taxes, and bailed out the union with them. Where does that leave the little guy? Trying to survive and mostly seeming to be waiting for their rescue by their beloved unions and caring elected officials.
In contrast, ranchers, farmers, and small oil companies are independent. They go through just as many, if not more, economic ups and downs as any other industry. But they survive and adapt. Businesses close, but a new one steps in. Drilling rigs sit idle for 5, 10 years or more. But as soon as the business climate is healthy again, they are ready to work and thrive again. All the while knowing that just as surely as a boom came, a bust is around the corner. People help each other out when they can, because they realize that soon the tables will turn. They know better than to count on the government or paid unions to rescue them.
It really seems like there are some tumultuous times ahead, as the self-reliant, mostly westerners (not including California or California lite aka Oregon) adapt and recover from the latest hard times. Even in California, it seems that the smaller towns and farming/ranching communities are trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately their state politics are dominated by their cities, who like the union dominated areas of the country wait for the payoff from their campaign contributions to bail them out. There seems to be a great divide in the country now about things as basic as who we are, and what kind of country we want to live in. It also seems that our elected officials in Washington are not trying to close this divide, but expand it. We need to figure out why. But first we have to make sure we know who we are, and what America is.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Pop, Pop, Pop, Pop
Did you hear a pop, pop, pop? Kind of like a series of champagne bottles being opened? That is the sound of the media pulling their collective heads out of their collective.... Maybe I'd better use a light bulb metaphor. So, did you see a few small lights coming on the past ten days or so?
A couple of weeks ago, in the Sunday Denver Post, I read an editorial. The writer, whose name I can't remember, wrote about his surprise about local politics. He quoted several stories from local meetings and elections. He was surprised that even with all the distrust of Washington, especially here in the west, most people actually feel pretty good about their local government. Several of his stories even involved raising local taxes for local issues. His point was that people are willing to pay for what is important to them. If it is handled locally. Sound familiar? Constitutional even? It is easy to trust people you see everyday, whether you voted for them or not. And on the flip side of the equation, it is hard to take advantage of constituents that you see frequently. You don't steal from, or over-tax people you know, or people you have to answer to. The writer quotes former speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, "All politics are local." A slightly less complex version of Jefferson's creed,
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government.
Pop. Pop.
Last week three of the four editorials in the Sunday Denver Post were about the importance of local control of issues, not federal.
Pop. Pop. Pop.
Monday night, Brian Williams from NBC news, appeared on David Letterman. He said that he felt the huge swing in the stock market last week had nothing to do with "fat fingers" or automated trading or any of the other official explanations given by analysts. He said that all that was showing on monitors all over Wall Street was news video of the riots in Greece. He said that he had the same sick feeling he had on 9/11.
Pop. Pop. Pop.
Today's New York Times, yes, THE New York Times, you know None "of the news that's fit to print." That New York Times. They ran a story about the parallels between the path the current administration and its leaders (yes, leaders, not followers) are taking our country down and the situation in Greece that led to the current union-led violence. Of course, the article never mentioned unions. Some heads are buried so deep, it'll take some pulling to get them out.
Keep listening for the pops. I mean looking for the dim bulbs to brighten.
A couple of weeks ago, in the Sunday Denver Post, I read an editorial. The writer, whose name I can't remember, wrote about his surprise about local politics. He quoted several stories from local meetings and elections. He was surprised that even with all the distrust of Washington, especially here in the west, most people actually feel pretty good about their local government. Several of his stories even involved raising local taxes for local issues. His point was that people are willing to pay for what is important to them. If it is handled locally. Sound familiar? Constitutional even? It is easy to trust people you see everyday, whether you voted for them or not. And on the flip side of the equation, it is hard to take advantage of constituents that you see frequently. You don't steal from, or over-tax people you know, or people you have to answer to. The writer quotes former speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill, "All politics are local." A slightly less complex version of Jefferson's creed,
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government.
Pop. Pop.
Last week three of the four editorials in the Sunday Denver Post were about the importance of local control of issues, not federal.
Pop. Pop. Pop.
Monday night, Brian Williams from NBC news, appeared on David Letterman. He said that he felt the huge swing in the stock market last week had nothing to do with "fat fingers" or automated trading or any of the other official explanations given by analysts. He said that all that was showing on monitors all over Wall Street was news video of the riots in Greece. He said that he had the same sick feeling he had on 9/11.
Pop. Pop. Pop.
Today's New York Times, yes, THE New York Times, you know None "of the news that's fit to print." That New York Times. They ran a story about the parallels between the path the current administration and its leaders (yes, leaders, not followers) are taking our country down and the situation in Greece that led to the current union-led violence. Of course, the article never mentioned unions. Some heads are buried so deep, it'll take some pulling to get them out.
Keep listening for the pops. I mean looking for the dim bulbs to brighten.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Catching up
My vacation started this week. I traveled to Texas to visit family. Driving always gives me time to think. My big discovery on this drive was that I have become one of the old people in hotels. You know the old people that are up in the room next door, taking a shower while you are trying to sleep in?
Well, I was wide awake,taking a shower, and watching Sportscenter at 3:30 in the morning. Luckily the rooms on each side of me were filled with high school age kids that were celebrating graduation. Teens could sleep through Armageddon, so I didn't disturb anyone when I left at 4 to finally get my photos of the Cadillac ranch.
Well, I was wide awake,taking a shower, and watching Sportscenter at 3:30 in the morning. Luckily the rooms on each side of me were filled with high school age kids that were celebrating graduation. Teens could sleep through Armageddon, so I didn't disturb anyone when I left at 4 to finally get my photos of the Cadillac ranch.
Especially in the dark, the Cadillacs are barely recognizeable as Cadillacs. The grafitti is the only interesting feature left. It does make photography for a challenge, when they are for a family audience. The ranch was originally in a site a couple of miles further east. They were buried at an angle matching that of the great pyramids in Egypt. The cars look like they were hurriedly re-planted in their new location, with no regard for what they originally were intended to represent.
Like so much in our me-first society, they are now just a venue the new Me generation to deface. Maybe I am getting old. Just another episode of old-timer's syndrome.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hear the Crickets??
While looking up sources for yesterday's post about the president's link to CCX, and Al Gore's, and Goldman Sachs', I found one source for a few blogs about the subject. It was a link to Canadian Free Press' site. Today, I found page after page after page of links on a Google search. Want to take a guess how many of them were from American newspaper sites? How about two? You would think that a story that links the president of the United States financially to a company that stands to earn $10 trillion annually if his legislation is passed would be front page news all over the country! Then throw in a 10% share of the company being blamed for the financial crash that cost the country 11 million jobs (according to one congressman in today's congressional proceedings), Goldman Sachs. Just for added interest, add a 5% stake in the mountain of money to a company headed up by Al "I invented the internet and won an Oscar and Nobel Prize" Gore. Oh yeah, also link CCX to the United Nations and Fannie Mae, whose mismanagement was the real cause of the country's financial crash. And not a word from any U.S. newspaper. Except for the Washington Examiner, who basically summarized Glenn Beck's television program from Monday, with a Youtube video of Beck's blackboard. And a line from the writer that she had verified as true Beck's claims. Then the Dallas Morning News shows up on page 2 of the Google search. The link goes to a comment page about the media's relationship with President Obama. After scrolling down approximately three pages, there was a comment from a reader asking why no DMN investigation. That's it.
Front and center all over the nation's media watchdogs, Sandra Bullock has adopted a baby! How was she able to keep such a big secret???? Shocking! Next we will learn that Kate Gosselin was voted off Dancing with the Stars.
Today I found several stories from British newspapers about the scandal. I knew from the site I linked to yesterday that Fannie Mae owned the patent to a device that measures carbon output. Guess what? It was modified for use on manufacturers, but was originally designed to measure household carbon output. Household output. The plan calls for individual American homes to have a carbon cap. Just like businesses, individuals can buy additional carbon certificates when they have reached their annual cap. Buy the certificates from individuals in third world countries that don't create the emissions that Americans do. According to the site, the cap would be set at 2500 pounds of carbon produced per year. Over two times the amount produced by the average citizen of a third world country, but coincidentally only half the amount produced by the average American. So basically Americans would be forced to purchase carbon certificates from people in India or China or South America, through the Chicago Climate Exchange of course. After taking their cut, CCX would pass that American money on to the citizens of the unindustrialized countries. In theory anyway. Want to give odds on how much of that money makes it to the average citizen of Sri Lanka?
By the way, does your electric company give you the option to buy "green" energy, at a higher rate than traditional energy? Green ain't cheap! The idea is that it lowers your carbon output, so you won't exceed your cap so quickly. Pro-choice again, give your money to the electric company or a Bangladesh villager (minus CCX;s cut of course). Or you can pay to plant a tree, like the Vatican chose to do, in order to be carbon neutral. Guess what, no trees were planted for the Vatican. The payments were taken though! Like Glenn Beck said, scamming the Pope pretty much guarantees some very warm temperatures in your future!
How's that for redistribution of wealth? Mainly redistributed straight from your pocket to that of Barack Hussein Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and Fannie Mae. I guess the New York Times has laid off too many "reporters." They missed this one. Hear the crickets? Oh, yeah, Sandra's baby is a healthy 3 month old boy. And she has filed for divorce from Jesse. Shocker!
Front and center all over the nation's media watchdogs, Sandra Bullock has adopted a baby! How was she able to keep such a big secret???? Shocking! Next we will learn that Kate Gosselin was voted off Dancing with the Stars.
Today I found several stories from British newspapers about the scandal. I knew from the site I linked to yesterday that Fannie Mae owned the patent to a device that measures carbon output. Guess what? It was modified for use on manufacturers, but was originally designed to measure household carbon output. Household output. The plan calls for individual American homes to have a carbon cap. Just like businesses, individuals can buy additional carbon certificates when they have reached their annual cap. Buy the certificates from individuals in third world countries that don't create the emissions that Americans do. According to the site, the cap would be set at 2500 pounds of carbon produced per year. Over two times the amount produced by the average citizen of a third world country, but coincidentally only half the amount produced by the average American. So basically Americans would be forced to purchase carbon certificates from people in India or China or South America, through the Chicago Climate Exchange of course. After taking their cut, CCX would pass that American money on to the citizens of the unindustrialized countries. In theory anyway. Want to give odds on how much of that money makes it to the average citizen of Sri Lanka?
By the way, does your electric company give you the option to buy "green" energy, at a higher rate than traditional energy? Green ain't cheap! The idea is that it lowers your carbon output, so you won't exceed your cap so quickly. Pro-choice again, give your money to the electric company or a Bangladesh villager (minus CCX;s cut of course). Or you can pay to plant a tree, like the Vatican chose to do, in order to be carbon neutral. Guess what, no trees were planted for the Vatican. The payments were taken though! Like Glenn Beck said, scamming the Pope pretty much guarantees some very warm temperatures in your future!
How's that for redistribution of wealth? Mainly redistributed straight from your pocket to that of Barack Hussein Obama, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and Fannie Mae. I guess the New York Times has laid off too many "reporters." They missed this one. Hear the crickets? Oh, yeah, Sandra's baby is a healthy 3 month old boy. And she has filed for divorce from Jesse. Shocker!
Evil, yes. Stupid, no
It is the end of April. Two feet of snow today in New York. High of 35 here in Gunnison tomorrow. So let's talk about global warming. Like I wrote in a previous post about redneck snow skis, I know that cold weather halfway through spring does not mean that global warming isn't true. But surely ten years of cooling temperatures does. And false data by leading climate change (global warming is sooo 2009) researchers should make even the most rabid Al Gore sycophants wipe off their Kool-Aid mustaches.
Then there's the cost. The president himself says that under his plan, electric rates would "necessarily skyrocket."
So what exactly is cap and trade? Manufacturing produces carbon. Carbon, according to the global warming "experts," leads to warming temperatures. So, something must be done to discourage manufacturers from producing carbon. Under this plan, a manufacturer would have a set amount of carbon emissions allowed as a by product of their business. They would receive a certificate for that amount carbon emission. If they go over the amount covered by their certificate, they can buy another manufacturer's certificate.
Let's say that Cathy and I decide to go into the potato chip business. We register as a potato chip manufacturer and receive our certificate to produce 2 tons of carbon dioxide. Well, we are not really that into potato chips, so we only make a couple of batches of chips a year. We didn't produce even an ounce of our allowable emissions. Frito Lay, on the other hand, is realllly into potato chips. They have produced all the carbon they are allowed, and they want to make even more chips. They are selling a lot more chips than Cathy and me. But they aren't allowed to make any more. They have no more carbon certificates left. Well, I'm smarter than the average rock, I'll sell them my unused carbon certificates. Frito Lay is more than happy to buy them from me.
Small problem. Who decides how much the certificates are worth? How does Frito Lay find Larry and Cathy? Where do they find even more? It's not like there's an exchange similar to the New York Stock Exchange for carbon certificates. Now, there would be a money making idea! Guess what? There is one! It's the Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX! Now there's some forward thinking folks. If global warming weren't such a scam, I bet they could make some major bucks matching certificate buyers to certificate sellers, and of course taking their commission. We are a capitalist society after all. They could sell the certificates of manufacturers in third world countries to U.S. companies and basically give them boatloads of money (minus CCX's cut of course) for producing nothing! CCX estimates they would process $10,000,000,000,000 in transactions. A year. That's $10 trillion a year. That will buy a pretty nice house, won't it, Al Gore? What's Al Gore's connection to this $10,000,000,000,000 a year business? Oh, just a little thing. He's on the board of a British company that owns a 5% share of Chicago Climate Exchange. So, that's how he can afford such a non-environmentally friendly estate. Compare Gore's estate to that of a nature-hating, let's melt the icecaps I love heat anyway George Bush. When you stand to get even a piece of a 5% share of $10,000,000,000,000 a year, you can stand a little skyrocketing electric cost.
Nice story, but no one is forcing companies like Ford and DuPont, or local governments like the city of Chicago and Miami-Dade county to participate in this wonderful Enron-style scheme (they are already buying and selling certificates voluntarily so they can advertise as "carbon neutral"), right? Not yet. But that's the very basis of cap and trade legislation in front of Congress right now! Requiring companies and local governments to participate. Forcing the cost of their goods and services to skyrocket. Amazing.
So how does a start-up like Chicago Climate Exchange get started in 2003 with no cap and trade legislation on the horizon? Through charitable, almost untraceable grants from a wonderful foundation called the Joyce Foundation. They were supported by a Joyce Foundation board member who secured the funding for them. The board member who was such a forward thinking visionary? An up and coming Illinois state senator. His name? All together now, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.
Now that should give you something to think about. Here's a link detailing all the viper's nest of ties to the United Nations (where most of the global warming "research" came from). Just for grins, let's throw in 5 CCX board members from Goldman Sachs, a 10% share in the company to Goldman Sachs, and a compleeeeetely coincidental link to Fannie Mae. No conspiracy theory. Facts. It's mind-boggling. Almost as mind-boggling as the fact that no U.S. newspaper or news organization has mentioned any of this. The link refers to a Canadian Free Press site. Free press, remember when America had one of those? Another fact, NBC is owned by GE. General Electric. Think they might have a stake in this game?
Then there's the cost. The president himself says that under his plan, electric rates would "necessarily skyrocket."
So what exactly is cap and trade? Manufacturing produces carbon. Carbon, according to the global warming "experts," leads to warming temperatures. So, something must be done to discourage manufacturers from producing carbon. Under this plan, a manufacturer would have a set amount of carbon emissions allowed as a by product of their business. They would receive a certificate for that amount carbon emission. If they go over the amount covered by their certificate, they can buy another manufacturer's certificate.
Let's say that Cathy and I decide to go into the potato chip business. We register as a potato chip manufacturer and receive our certificate to produce 2 tons of carbon dioxide. Well, we are not really that into potato chips, so we only make a couple of batches of chips a year. We didn't produce even an ounce of our allowable emissions. Frito Lay, on the other hand, is realllly into potato chips. They have produced all the carbon they are allowed, and they want to make even more chips. They are selling a lot more chips than Cathy and me. But they aren't allowed to make any more. They have no more carbon certificates left. Well, I'm smarter than the average rock, I'll sell them my unused carbon certificates. Frito Lay is more than happy to buy them from me.
Small problem. Who decides how much the certificates are worth? How does Frito Lay find Larry and Cathy? Where do they find even more? It's not like there's an exchange similar to the New York Stock Exchange for carbon certificates. Now, there would be a money making idea! Guess what? There is one! It's the Chicago Climate Exchange or CCX! Now there's some forward thinking folks. If global warming weren't such a scam, I bet they could make some major bucks matching certificate buyers to certificate sellers, and of course taking their commission. We are a capitalist society after all. They could sell the certificates of manufacturers in third world countries to U.S. companies and basically give them boatloads of money (minus CCX's cut of course) for producing nothing! CCX estimates they would process $10,000,000,000,000 in transactions. A year. That's $10 trillion a year. That will buy a pretty nice house, won't it, Al Gore? What's Al Gore's connection to this $10,000,000,000,000 a year business? Oh, just a little thing. He's on the board of a British company that owns a 5% share of Chicago Climate Exchange. So, that's how he can afford such a non-environmentally friendly estate. Compare Gore's estate to that of a nature-hating, let's melt the icecaps I love heat anyway George Bush. When you stand to get even a piece of a 5% share of $10,000,000,000,000 a year, you can stand a little skyrocketing electric cost.
Nice story, but no one is forcing companies like Ford and DuPont, or local governments like the city of Chicago and Miami-Dade county to participate in this wonderful Enron-style scheme (they are already buying and selling certificates voluntarily so they can advertise as "carbon neutral"), right? Not yet. But that's the very basis of cap and trade legislation in front of Congress right now! Requiring companies and local governments to participate. Forcing the cost of their goods and services to skyrocket. Amazing.
So how does a start-up like Chicago Climate Exchange get started in 2003 with no cap and trade legislation on the horizon? Through charitable, almost untraceable grants from a wonderful foundation called the Joyce Foundation. They were supported by a Joyce Foundation board member who secured the funding for them. The board member who was such a forward thinking visionary? An up and coming Illinois state senator. His name? All together now, Barack Hussein Obama, mmm, mmm, mmm.
Now that should give you something to think about. Here's a link detailing all the viper's nest of ties to the United Nations (where most of the global warming "research" came from). Just for grins, let's throw in 5 CCX board members from Goldman Sachs, a 10% share in the company to Goldman Sachs, and a compleeeeetely coincidental link to Fannie Mae. No conspiracy theory. Facts. It's mind-boggling. Almost as mind-boggling as the fact that no U.S. newspaper or news organization has mentioned any of this. The link refers to a Canadian Free Press site. Free press, remember when America had one of those? Another fact, NBC is owned by GE. General Electric. Think they might have a stake in this game?
Ban It!
Here's an interesting story about the importance of education and the average American's willingness to let the government take care of them.
A reporter went to Times Square on a weekday late afternoon, just as office workers were crowding the street to go home after a work day. He stopped 200 people at random and asked if they would favor the federal government either banning or strictly regulating the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is a very commonly found chemical that, through simple inhalation, kills thousands of people per year in the United States alone. It's use by businesses and individuals is essentially unregulated. No licenses are required for its purchase or use.
As a former resident of Arizona, and frequent radio listener in the Phoenix area, I can tell you that the state ran public service ads hourly warning about the dangers of the chemical, especially to young children.
The poll results? 70% of those questioned said the government should ban the chemical compound immediately. 15% said it should be strictly regulated. The remaining 15% were obviously libertarian nutjobs that protest government regulation of anything. After all who is not in favor of banning di(meaning 2) hydrogen (highly explosive, right?) mono (one) oxide (oxygen)? Or H2O. If you still don't get it, you must be a recent American high school graduate. It's water.
We not only allow, but encourage these people to vote! Change, yeah! Sign me up! Oh yeah, what are we changing to? Hope it's good. Got any water?
A reporter went to Times Square on a weekday late afternoon, just as office workers were crowding the street to go home after a work day. He stopped 200 people at random and asked if they would favor the federal government either banning or strictly regulating the use of dihydrogen monoxide. Dihydrogen monoxide is a very commonly found chemical that, through simple inhalation, kills thousands of people per year in the United States alone. It's use by businesses and individuals is essentially unregulated. No licenses are required for its purchase or use.
As a former resident of Arizona, and frequent radio listener in the Phoenix area, I can tell you that the state ran public service ads hourly warning about the dangers of the chemical, especially to young children.
The poll results? 70% of those questioned said the government should ban the chemical compound immediately. 15% said it should be strictly regulated. The remaining 15% were obviously libertarian nutjobs that protest government regulation of anything. After all who is not in favor of banning di(meaning 2) hydrogen (highly explosive, right?) mono (one) oxide (oxygen)? Or H2O. If you still don't get it, you must be a recent American high school graduate. It's water.
We not only allow, but encourage these people to vote! Change, yeah! Sign me up! Oh yeah, what are we changing to? Hope it's good. Got any water?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Catch!!!!
Remember when you were a kid and your friend would throw a ball at you and then yell, "catch!!?" His goal was usually to hit you in the face. Hilarious, huh? One of our football drills was similar. The receiver would stand inside a circle of 6 other players. The coach would yell out a clock point, 12, 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10. The player at that point would throw the ball at the receiver as he spun to catch the ball. The coach would yell out the points out faster and faster, until you had footballs flying from all directions.
Right now, average Americans are the receiver in the middle. And the Obama administration is surrounding us at all points of the clock, down to the seconds. First they fire a fast, hard one at us. A 2000+ page health care takeover. We turned, but not quick enough and took that fastball to the face. Good news is that Americans threw it back hard enough to get their attention for a couple of minutes anyway.
Now they are firing away from every direction. Here comes cap and trade. Look out, here comes immigration reform. Pow, there is another western state land grab Zoom, there went FCC regulation of the internet Voting on a change in language for statehood ballots for Puerto Rico Didn't see that one coming There went representation in the House for D.C. Lobbed in legalizing carrying firearms in national parks, while zipping in voting rights for convicted felons Ouch At least it is called the Democracy Restoration Act, how bad could that be Student loans as part of health care How'd that one get by It will be a revenue stream to reduce the cost of health care, oh, ok How's it going to produce revenue when it doubles the amount of grants given (those don't have to paid back)And if you work for the government you don't have to pay back your loan at all Boy, we fumbled that one Federal regulation of all U.S. waters, right over our head Goldman Sachs executives being excoriated by the Senate. Caught that one. Good. Let those evil thieving bankers have it. Almost destroyed our economy with their shady home loans. Wait a minute, Congress required them to make those risky loans. They protected their investors by hedging their bets, didn't they? If I had money invested in Goldman, I'd be adding them to my Christmas card list! Dropped that one too. Stop, we need a break! Put down that banking regulation reform! Look out, here comes Supreme Court nominee!!
Right now, average Americans are the receiver in the middle. And the Obama administration is surrounding us at all points of the clock, down to the seconds. First they fire a fast, hard one at us. A 2000+ page health care takeover. We turned, but not quick enough and took that fastball to the face. Good news is that Americans threw it back hard enough to get their attention for a couple of minutes anyway.
Now they are firing away from every direction. Here comes cap and trade. Look out, here comes immigration reform. Pow, there is another western state land grab Zoom, there went FCC regulation of the internet Voting on a change in language for statehood ballots for Puerto Rico Didn't see that one coming There went representation in the House for D.C. Lobbed in legalizing carrying firearms in national parks, while zipping in voting rights for convicted felons Ouch At least it is called the Democracy Restoration Act, how bad could that be Student loans as part of health care How'd that one get by It will be a revenue stream to reduce the cost of health care, oh, ok How's it going to produce revenue when it doubles the amount of grants given (those don't have to paid back)And if you work for the government you don't have to pay back your loan at all Boy, we fumbled that one Federal regulation of all U.S. waters, right over our head Goldman Sachs executives being excoriated by the Senate. Caught that one. Good. Let those evil thieving bankers have it. Almost destroyed our economy with their shady home loans. Wait a minute, Congress required them to make those risky loans. They protected their investors by hedging their bets, didn't they? If I had money invested in Goldman, I'd be adding them to my Christmas card list! Dropped that one too. Stop, we need a break! Put down that banking regulation reform! Look out, here comes Supreme Court nominee!!
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Obama's Lemonade Stand
I remember a Dennis the Menace comic strip from my childhood. It had Dennis at his lemonade stand, with a sign that advertised $5 a cup. The caption said "I only need to sell one."
Price management is one of the most difficult and most important task of any business. I've worked in the retail industry most of my career, so that's the example I'll use. The business' number one task is to earn a profit for its shareholders. It seems like a simple concept, sell your product for more than you paid for it. The difficulty comes in trying to decide how much more. At my book store, it was fairly simple. I bought used books from customers for 25% of retail, and sold them for 50% of original retail. It was a nice margin, and the store was in business for more than 25 years.
If you have read the Joseph Heller classic, Catch 22, you will remember the supply, clerk Milo, who bought cotton stock for 50c a share and sold it for 25c, "but we are making up for it in volume."
With the rental car company, I learned yield pricing management. I had to look at reservation demand, car availability, and competition prices and set our prices to get the highest possible revenue from each rental, without running out of cars. For example, on a Monday we would have high rates because that's the day most business travelers would arrive. Tuesday's rates might be higher still because we would have fewer cars available, and so would our competition. By Wednesday evening, rates would go down because we would have more cars returning than being rented. By Friday, rates would be extremely low for cars that would be returned in time for the Sunday evening rush. So, it's a little more complicated than "buy low, sell high."
In general, there's a curve graph of profitability. Starting with a price of zero, where of course you lose money; to a price of, I guess, infinitely high, where you would still have a loss due to no sales. Somewhere in between you have a maximum profit. For example, at Stride Rite, a style might make the company a profit of $500,000 with a retail of $49.99. Raise the retail price to $59.99 and you get more profit right? No, because then the customer does not see the value of the shoe and chooses a cheaper competitor's merchandise. So a higher retail price might earn a lower profit.
The same applies to our federal taxes. Former Reagan adviser, Arthur Laffer devised the Laffer Curve. His studies show an optimum tax rate, similar to the curve you see in retail pricing. At its most basic, government provides services for a fee, your taxes. While we still see some value in the service, Americans are willing to pay the fee, and revenues rise. At some point, the fee becomes too high for the perceived value and Americans become less productive, resulting in lower revenue. For example during World War I, President Wilson's administration needed more and more revenue to fund the war and the explosion of federal programs instituted under Wilson. They created more and higher taxes, targeting businesses and the wealthy. The more taxes they imposed, the less revenue they collected. So they raised and created taxes even more. They peaked with an income tax of 77% on the wealthiest Americans. And still revenue collected actually decreased. It decreased because the wealth creators saw no value in the government's services. They chose not to buy, or produce income that would only be taxed. This led to a depression in 1920.
Warren G. Harding became president in 1921 and one of his first and most important appointments went to Andrew Mellon as treasury secretary. Mellon immediately proposed cuts to tax rates, especially Wilson's "excessive profit" taxes. And like the Laffer Curve or retail pricing models show, revenues increased. As Mellon said, "Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life,” he wrote. “But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”
Seems pretty simple. Who is going to work to their maximum capability when most of the rewards for their hard work is going to fund a federal government whose policies and practices they do not necessarily support? As one scholar joked, "three presidents served under Mellon" during a prosperous time now celebrated as the "Roaring '20's."
Here's a link to a history of income tax in the United States, that illustrates, albeit unintentionally, Laffer's Curve. Maybe our next president should have a business background, rather than a community organizing background. Our present organizer-in-chief seems to have only learned economics from Dennis the Menace, and didn't even operate his own lemonade stand.
Price management is one of the most difficult and most important task of any business. I've worked in the retail industry most of my career, so that's the example I'll use. The business' number one task is to earn a profit for its shareholders. It seems like a simple concept, sell your product for more than you paid for it. The difficulty comes in trying to decide how much more. At my book store, it was fairly simple. I bought used books from customers for 25% of retail, and sold them for 50% of original retail. It was a nice margin, and the store was in business for more than 25 years.
If you have read the Joseph Heller classic, Catch 22, you will remember the supply, clerk Milo, who bought cotton stock for 50c a share and sold it for 25c, "but we are making up for it in volume."
With the rental car company, I learned yield pricing management. I had to look at reservation demand, car availability, and competition prices and set our prices to get the highest possible revenue from each rental, without running out of cars. For example, on a Monday we would have high rates because that's the day most business travelers would arrive. Tuesday's rates might be higher still because we would have fewer cars available, and so would our competition. By Wednesday evening, rates would go down because we would have more cars returning than being rented. By Friday, rates would be extremely low for cars that would be returned in time for the Sunday evening rush. So, it's a little more complicated than "buy low, sell high."
In general, there's a curve graph of profitability. Starting with a price of zero, where of course you lose money; to a price of, I guess, infinitely high, where you would still have a loss due to no sales. Somewhere in between you have a maximum profit. For example, at Stride Rite, a style might make the company a profit of $500,000 with a retail of $49.99. Raise the retail price to $59.99 and you get more profit right? No, because then the customer does not see the value of the shoe and chooses a cheaper competitor's merchandise. So a higher retail price might earn a lower profit.
The same applies to our federal taxes. Former Reagan adviser, Arthur Laffer devised the Laffer Curve. His studies show an optimum tax rate, similar to the curve you see in retail pricing. At its most basic, government provides services for a fee, your taxes. While we still see some value in the service, Americans are willing to pay the fee, and revenues rise. At some point, the fee becomes too high for the perceived value and Americans become less productive, resulting in lower revenue. For example during World War I, President Wilson's administration needed more and more revenue to fund the war and the explosion of federal programs instituted under Wilson. They created more and higher taxes, targeting businesses and the wealthy. The more taxes they imposed, the less revenue they collected. So they raised and created taxes even more. They peaked with an income tax of 77% on the wealthiest Americans. And still revenue collected actually decreased. It decreased because the wealth creators saw no value in the government's services. They chose not to buy, or produce income that would only be taxed. This led to a depression in 1920.
Warren G. Harding became president in 1921 and one of his first and most important appointments went to Andrew Mellon as treasury secretary. Mellon immediately proposed cuts to tax rates, especially Wilson's "excessive profit" taxes. And like the Laffer Curve or retail pricing models show, revenues increased. As Mellon said, "Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life,” he wrote. “But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”
Seems pretty simple. Who is going to work to their maximum capability when most of the rewards for their hard work is going to fund a federal government whose policies and practices they do not necessarily support? As one scholar joked, "three presidents served under Mellon" during a prosperous time now celebrated as the "Roaring '20's."
Here's a link to a history of income tax in the United States, that illustrates, albeit unintentionally, Laffer's Curve. Maybe our next president should have a business background, rather than a community organizing background. Our present organizer-in-chief seems to have only learned economics from Dennis the Menace, and didn't even operate his own lemonade stand.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Trust Each Other, Unless You Live in D.C.
I have worked for many, sometimes it feels like too many, years in management. My first management job was in a small bookstore. It was basically me and one part time associate. Obviously there was not much delegating. If something needed to get done, I did it. My next management position was with Stride Rite shoes. With Stride Rite, I had several part time associates and an assistant. While with Stride Rite, I learned a lesson that our government needs to learn.
Part of my job as manager was to train my assistant to be a future manager. Tisha was one of my first assistants who was serious about getting her own store. After some basic training, we split the daily tasks and paperwork. Once on Tisha's day off, I had finished all my usual activities and had probably listened to the Dino Dave recordings a couple of times too many for the day. I went back to the office and noticed that Tisha had a couple of days' paperwork still unfinished. So I decided to do her a favor and finish it for her.
I was off the next day, but got a phone call from the store. It was Tisha, and she was irate. She asked if she should start looking for a new job, or maybe a transfer to another store. I had no idea what could possibly be the problem. I thought everything was going well. Finally she calmed down enough to ask me if I thought she was incapable of doing her job. I told her, no. I thought she was doing well and would be able to take her own store soon. She then asked why I would do her job if that was the way I really felt. She was insulted at my doing her job for her. From my point of view, I was doing her a favor. It seemed a case of "no good deed will go unpunished." From her point of view, her manager did not trust her or did not think she was capable of doing her job.
Tisha went on to get her own store with Stride Rite and did very well. She eventually moved on to another management position with another company with even more responsibility. She taught me a lesson that I think about each time I "help" a trainee. I always tell them this story and let them know the reason I'm "helping" them. The story is used as a motivator for those who may not be as self-motivated or as capable as Tisha, in addition to teaching them a management lesson that I learned the hard way.
Unfortunately, I have had trainees that did not have the drive or capability of Tisha. In their case, I "helped" them a great deal. Until they either caught on or moved on. As a rule, the more "help" they required, the more likely they were to move on.
I don't know if the good folks in D.C. think we are capable of taking care of ourselves. The majority of Americans will gladly take care of themselves and do the right thing. All we ask is that the government get out of our way. We are more than willing to help each other and contribute to causes in which we believe. As long as the government leaves us the resources to do so. I believe most of our representatives think they are doing the right thing. They feel a little like I did during the phone call from Tisha, "no good deed will go unpunished!"
More and more, I have come to believe that our government doesn't want to trust us. They take our tax dollars and spend them for us on causes the majority of us do not believe in or support, in order to further their own agenda or strengthen their positions. No non-profit should receive federal funds. That's no, none, not any, for any reason. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to collect money from the general population to give to any non-profit organization. Leave that money in the hands of the individual who earned it. Let that person decide where his/her contribution will go. Let the non-profit organizations compete for our dollars. Then let's see if ACORN gives tax advice to pimps for Salvadoran teens, or registers the lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas(you knew I had to work the Cowboys in here somewhere). Or if Planned Parenthood takes 15 year old girls from their school in Washington and gets them a free abortion without notifying their parents. If they do, and you choose to support them with your hard-earned dollars, that's your choice. In that case, I am pro-choice, as are most Americans. But do not force us to contribute. We will gladly contribute to causes we believe in.
We need to learn which representatives want to control us, and which just need a phone call from Tisha. Soon, while we still have any choices left.
Part of my job as manager was to train my assistant to be a future manager. Tisha was one of my first assistants who was serious about getting her own store. After some basic training, we split the daily tasks and paperwork. Once on Tisha's day off, I had finished all my usual activities and had probably listened to the Dino Dave recordings a couple of times too many for the day. I went back to the office and noticed that Tisha had a couple of days' paperwork still unfinished. So I decided to do her a favor and finish it for her.
I was off the next day, but got a phone call from the store. It was Tisha, and she was irate. She asked if she should start looking for a new job, or maybe a transfer to another store. I had no idea what could possibly be the problem. I thought everything was going well. Finally she calmed down enough to ask me if I thought she was incapable of doing her job. I told her, no. I thought she was doing well and would be able to take her own store soon. She then asked why I would do her job if that was the way I really felt. She was insulted at my doing her job for her. From my point of view, I was doing her a favor. It seemed a case of "no good deed will go unpunished." From her point of view, her manager did not trust her or did not think she was capable of doing her job.
Tisha went on to get her own store with Stride Rite and did very well. She eventually moved on to another management position with another company with even more responsibility. She taught me a lesson that I think about each time I "help" a trainee. I always tell them this story and let them know the reason I'm "helping" them. The story is used as a motivator for those who may not be as self-motivated or as capable as Tisha, in addition to teaching them a management lesson that I learned the hard way.
Unfortunately, I have had trainees that did not have the drive or capability of Tisha. In their case, I "helped" them a great deal. Until they either caught on or moved on. As a rule, the more "help" they required, the more likely they were to move on.
I don't know if the good folks in D.C. think we are capable of taking care of ourselves. The majority of Americans will gladly take care of themselves and do the right thing. All we ask is that the government get out of our way. We are more than willing to help each other and contribute to causes in which we believe. As long as the government leaves us the resources to do so. I believe most of our representatives think they are doing the right thing. They feel a little like I did during the phone call from Tisha, "no good deed will go unpunished!"
More and more, I have come to believe that our government doesn't want to trust us. They take our tax dollars and spend them for us on causes the majority of us do not believe in or support, in order to further their own agenda or strengthen their positions. No non-profit should receive federal funds. That's no, none, not any, for any reason. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the federal government the authority to collect money from the general population to give to any non-profit organization. Leave that money in the hands of the individual who earned it. Let that person decide where his/her contribution will go. Let the non-profit organizations compete for our dollars. Then let's see if ACORN gives tax advice to pimps for Salvadoran teens, or registers the lineup of the Dallas Cowboys to vote in Las Vegas(you knew I had to work the Cowboys in here somewhere). Or if Planned Parenthood takes 15 year old girls from their school in Washington and gets them a free abortion without notifying their parents. If they do, and you choose to support them with your hard-earned dollars, that's your choice. In that case, I am pro-choice, as are most Americans. But do not force us to contribute. We will gladly contribute to causes we believe in.
We need to learn which representatives want to control us, and which just need a phone call from Tisha. Soon, while we still have any choices left.
Monday, April 19, 2010
This Window is a Door
Ever hear of the Overton Window? Joseph Overton was a researcher, author, and senior vice president of a public policy think tank. His theory was that public opinion fits into a window on a scale. If a policy does not fit into the opinion window, politicians will not support or push the policy, for the sake of job security. So, if the politician or government knows the policy in question is good for the people, how do you get politicians to support it? You move the window.
It's kind of like negotiating for a raise. You ask for 10%. Your boss says he will give you a 20% cut in pay. You say, no, I'll quit first. Your boss says fine, we will compromise. I'll only cut your salary 10%. You win. He didn't cut your pay 20%!
The health care takeover is another example. Americans are screaming that they do not want the federal government running their health care. The administration says it will provide public funding for abortions. America screams absolutely no!! Obama says fine, we'll compromise, no public funding for abortion in the health care takeover. America says great. We won that one. Um, didn't we? They moved the window.
Americans need to stick to our principles. Move the window back our direction. Once Americans know the game, we can play it too. Education is the key. Know our principles and our history.
It's kind of like negotiating for a raise. You ask for 10%. Your boss says he will give you a 20% cut in pay. You say, no, I'll quit first. Your boss says fine, we will compromise. I'll only cut your salary 10%. You win. He didn't cut your pay 20%!
The health care takeover is another example. Americans are screaming that they do not want the federal government running their health care. The administration says it will provide public funding for abortions. America screams absolutely no!! Obama says fine, we'll compromise, no public funding for abortion in the health care takeover. America says great. We won that one. Um, didn't we? They moved the window.
Americans need to stick to our principles. Move the window back our direction. Once Americans know the game, we can play it too. Education is the key. Know our principles and our history.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Budget Cutting for Idiots, i.e. Congress
Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance and from under the eye of their constituents . . . will invite the public agents to corruption, plunder, and waste. . . . What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building, and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the state powers into the hands of the federal government!
---Thomas Jefferson
Did you know that representative Shaddegg from Arizona has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he has been in the House of Representatives. The Act would require congress to define exactly which of the 18 enumerated powers the Constitution gives the federal government justifies any law passed. If nothing else, the act would force congressmen to study the Constitution. Even after being introduced 15 times, each year since 1995, the Act has yet to make it out of committee. I'll pause while you get up off the floor. I know you are shocked.
Hopefully you are recovered now. Another Texas representative has introduced a resolution that on September 17, Constitution Day; when every school receiving federal funds is required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution, Congress do the same. To repeat, on September 17, all schools receiving federal funds are required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution. Representative Conaway is suggesting that Congress also study the document, you know the one they swore to uphold and defend, on that one day as well. His committee chairman said that was "the stupidest idea I've ever heard." And do you know of any school that observes Constitution Day? Or even knows of its existence? It's been around since Robert Byrd (Democrat) introduced it in 2004 and it was passed as part of the Omnibus Spending Bill.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists the 18 enumerated powers. The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There's the easiest way to cut the federal budget. Each line of the budget should have a reference to which of the Enumerated Powers justifies the spending. No Enumerated Power, no funds. Pretty simple.
---Thomas Jefferson
Did you know that representative Shaddegg from Arizona has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act each year that he has been in the House of Representatives. The Act would require congress to define exactly which of the 18 enumerated powers the Constitution gives the federal government justifies any law passed. If nothing else, the act would force congressmen to study the Constitution. Even after being introduced 15 times, each year since 1995, the Act has yet to make it out of committee. I'll pause while you get up off the floor. I know you are shocked.
Hopefully you are recovered now. Another Texas representative has introduced a resolution that on September 17, Constitution Day; when every school receiving federal funds is required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution, Congress do the same. To repeat, on September 17, all schools receiving federal funds are required to spend at least part of the day studying the Constitution. Representative Conaway is suggesting that Congress also study the document, you know the one they swore to uphold and defend, on that one day as well. His committee chairman said that was "the stupidest idea I've ever heard." And do you know of any school that observes Constitution Day? Or even knows of its existence? It's been around since Robert Byrd (Democrat) introduced it in 2004 and it was passed as part of the Omnibus Spending Bill.
Article I Section 8 of the Constitution lists the 18 enumerated powers. The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There's the easiest way to cut the federal budget. Each line of the budget should have a reference to which of the Enumerated Powers justifies the spending. No Enumerated Power, no funds. Pretty simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
