Big bad Koch boys threaten employees

Vote for Obama and face the consequences – says NBC

Round two: Big Bad Employers against employees.

Give me a break. In these various “notifications” to employees of various corporations the people who are sending the e-mails say outright they are not telling the employees whom to vote for.

No, rather, they are telling the companies’ employees what the most likely consequences will be if President Barack Obama wins re-election, and that one of those consequences will be that an undetermined number of the employees of the companies will lose their jobs.

Is this a threat? Yes, indirectly. However, it also is an economic reality. Four more years of the policies of the Obama Administration is going to bite into the receipts and profits of many a corporation and business. The Obama Administration has made no bones about its plans and that is what it intends to do. It intends to tax “wealthy” business people more. It is going to make companies provide more benefits or pay a tax. It is going to do more to advance alternative energy at the expense of the current energy providers and the consumers, through higher prices for traditional sources of energy.

These people who have far more money than I will ever dream of have earned their money, for the most part. Granted, I can’t do what they have done, but then I never tried, nor did I have the skills. But then again, I am not jealous of their wealth or begrudge them it either.

Now, at least these people are being honest. They are saying that if Obama gets re-elected, they are going to cut costs at their businesses so they can keep more of the money (or at least amounts similar to what they are getting now) in the wake of the economic changes. You blame them?

Now, regardless of how you look at it, these are the people who put the big bucks up to sustain these businesses … it is called investments. They are entitled to a return on that investment (commensurate to its contribution to the success of the company), just as a shop floor worker deserves compensation for his labor that creates or adds value to the product. So, you may disagree with how that compensation is allocated, but unless you are one of the stockholders/owners of the company, then you are just hired labor and are selling your investment at a pre-agreed upon rate.

I know there are a lot of people who think that isn’t fair … but it is part of the price we pay for individual liberty. You know, where you get to make your own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. Oh, I forgot, no one is supposed to fail or face the consequences of their choices.

Well, tough! That is life. Time to get over and get on with your life.

Libertarian view

Libertarian candidate proposes withdrawal from the Middle East
John Stossel likes Libertarian candidate
Neal Boortz likes Johnson but is going to vote for Romney
Ok, surprise, surprise, my admittedly progressive friend out west likes the Libertarian Party candidate, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Hey, I guess, what’s not to like? … He is a libertarian.
All right, I admittedly call myself a libertarian at times, but that is because I really can’t categorize myself as much else. The thing I do like about Libertarians is the philosophy that the government should, basically, just butt out of people’s lives and let them get on by themselves. Unfortunately, that sounds awfully hard-hearted to the progressives and what used to be known as liberals, but what the heck? What do I care? I’ve run my race, did my bit for God, King (or is that “President”) and Country, paid into the system like a good troll and whatever. Unfortunately, I do care.
However, I part company with the Libertarians when they start spouting what, for the lack of a better term, is isolationism. Sorry, guys, but that ain’t gonna work, no matter how we try. We tried that back in the 1930s and we got burned big time.
Now, I am not a big fan of the current binges toward nation building either. Americans, ala the Ugly American book from the 1950s, have a long track record of mucking that up. Nor am I big on intervening in every little conflict that comes along … at least not with American troops. I guess we could pay some mercenaries, but the progressives would have a hissy fit on that (I just finished a sci-fi book on just such a concept, well sort of … it was nakedly based on the past 10 years, but transferred to another world for literary license … it was not kind to liberals and progressives … and definitely not Islamic jihadists).
Still, one does have to face reality and that reality is that the U.S., regardless of whether you like it or not, has the most capable military in the world as well as the military that is most capable of functioning efficiently forward deployed. While that is great, in one sense, it also has a downside and that downside is that other nations look to all that power and ask, nay beg, for help with the pirates, bandits, thieves and other assorted tyrants and bad guys out there.
Unfortunately, something that Mr. Johnson and other Libertarians rarely recognize is that in our interdependent global marketplace, it is in our own enlightened self-interest to quell certain disturbances and restrain some parties from acting on their darker designs. In other words, the U.S. is repeatedly called upon and needs to use its strength to act as global constable and fire brigade.
Not that we asked for the job, per se, but unless we want to hand the world over to those who want to have total chaos so they can prey on others, or turn the reins over to Chinese, who at the moment seem to be waiting in the wings – although they have a way to go on their capabilities of projecting power, given another 10 or 15 years, they probably will get there, then the “we are going to pull out of everywhere and tend to our own knitting here in North America” attitude really isn’t going to work.
I suppose that it could work, for a little while, assuming that we could find the resources we need inside our borders (like that is going to happen) and borrow enough money to reestablish the industrial base that would keep our military at the pinnacle of today’s war-fighting food chain. However, I doubt that either of those conditions could ever be met. AND our standard of living would take a major hit without imports.
However, it is a very seductive fantasy, but – I hate to even draw this parallel – but the world economy is a bit like a row of dominoes. Knock one or two over and you get a cascade effect. You don’t think so? Then you need to really take a much better look at the events of the past four or five years.
The question, of course, is how you keep those dominoes from falling? Unfortunately, withdrawing back into your castle is not the answer nor is trying to please everybody and yayhoo in the neighborhood. Maybe someday, the world will be like that, but I doubt even my grandchildren will see a world like that.
Which brings me back to my usual solution: We have to find ways to convince very self-centered, greedy and power-hungry individuals and nations how it is in their own enlightened self-interest to act like civilized people, rather than raving maniacs.
Anybody got any good ideas? Nobody seems to like mine.
Oh, and my current view on the current presidential race: Definitely undecided.
Obama is a walking disaster in so many ways.
Romney can’t seem to get his act together, so he is not much better.
Johnson, ain’t no way on God’s green earth that he will win … whether you like him or love him … and a vote for him probably will help get the disaster re-elected.

Thank you, Michael Moore

Michael Moore on presidential race
I don’t know if Michael Moore, the very progressive film producer who keeps churning out films that attack conservatives, knew he was doing it but he did make a very pertinent observation during an interview on the Huffington Post.
Disregard his comments on his expectation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will defeat incumbent President Barack Obama in November. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us on how the election will turn out.
No, his telling comment was on campaign finance and how political parties use it (or should use it).
"This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
Uh, did I miss something here? Isn’t that what a democratic-republic is all about? Isn’t that what the democratic process is all about? I thought, though I may be wrong here, that the objective in any election was to mobilize supporters and to get them to the polling station so that the person elected represented their interests. Isn’t that what elections are all about?
To me, the role of the parties, other than to define the issues that they support and recruit candidates to run for office who will represent those views on those issues, is to mobilize their supporters and get them out to vote for their candidates. That is the job of the party faithful, to get those voters who support their cause to the polls in sufficient numbers to make a difference. If they aren’t doing that, then what are they doing? They sure ain’t helping their candidates. If the Republicans do that better than the Democrats or the Green Party or the Libertarians, then shouldn’t they deserve to win?
Mister Moore is scared that the turnout on Election Day might not represent his views. He calls that pretty “scary.” What about majority rule, Mister Moore? What about people electing their representatives in a federal-republic? That is scary?
The hypocrisy of his statement should be obvious. He doesn’t believe that enough people will vote “against” Romney. He might be right and he might be wrong, but then again, he might just be in the minority. Did that thought even cross his mind?
It is said that Americans are spending too much money on our elections. It is even raising questions in the foreign press. Hello, we spend more money in this country advertising tooth paste than we do on political efforts. We literally spend more than a trillion on advertising and public relations communications efforts but spending less than .6 percent of that figure on communicating our political views is wrong? There has got to be a disconnect there.
Of course, you can always say that in a perfect world, people wouldn’t have to spend money on communicating political speech. Hello, who said the world is perfect? Yes, money corrupts, but money also makes a pretty good megaphone and amplifier for what you want to say. Unfortunately, you can’t have one without the other.
Still, thank you Mister Moore, you hit the nail on the head. Elections are about turnout. Elections are about the constituents making their preferences known. That is what elections in the United States are all about.

Medicaid: One size fits all?

Ryan plan sparks Medicaid debate

Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin representative/Republican vice presidential nominee, has brought up a good topic for debate: Should the states or the federal government administrate the Medicaid programs that pay for health care for the poor and the indigent.

That is a good question.

Is it better that the states decide the extent of the Medicaid program and who it helps or doesn’t help, or should that decision be a decision made by Congress, or a federal regulatory agency like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services/Health Care Financing Administration?   Who is the CMMS/HCFA?

Most democratic-socialists will tell you that it needs to be a national program, while most federal-republicans will tell you it needs to be in the hands of the state governments which lie closer to the people. Where you fall out in that debate is the choice you have to make according to what you see the role of government being at each level.

I, for one, tend toward the traditional democratic-republican view point of Thomas Jefferson, even though I dearly love James Madison (and he is one of my personal heroes – even if this is the 100^th year of his disastrous War of 1812 when he shouldn’t have tried to play commander in chief in the field, but that is a whole other story), that government works best when it is closest to the people. In other words, the lower the level of government, the better it works for the benefit of the people.

This is especially true for communities. Communities and their governments, usually municipal or county/parish governments are far more responsive to the needs and desires of their constituents than state governments … and far more responsive than the federal government in Washington. This usually is because the constituents are neighbors to the people running the schools and city halls and let them know their views on their front lawns or over their back fences.

State governments, for similar reasons, usually are little more responsive to the needs of their states than the federal government, but that is partially by design … or malice aforethought, as I put it. Still, state governments can be more reflective and responsive to the demographic makeup and desires of its communities, something that is difficult, if not impossible, at the national/federal government level.

At the national level, in order to avoid being quite arbitrary and capricious in its law and rule making, the government must, basically, make everything “one size fits all.” That, I contend, is a recipe for disaster because problems come in all shapes and sizes and one size definitely doesn’t fit all.

The plan, by those really smart guys way back when, was for each state to be sort of a laboratory of solutions. Each state would try to solve the problems facing its residents, which may or may not be the same or even similar to the ones facing another state. Great idea, but the revolution in telecommunications may have doomed it.

Today, whether it is the Internet or television over cable and satellite, communications are nearly instantaneous, with all problems that are associated with information overload.

One of the complaints in the above article is that advocates for the poor don’t have the resources to go to 50 state capitals to make their cases for greater benefits for the poor and find it much more efficient to take their lobbying to just one place: Washington. But is that not the problem with our national government? Isn’t in the pockets of too many special interests and not looking out for the “general welfare” of the nation?

Of course, the problem with having 51 solutions instead of 1 solution is that it is time consuming and Americans are a notoriously impatient lot. We want our problems solved yesterday, if not sooner, and we don’t like debating over what ought to be done. Just do something, do it now, and make the problem/distraction go away. No need discussing it. No need to come to any compromises. Just do what I want and do it now.

Except sometimes what gets done isn’t what I want, or what my neighbors want, or what might work in some other place but isn’t going to work too well here. Hmmm. Maybe there is a better answer.

As I have said before, government governs best when it governs least, and the best way for that to happen is to leave in the hands of the level of government closest to the people.

Don’t look for that to happen anytime soon, however; the special interests in Washington have no interest in having to work any harder for their causes than they have to.

Real World

Example of the progressives'' mindset: Dumb and Dumber

 

The author of the linked article is a professor of linguistics out in California and he makes a plea to his fellow Democrats and progressives to use the language carefully or the plebeians might catch on that they are being talked down to.

To me, that is one of the problems with the so-called liberals and progressives: They tend to talk down to people they disagree with. You see, according to the above article, the problem with “low-information voters” (which probably includes the vast majority of voters) is they are not voting for what is in their material interest sometimes, but what feels right in their gut. This supposedly explains why sometimes people who are not filthy, obscenely rich sometimes vote against the liberals and for the conservatives, who usually are Republicans and not Democrats.

Now, these dumb people, who don’t know what is in their own interest, for their own good and obviously in the national interest, need to be courted, but unfortunately they are smart enough to know when someone is calling them dumb … and the professor points out they have figured out that calling them a “LIV” essentially is calling them dumb. Bad move.

Ok, what is the problem here? The problem is an entire mindset. There is a mindset that thinks that if a person has a certain background, a certain religious preference, looks a certain way, talks a certain way, then obviously they are too stupid … oops, silly, and dumb (which really means mute, but we are using it colloquially) and need to have those who are more educated, let’s say, more cosmopolitan, more learned, make all the important decisions for them. The implication is that they are too dumb to do what is “right” and they cling to their “bibles and guns.”

Sorry, wrong answer. I may not be the brightest bulb in the pack, but I long ago figured out not to put someone down because they don’t have some piece of paper or haven’t been to as much schooling as I have. Now, that, I contend, is really dumb.

For example, I don’t think anyone of my Canadian in-laws have more than a high school diploma (at best, and I know some don’t even come close) and yet, they can do things that leave me in the dust. Oh, sometimes I can bluff my way into maybe making them think I have a clue what they are talking about, but with my college degrees and 40 years of white collar jobs … I am almost always faking it. I do know a little, but that is because I was a journalist and when you are general journalist, you have to learn a little about a whole lot of subjects … as I say, you know enough to get yourself in really deep trouble (because others think you know what you are talking about).

Still, at least one of them has made (and lost and made) more money than I can ever dream of making. Another, well, he is smart as a whip (like his sister) and can figure out how to make things work that leave me totally baffled.

I have worked with people like that all my life. Just because someone has a college degree, or a professional degree, or seems to have a higher intelligence quotient than somebody else, it never makes them better. I have seen high school graduates who were better wordsmiths than people who had masters’ degrees and doctorates from prestigious universities.

I look out at the world today and I see far too many people dismissing others because of what they think they don’t have. Smart is not a piece of paper. Smart is not necessarily a lot of money. Smart can be a lot of things.

It is the reason that I try (and I admit, I am no more a success at this than probably the next man, but I do try) to treat each and every person I meet with the dignity and respect that I hope they will treat me. I don’t make fun of their accents, or their dress, or how much they weigh (like I should talk). I try to accept their lifestyles, even when I disagree with them. I sure as heck don’t try to say to them “Do as I tell you to do!”

I might try to convince them that maybe I have a better idea, but if they don’t agree … well, not much I can do about that.

It is sort of like the linked article. It seems to assume that conservatives and those who disagree with progressive premises are somehow on the lower end of the evolutionary scale. Well, I don’t agree, and I would hope that they would agree to disagree civilly.

I know my old progressive classmate out west probably thinks I am a lost cause, but as I keep trying to tell him: I just look at the world through a different prism. He ought to try it sometime.

But then, I do try to do so too … much to the frustration of my dear sweet wife when I get in to mode and start trying to argue things from what I perceive to be “their” perspective. It is great fun as an intellectual exercise, but it keeps me on my toes.

Still, my advice to people out there: Go with your gut. It almost never fails you. Be true to what you believe and at least you will have stood for something. That is all we can do.

Better said than I can

Sometimes,there are people are just far more eloquent than I can ever be.

In this first article, after you take away the slams on President Obama, and you just look at this person’s description of what society and life really is, he explains it far better than I have been able to do, I suspect.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2012/jul/16/obama-revealed/

The point being that life, society, communities, nations, are made up of individuals and we all make our own way and accommodations with those things. To deny that is to deny being human and to deny a human the rights, freedoms and liberty that they deserve.

This second article explains what a libertarian (like myself for the most part) stands for by debunking 10 myths about libertarians. It is probably the best explanation I have ever seen to explain what a libertarian believes.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/13/libertarianism-for-dummies/

Yet another example

http://unofficialview.net/2012/07/you-did-not-do-it-alone/