Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

Monday, March 12, 2018

Leftist Question: Why Are Conservatives Proud They're Not Progressives?

What Opposites Share


Why are Conservatives proud they're not Progressives? For many of the same reasons that Progressives are proud not to be Conservatives. Contrary to many opinions, both sides share the same human frailties and motives. Since the questioner is, presumably, in the Progressive camp, he/she/? already knows most of the answer. All he/she/? needs to do is answer why Progressives feel the same pride and apply the same reason to Conservatives.

It is true that extreme Conservatives resist any change, but extreme Progressives will accept any change (except when things really need to be changed back; then, they become the reactionaries). Both extremes share mindless attitudes about change.

Domanance


Unfortunately, among Progressives, the extreme has become mainstream, dominating entertainment, news media, education, the Democrat Party, and new-media giants such as Twitter, Google, and Facebook. If your grasp of reason, facts, and history arm you to resist all of that, you have something to be proud of.

Intellectual Honesty


Another difference is that Conservatives are not really that inflexible. They are willing to be convinced when proposed changes are specific, effective, and efficient, and will cause minimal unintended consequences such as chipping away at God-given rights. I don’t see willingness to learn from Progressives. For example, in debate after debate, Progressives repeatedly confuse semi-automatic with assault and confuse scary style with military performance. If there’s a way to obfuscate, they will use it. Conservatives can get things wrong, but since they cling to “outdated” values such as thou shalt not bear false witness, they lack the ability to intentionally spin language that way. And that is another thing Conservatives can take pride in.

Reason Versus Hysteria


Perhaps the biggest difference is that Conservatives rhetoric trends toward deductive, left-brain thinking whereas Progressives rhetoric leans toward inductive, right-brain thinking. And right-brain thinking is the gateway to hysterical, lizard-brained, fight-or-flight thinking. Progressivism is home to unions and Antifa (fight), and to snowflakes (flight). Recent studies have supported this, showing that Conservatives consider a significantly wider range of values and perspectives when thinking about an issue. For example, a Conservative will balance the suffering and loss of life when a child is vivisected during gestation against a few months inconvenience and comfort if nobody will help a mother kill her child. All the Progressive can see is the mother. The person who balances more values and perspectives has good reason to take pride in Conservative thinking.

Consistency Versus Hypocrisy


Conservatives tend to be far more consistent than Progressives. For example, a Progressive holds the lives of murderers sacred, as well as the temporary convenience of a mother who has engaged in risky reproductive behavior, but disregards the life of a pre-born child. They rescue the guilty and help kill the innocent. Progressives condemn racism against Blacks and then institute racism against Whites. Hate speech is speech that Progressives hate. For example, a Twitter user created two accounts and sent out identical rants. One set ranted against “Whites” and the other against “Blacks,” both saying the same words. Twitter censored the anti-black account and left the anti-White account alone. When Conservatives build out applications from principles and balance different perspectives in a consistent manner, they have reason to be proud.

Religion Versus Magic


Conservatives are rooted in reality. Religious Conservatives also look to time-tested tenets of the social contract. Progressives also are rooted in religion, but they hide it behind Relativism. Relativism has led to magical thinking such as, a boy can think himself into a girl, a baby not yet seen is not yet a baby, and if irresponsible reproductive behavior is right for you, then it’s OK. At least the religious Conservatives are honest about the supernatural element behind some of what they think, and it does not conflict with physical reality. Conservatives, even religious Conservatives, can take pride in refuting the delusions of Progressives.

Reasons for Pride


There are fanatics, quislings, idiots, fools, and evildoers in any movement, so this is all painted with a broad brush. Conservatives are standing against powerful cultural influences. They are teachable, more reasonable, more balanced in weighing more principles and perspectives, more honest and consistent, and more rooted in reality. These are all reasons for them to take pride.

Honor, Therefore, Conservatism


But perhaps we are looking at this backwards. Perhaps Conservatism attracts people who have pride, people who have enough honor to take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming others for their place in life.

I started life in abject poverty. I worked my way through college, taking ten years to finish a five-year degree. My career plateaued because less-qualified, favored-class people received the training I needed and the promotions I had sacrificed for. My career collapsed because the Democrat-caused housing bubble trapped me in a 180-mile per day commute. My career died when Democrats decimated my industry, right at the worst possible time, the depths of the recession in 2009. I have gone full circle, back to my roots in poverty.

It is tempting to think the government owes me for what it did to the career I sacrificed to achieve. It would be nice if being a White, educated male did not disqualify me from the benefits that allow my neighbors to live far better than me. But I have not discarded reason and pride, so I remain Conservative (though moderately Liberal by the standards of my parents’ generation). And thus, I retain my honor, too.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 09, 2018

Commies and Fascists, Sitting In a Tree

Why do conservatives consider communism and fascism to be close cousins and the opposite of conservatism?

More Like Siblings

Quora has a page with some wonderful answers that describe common characteristics of Communism and Fascism and that contrast them with Conservatism. However, common characteristics merely makes for similarity. “Close cousins” implies common heritage and genetic commonality that cause the commonalities. The metaphor bears truth.

Just as Vladimir Lenin and built Mao Zedong built their bloody Communist regimes upon a foundation of Marxism, so did Giovanni Gentile built his philosophy of Fascism upon Marxism. (Is Fascism Right or Left?) Thus, Communism and Fascism derive from a common philosophy. They are more like half-sibling rivals than like cousins. (Progressivism shares those roots, and Communist governments had a hand in establishing it in American politics.)

Children of Marxism


The children of Marxism are rooted in the idea that the collective (that is, in practice, the State) is a higher organism than man. They require acceptance of a Utopian notion of citizens submitting their interests to the common good.

That is a fine idea, as long as the system is filled with hypothetical, ideal humans. However, in practice, it has two fatal flaws. First, humans are a competitive, self-interested species. Someone will always claw his or her way to the top, and bolder citizens will fight for freedom.

Second, the State will always have to use indoctrination, intimidation, and force to cause everybody to submit to the collective’s will or to preserve the top dog’s rule, crushing freedom and removing incentive to excel. Thus, Marxism’s children, Communism and Fascism, always lead to totalitarianism.

Conservatism


American Conservatism is rooted in the idea that the individual is the ultimate earthly organism. That is why the Founders established a government with the People at the top, a Constitution expressing their will, and Government at the bottom. Whereas the People subjected under Marxism exist to serve the government, in Conservatism, the government exists to serve the people. That is why Marxist governments claim for themselves all capital, or at least control of capital, whereas Capitalist governments remove as little capital as possible from the People.

Conservatism also recognizes what happens when you introduce flawed, self-interested humans into any system. Freedom and retaining the fruit of one’s labors give people incentive to excel, raising metrics for the whole society. Moreover, Conservatism recognizes the need for balancing powers within politics and government, a major tenet of the US Constitution, so that competing interests keep each other in check. This contrasts against rule one-party rule and dictatorship that always develop in Marxist governments.

Another contrast is that Marxist “Social Justice” dictates equality of outcome that places heavier burdens on disfavored classes, such as forced redistribution of wealth to less successful classes, whereas Conservatism emphasizes equality of rights, individual responsibility for outcome, and voluntary charity. Thus, Conservatism champions personal charity and individual justice whereas Social Justice depersonalizes charity and undermines equal justice.

I have specified American Conservatism because the word Conservatism is defined by its context. It generally indicates a philosophy of preserving the current system. American Conservatives who want to restore lost values are insultingly called "paleo conservatives," when in fact, many of them would have been considered moderate-to-liberal just a generation ago.

American Conservatism is known in the rest of the world as liberalism because it champions conditions that allow liberty, unlike monarchy and Marxism. More importantly, American Conservatism could be better described as Americanism because it promotes the foundational values of American society and government, in resistance to Marxist values that now dominate the Left.

However, we stick with the label Conservatism because we can’t stomach the screams of “How dare you call me un-American” from un-American Leftists.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Evidence of Democrat Party and Media Corruption

Have you ever tried to make a point but been unable to substantiate it? For example, the Left bends over backwards to deny that anybody votes multiple times, but you know you've read dozens of accounts of it happening. As I come across such accounts, I'll start adding them here. You can help by adding links to articles, or suggestions for new categories, in the comments.

Election Fraud

Voter Fraud

Vote Count Fraud

Media Censorship, Bias, and Fraud

Social Media Censorship by Twitter, Facebook, Google

Disclaimer: I have no problem with censoring indecent language, harassment, incitement of violence or other criminal acts, or sham news stories (as contrasted with satire). I do object to the partisan, selective enforcement of standards.

Government Dishonesty

Campaign Fraud

Democrats' Brownshirt Tactics

Democrat Corruption

Coverups

Propaganda Promoting International Socialism

Sexual Hypocrisy of Democrats



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Donald Trump's Tax Returns and Ties to Russian Oligarchs

How likely is it that Donald Trump's tax returns indicate that he is financially tied to Russian oligarchs?

Ties to Russia


The intent of the question is to imply that Trump has a conflict of interest and might be allied with Russia against America. I find that intent to be saturated with hypocrisy as well as with dishonest reasoning.

  • Hillary is an internationalist, and her party is the party of internationalism. Therefore, when partisans accuse Trump of internationalism in his business, they commit hypocrisy.
  • Internationalists believe Russo-American ties are good. When they imply that Trump is anti American because he has Russo-American ties, they add another layer of hypocrisy.
  • The Democrat campaigns have worked hard to set up Russia as a bogeyman and link Trump to Russia, even when evidence has pointed to their own people as sources of some leaks. At the same time, they have lied about whether hackers ever obtained Hillary’s emails. (Guccifer 1.0 is in prison because of it.) Therefore, the accusation implied by the titular question loses credibility.
  • While Trump’s ties to Russia are speculative, Hillary’s ties are not. We know that the Clintons and their foundations received hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian oligarchs while Hillary was SecState. More hypocrisy.
  • While we know of no anti-American actions by Trump that correspond to speculative ties to Russia, we do know that after receiving donations from Russia, Hillary enabled a mining deal that favored Russia and that had a significant negative impact on American interests. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming and damning.
  • All of this hypocrisy demands the question of whether the Left is leveling its speculative accusations against Trump in order to deflect attention away from Hillary’s known corruption. Such deflection is a common tactic of cover-ups.
  • We have circumstantial evidence of complicity with a cover-up in the mainstream media. The story of the Clintons receiving hundreds of millions in “donations” was not covered. However, a story about a former Trump campaign employee receiving 1/100th as much did receive coverage. Keep in mind the context: Hillary’s action gave American interests to Russia; the Trump associate’s action brought Russian business to the US.
  • A financial relationship with Russians does not create a conflict of interest for a businessman, but the Clintons’ financial relationship with “Russian oligarchs” while Hillary was in office does create a conflict of interest. At best, the Clintons created a prosecutable appearance of impropriety, and at worst, participated in bribery on a level that would have gotten a bureaucrat executed in some countries.

The level of hypocrisy, dishonesty, and brutal partisanship underlying the question is astounding. And that is not speculation.

The Tangent Followed by Most Commenters


Because most commenters go on a tangent about why Trump has delayed releasing his tax forms, I will address that, too.

Here is a factual reason for a delayed release. It may be Trump’s primary reason; it may not.

If you ask ten IRS employees for an interpretation of the tax code, you will get ten different opinions. It is inevitable that an audit will result in changes to some details of any tax return as complex as Trump’s. If Trump releases his return now, then when the changes due to the audit are released, partisans on the Left will accuse him of lying on the initial submission. After that, the changes will have to ripple through his much more thorough financial statement, and he will be accused of lying again.

That puts Trump in a lose-lose situation. If he releases the initial returns, he’s unjustly accused of lying, but if he delays, he’s accused of hiding something “*whore*-able,” as Hillary dramatically pronounced it.

As I said, this is fact, not speculation. Whether it is his reason, I don’t know, and you cannot say it isn’t if you are honest with yourself.

Now, this is more speculative: Courts have agreed that the Obama Administration has used the IRS to target people and organizations on its “enemies list.”  The IRS’s pattern of auditing Trump is consistent with that criminal abuse of power. Might some future email leak show that the Democrats conspired to put Trump in this lose-lose situation? Perhaps not, but it is more likely that a lot of the speculation I see others listing as “probable.”

Many commenters demonstrate a pitiful lack of critical reasoning. For example, one commenter lists a variety of reasons and calls all of them probable, even though some may be mutually exclusive. This demonstrates a failure to distinguish between the probable and the possible, as well as a refusal to acknowledge possibilities that might be entirely innocent.

In another bogus argument, people say Trump can release his tax forms just because the IRS does not stop him. They falsely reason that the absence of one barrier means that no barriers exist.

Partisanship is driving a spectacular level of hypocrisy and downright stupidity in this election. You can’t even read a question without tripping over a rhetorical trick, distortion of fact, or logical fallacy. And judging from the comments, the corrupt, the liars, the hypocrites are winning.

Copyright 2016
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 07, 2016

Can Integration of Muslims Prevent Their Radicalization?


Integration reduces radicalization, but nothing can prevent radicalization among any significant Muslim population. 

First, many recent terrorist incidents have involved men putatively "integrated" into mainstream society in the US and Europe.  If we cannot prevent radicalization of people already in a society -- for example, American-born citizens who convert to Islam and then go to fight for ISIS -- how can we prevent the reversal of immigrants' integration?  Moreover, how can we "integrate" the pre-radicalized jihadist "immigrant" who merely feigns integration so he can wage jihad by either converting or killing the "infidels?"

Second, any large population of a given persuasion will contain outliers. Among Democrats, you have Communists (fairly common). Among Democrats and Republicans, you have KKK members (rare, and blamed entirely on Republicans, but not extinct). Among nominal "Christians," you have violent pro-lifers (extremely rare). And among Muslims, you have violent jihadists (fairly common). 

Republicans and Christians can argue that the KKK and violent pro-lifers do not really subscribe to their ideologies. Democrats can claim the same concerning Communists, but an examination of their ideologies shows only a difference of shrinking degree. Violent jihadists, however, adhere strictly to the Koran; rather, it is the liberal Muslim who deviates from core Koranic teachings. 

Third, how do you force the integration of Muslims into Western society without undermining their religion, without crossing a line into deprogramming or brainwashing? That idea is abhorrent to both "liberals" and Muslims. Education is no cure-all. Many of jihadists, and especially Muslim Brotherhood leaders, hold degrees, even from Western universities.  Education aims at the mind, but secular education cannot convert the heart.  In fact, the educational environment can be counterproductive.  The temptations and challenges of secular universities can stress any devout student who aspires to a high moral code.  (As a former Bible-thumper, I can attest to that.)  I have recently seen a trend hinted at in the press, one I had not seen before, that of the Muslim who "integrates" and then sacrifices himself to pay for his Westernized sins.  Therefore, education not only has limited effectiveness but can result in violent reaction.

Before you read the next paragraph I must warn that I believe, based on both historical and theological arguments, that Islam is easily demonstrated to be a false religion that, despite Muslim paranoia about having their prophet and god blasphemed, is itself built upon lies and blasphemies.  

Secular liberals and liberal Muslims fantasize that violent jihadists are not real Muslims.  But that is not the elephant in the room.  Violent jihad is inevitable among those who follow the Koran.  Encouragement of liberal Islam and of integration of Muslims may reduce radicalization in the West, but it cannot prevent it, and it cannot reduce the radicalization already dominating at the source in Islamist countries.  

The only way to prevent Islamic radicalization is by reducing adherence to Islam.  As long as Christians and secularists fail to adequately address the theological problem of Islam, the jihadist problem will continue to fester.  And in its growing hostility toward evangelical Christianity while remaining neutral toward Islam and even accommodating it, the West does itself no favors.

Copyright 2016, Rich Wheeler
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

What's So Bad about Being a Liberal?

First, not all that presents itself as conservative is actually conservative.

The Republican Party poorly represents conservatism. In fact, the GOP vacillates between moderately conservative on some issues and liberal economics and internationalism. I would guess that a third of the GOP is actually liberal, a third sticks a wet finger in the air, and a minority is actually conservative. For example, George W. Bush got tax cuts passed early in his administration, but cooperated with Democrat-led bail-outs of banks and GM.

So, let's not use Republicans to define the opposite of liberalism.

Second, being liberal is a good thing; and progress is good when the goal is good and the means are just. Being a liberal or a progressive, however, has a very peculiar meaning that does not necessarily connect to the root words, liberal and progress.

In my definitions (not necessarily standard, but offered for the sake of communication), conservatism seeks to preserve traditional values of liberty, self-reliance, and justice that does not respect persons.

Liberalism, or as the codeword is used today, progressivism, on the other hand, redefines a neutral term. Progress is good, right? Doesn't everybody love progress?

When you say change (as in hope and change) or progress, you have to pick a direction. You have to pick an origination and a destination. Depending on your definition of progress, it may or may not mean something good. The compass has only one North, but it has 359 degree-markers that point away from North.

Suppose your objective were to see far with an unobstructed view, so you climb the highest mountain. Progress would be pretty stupid if it meant trekking off that cliff to the West, wouldn't it? What else could you do? You could build a tower where you are, on your existing foundation. But would you leave the spot just because change is good?

The progressive compass points hard left, to 270 degrees, toward freedom for immorality and toward repression of traditional morality, toward collectivist statism, and toward "social justice" that bases rights on class, skin color, and sexual orientation.

American conservatives see progressive, liberal, socialist, and Marxist, as variations of a single philosophy. That philosophy derives from secular, materialist existentialism, in which interpretation is reality, objective truth is a myth, and the ultimate organism is the state.

Whereas Americanism states that authority flows from God through the People to the government, the progressive spectrum worships the Collective as the ultimate organism, whose people live at its pleasure. Americanism secures rights to the people and assigns responsibilities to the government, but progressivism gives the government rights and the people privileges. Conservative liberalism means personal tolerance and personal giving (to which the restaurant help will attest after any political convention), but Progressive liberalism forces promotion of the tolerable and gives at the expense of others.

If you believe black is white and right is wrong, then, I suppose, being a liberal is great.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 20, 2013

What Fact Check Sites Do You Prefer?


Do you prefer Snopes, Factcheck, what? Thanks, L
The fact-check and urban legends sites have helped me avoid embarrassing myself many times. There's nothing like forwarding a request from a 7-year-old cancer victim, only to find that he's now 27, has to pay for his own zip code, and wishes people would stop sending him post cards for his collection.
 
When it comes to political or social issues, however, I don't trust any of them.
  • PolitiFact is a project of the St. Petersberg Times, an extreme left-wing newspaper. Click HERE for an example of how their Lie of the Year with which they smeared Mitt Romney turned out to be true.
      
  • FactCheck, FlackCheck, and FactCheckEd are a projects of Annenberg Public Policy Center and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. As board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama (or was he still Barry Soetoro?) helped fund "educational" activities of Bill Ayers, the 1960s terrorist who murdered at least one policeman with a bomb. What does that tell you about FactCheck's neutrality?
      
  • Snopes is funded by George Soros, a pro-socialist billionaire and currency manipulator who boasts that he has overthrown at least two European countries. The editors of Snopes are Obama bundlers and one has even held an appointment in the Obama administration.
      
  • The Fact Checker is a project of The Washington Post, a veritable media outlet for the Democrat Party.
No short-cut around visiting various sources and weighing the arguments. However, find the following sites quite helpful:
If you have a favorite site for checking the veracity of what you hear from the media or the politicians, please let us know in the comments.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, January 11, 2013

When Liberals Get Tough on Crime....

I see a common trope in the news that I call, When Liberals 'get tough on crime....'
  • A kindergartener takes a 3/4" rubber GI Joe knife to school
  • Seven-year-olds shoot at each other with "finger guns" while playing cops and robbers
  • A teenage girl gives Midol to a classmate having menstrual cramps
...and they get suspensions and juvenile records.
  • Or an Olympic rifle champion gets arrested for having his target rifle (with trigger lock and a locked bag) locked in the trunk of his car when picking up his child from school.
  •  A man shoots an armed home invader and is sent to prison for illegally using a gun.
 When Liberals 'get tough on crime....' predicts the following:
  • SWAT teams knocking down the doors of anybody who has ever been diagnosed with depression or anxiety (information courtesy of Obamacare) and who has a record of having applied to purchase a firearm (information courtesy of background check applications)
  •  "Clean shoots" by police officers reacting to people startled out of their sleep and pointing flashlights at the intruders.
The second prediction reminds me of a little boy in Modesto, California, who was killed a few years ago by the "accidental discharge" of a shotgun pointed at his back while he laid, hands bound, on the floor during a legal (but mistaken) search of his grandfather's house.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, November 02, 2012

Obama: You Didn't Build That




People think that Me-me-me-my-my-my-I-I-I-bama's speech makes sense only because his speechwriters sugarcoat false reasoning. His error stems from the hidden socialist dogma that the business is not responsible for the roads, utilities, regulators, delivered in tones of fake outrage. Rather, he implies, the contributions of employees, utility workers, bureaucrats, etc, add significant value to the business. This assumption deceives for two reasons.

First, the business pays, through taxes to the government, wages to employees, interest and fees to lenders, and dividends to stockholders, for all those things Ibama says contributed to building the business. A new business may pay afterwards instead of before, but it still pays. It says that if you pay somebody to do make something you thought of, they get all the credit, as though you had nothing to do with it.

This couldn't be more wrong. If you buy a painting, you own it. If you buy a pizza, you have the right to eat it. Likewise, if you pay for all those ancillary contributions, then you get the credit for building the business.

Second, all those external factors would exist whether you build the business or don't. The contribution is mutual because, without the business, unused roads and utilities would be failures due to lack of use and would be failures due to lack of sponsorship. The electric company, the construction companies, employees, and bureaucrats profit from the presence of the business.

By Ibama's reasoning, when you build that business, you get to take credit for all those other things, too. But Ibama is a committed Marxist, so he loses his sense of reality amid all the big words and false intellectualism. "You didn't build that" is sophistic: It sounds brilliant, but when you slow down and think, you hear the foolishness.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, July 22, 2012




In Business, Take Time to Do the Calculations


Reference:  Weiser, Matt . California Parks Director Resigns Amid Scandal. Sacramento Bee. Friday, 20 July 2012.

As California balances between eternal debt and bankruptcy, the Democrats in Sacramento look for excuses to raise taxes and spending. One such excuse, the shortfall of funds to keep California State Parks open, has forced many volunteers into fundraising and forced local governments into shifting their own funds into keeping state parks open to  draw tourist dollars.

The Sacramento Bee found that a deputy director at State Parks "carried out a secret vacation buyout program for employees at department headquarters last year. That buyout cost the state more than $271,000." This led to a much larger find: The State Parks department his hiding $54 million in unspent funds.

State Parks Director Ruth Coleman resigned after the Bee published news of the stash. The employee who bought back vacation time had already been demoted and later resigned. His crime, in my opinion, discriminated between his friends at the headquarters and those who work equally hard in the field.

I believe the withholding of funds could only happen in concert with Democrat attempts to extort more taxes from the public. That's how Democrats do things in California government.

The gem in the original story follows:  For the sake of argument, let's assume we have two employees:






  1. Mr. Buyout sells his vacation time back to the state.
    Mr. Vacation enjoys taking time off to go protest with OWS.


  2. Vacation is earned over the course of the year.
    Both employees make $50/hour.


  3. Both have 160 hours/month x 12 months/year (rounding) and 40 hours vacation



This means





  • Mr. Buyout works 1920 hours for 1960 hours' pay.
    Mr. Vacation works 1880 hours for 1920 hours' pay. 


  • Mr. Buyout makes $98,000.
    Mr. Vacation makes $96,000. 


  • Mr. Buyout has an effective pay rate of $51.042 per hour.
    Mr. Vacation has an effective pay rate of $51.064 per hour.


Mr. Buyout actually makes 2 cents per hour less.

Two cents/hour is not much, but consider a couple more factors.

First, when you add in the effects of benefits and overhead, the difference multiplies to 3 to 4 cents per hour.  Employers love forcing employees to work overtime because the benefits are paid for by the first 1920 hours' labor. With benefits costing 50% to 100% of the base pay, that means employee overtime effectively costs 33%-50% less (assuming pay at straight time rates, if any).

On a tangent, managers often put their directs in a position where overtime is forced and vacation is denied.  Both practices hinder productivity and morale.  When employees forced to work lose unused vacation, it amounts to stealing.  Therefore, vacation buyouts often form an ethically necessary action.

Second, if you multiply 2 cents/hour over a year and thousands of employees, the added productivity and lowered effective cost create a good deal for the taxpayers.

Conclusion:  The state punished the fellow who conducted the buyouts for doing a good thing. THAT, dear friend, is California government, just as much as hiding funds to force increased taxes.  The business-related point is, "do the math."  The worker who violates procedure may have done so because it was right for the company and simply, ethically right.




Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Liberals Misunderstand America's Melting Pot

The melting pot is just an implement. It brings to mind a stew, since it has been contrasted with a salad bowl. However, I think the correct image comes from metallurgy, where various ingredients should blend to form an alloy such as steel.

Staying with the stew pot (I think more people can relate to cooking than to metallurgy), we have three cooks brewing a terrible mess. 

One cook, the conservative, wants to maintain the stew's distinctive balance of flavors, the recipe that made the stew a distinctively American stew.

The second cook, the newcomer, comes in numbers that upsets the balance of flavors and, in fact, refuses to abandon the flavor that he left behind. He sees only the rich nutrient content of the American stew and fails to value the recipe that made it great. That is, he brings the values that caused the conditions from which he fled and clashes with values that made America great. While conservative cooks welcome newcomers, an excess of newcomers can turn the stew into a completely different dish.

The third cook, the liberal, rejects the Judeo-Christian broth on which the soup was based. He waters down and neutralizes the distinct American flavor. He tries every other continent's distinctive dish; after all "change is good." Doing so, he leaves a hole into which the newcomers add the flavors of their impoverished, oppressed, corrupt, fan-ruled countries of origin.

We don't have a situation where we neutrally teach children about other cultures' recipes. Liberals rule the State Church (the education system). They use their power to belittle and suppress the conservative flavor. In its place, they teach the recipes of materialistic humanism and even the recipes of the newcomers. Thus, we see generations of agnostics, pictures of schoolchildren bowing in Muslim prayer, and children becoming "gay" before it is even developmentally appropriate for them to know about sex.

By suppressing the conservative values that redirected rights from the state toward the individual and by encouraging those whose native cultures produce totalitarianism, liberalism -- both political and religious -- threatens to destroy American and that for which she stands -- or used to stand.

The analogy holds up for the metallurgical melting pot, too. With the right ingredients, the product can resist oxidation, spring back into shape, or separate a nucleus from its cell's membrane. With careless formulation, it can be easily dulled, can oxidize overnight, or can even be toxic -- but that's assuming you're willing to separate it from all the unmelted dross. And liberals aren't willing.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Birthers May Finally Get Their Day in Court


The question may turn out to be, “Which Republican candidate can best beat Hillary?”

According to an action letter from Proof Positive via Conservative Contacts and the web site of Attorney OrlyTaitz, a Georgia Judge has issued a subpoena demanding Barack Obama appear in court January 26 and produce his original long form birth certificate, passport records, college registration records, and more.

Georgia became the first state to pursue Obama ineligibility complaints, and the end result may keep Barack Obama off the Georgia 2012 ballot.  A number of Georgia voters filed lawsuits questioning Barack Hussein Obama's eligibility to appear on the Georgia Presidential ballot.

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp's office decided to pursue five of the ineligibility complaints.  Each complaint argues that Barack Hussein Obama II is ineligible to appear on the 2012 Georgia Presidential ballot. Secretary Kemp assigned 5 different hearings under five different judges so that the complaints could move forward.

Failure to appear on the Georgia ballot could bring Obama devastating media and cost him 15 electoral votes.

Dr. Orly Taitz, attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the Georgia eligibility cases working their way rapidly through the courts, posted a copy of what is reportedly a subpoena, issued by Judge Michael Malihi of Georgia.

Georgia Judge Michael Malihi ordered Obama's attorneys to appear in court January 26, holding that, according to state law, every federal and state candidate must prove eligibility for office – including Barack Obama.

The White House's badly forged "birth certificate" has not ended the debate on Barack Obama's eligibility. Rather, it has opened the door for further allegations of fraud and ineligibility.  The subpoena demands that Barack Obama personally appear in court on January 26 and bring with him a a "birther's" dream list of official documents that will prove or disprove his eligibility for office.

Unlike previous cases, where only certain documents were requested or discussed, this subpoena issued by Judge Malihi includes every document that serious eligibility experts have been discussing from the beginning. 

The list requires Obama to produce each of the following:
  • Any and all certified birth records including a long form birth certificate.
  • Certified school/university registration records. Certified immigration/naturalization records.
  • Certified passport records
  • Redacted certified Social Security card applications for each of the aliases and other legal names used by Barack Obama, including but not limited to his legal surname when adopted by step-father Lolo Soetoro

In addition, Judge Malihi has reportedly also subpoenaed Hawaii Health Department officials and commanded them to produce an original certified copy of Obama's long form birth certificate.

In an order written January 3, 2012, Malihi ruled that Georgia state law is very clear – any candidate for federal or state office must meet the qualifications of that office and that Georgia electors have the right to challenge those qualifications in court.  Accordingly, Malihi flatly denied Obama's motion to dismiss and scheduled a hearing for January 26.

Obama has some of the highest-rent attorneys in the country working to keep the question of his eligibility for office out of court.  And no wonder, because whether he was born in Hawaii or not, according to binding precedents laid out by the Supreme Court, Barack Hussein Obama II does not qualify as a natural born Citizen.

Georgia resident Kevin R. Powell wrote in his complaint, "Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S. citizen.  Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a natural born citizen of the United States…"

The U.S. Constitution very clearly requires, in a unique usage and application of the term, that the president must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible for the nation's highest office.  "Natural born Citizen" is demonstrably held by the Founders in Article II, Section 1 as distinct and different from "Citizen" and even "native born Citizen" – that is, born under jus soli, on native soil.

In the Founding era, the common law view held that a natural born Citizen was born within United States territory to parents who were themselves United States Citizens.

In the 1875 unanimous Supreme Court ruling of Minor v. Happerset, the Supreme Court explicitly held a "natural born Citizen" to be a Citizen whose parents were both U.S. Citizens at the time of the person's birth. 
This finding was, and continues to be, fully consistent with U.S. history in Supreme Court case decisions and with laws enacted and enforced by the United States Congress.

By Barack Obama's own admission, his father was a native of Kenya and was NEVER a U.S. Citizen.  Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II would, under long-standing custom, common law, and Supreme Court precedent, automatically be ineligible to hold the office of President of the United States.

The January 26th hearing should be a blockbuster.  It is the first in the nation that proposes to consider on the merits whether Barack Hussein Obama II is eligible to be President of the United States of America.

This article was re-written from a letter from Americans United for Freedom,
http://www.AmericansUnitedForFreedom.org.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, December 19, 2011

New Word: Cacostocracy

An acquaintance asked me if I could beat a forwarded definition of an ineptocracy. It wasn't bad, but I don't give the crooks and traitors in charge of the White House and Senate enough credit to call them merely inept.

Coincidentally, I was thinking about my own word, cacostocracy, that morning while listening to Whistle-blower Wednesday during KSFO's morning commute show. I guess it's about time I defined it.

cacostocracy (cack'-o-stock'-ruh-see), from Gk. kakos "bad, evil":

A political process of putrefaction in which pernicious politicians


  • for personal empowerment, pursue profane payments proffered by the powerful for propitious and partial treatment, and
  • pawn profitable persons' futures to finance the favor of degraded, desperate, and dumbed-down demographics, thereby
  • protecting prolonged, perverted "progress"

    • - by proliferating the pampered,
    • - by planting pestiferous policies to oppress productive people, and
    • - by paring proletarian producers into dispossessed, dis-empowered, dependent peasants.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

    Friday, May 28, 2010

    Writing: A Little Perspective Can Bring Out the Relevance

    [Somebody tried to start the following off-topic discussion in a writers' group on LinkedIn, a social networking site organized by occupation. One writer responded, equally off-topic. Naturally, I just couldn't resist putting in my 200 cents.]



    Original post: Heather Crouse
    Executive Vice President at Ferrellok Life Sciences, LLC.


    As a country, can we truly afford all of these outrageous bills the Obama Administration keeps pushing through?


    The Obama Administration is constantly pushing bills costing billions and trillions of dollars. The last administration spent trillions on oil and war. Can we afford to keep borrowing money against ourselves?

    Response: Grant Steen
    Owner, Medical Communications Consultants, LLC

    I dropped off the Ferrellok Life Sciences discussion group because this kind of useless political garbage kept popping up. Are you trying to trash another discussion group?

    For the record, the Obama Administration was stuck with a broken country and a huge bill because George Bush tried to fight two wars while cutting taxes and deregulating industry. All of our problems right now are the result of moronic Republican policies. Get a grip!


    Fifth Response: Richard M. Wheeler
    Systems Engineer -- Available Now


    Grant Steen, thank you SO MUCH for legitimizing Heather Crouse's off-topic message by turning it into a discussion.

    For the record back at you, Mr. Genius: If Bush AND the Democrat House AND the Democrat Senate used our children as colateral, the Obama Administration hocked our grandchildren AND our great-grandchildren AND our great-great-grandchildren. Even Republicans pinched their noses when voting for Bush, so grip some perspective! You're smarter than to pass the buck with such a moronic, moral-equivalence-of-darts-and-bullets argment.

    Heather Crouse, this is not the place, even if you're right. Better (and more relevantly phrased) questions to ask would include

    o Besides watching only MFNBC, what is the best way to train for a lucrative and rewarding career at Czar Sunstein's Ministry of Information?

    o How can writers stay motivated while writing laws that they know their bosses won't even bother to read?

    o Can freelancers cash in on the boom in Democrat-media agit-prop?

    o What is the best software for writing a 1,500-page bill to take over the rest of the economy?

    o Is the Associated Press Style Guide the best reference when hiding subversive provisions in a reform bill?

    o What great logician said, "You will never be... at the mercy... of a principled... uh... argument... uh... uh... when-you-can-come-back-with-a-tear-jerking-story"?

    o How are writers enjoying the new Health Care Benefits that they are paying for?

    See? You just have to put things in perspective.
    Posted by at No comments:
    Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)