Smarter Than Thou!

A POLITE CORRECTION

     BEFORE in this location, I commented on the issue of open versus secret union voting.  This refers to a bill in Congress by which workers decide to join, or not to join, unions.  The Union side wants the vote to be open, identifiable and public.  The opponents fear that this will lead to unions placing “pressure” upon workers to make them vote the “right” way. 

     Upon further consideration, I realize that I may have been wrong.  And my visit from Vito and Carmine, two, and distinctive looking, gentlemen from the Teamsters, has had nothing to do with this.  Rather I ask you to consider the following. 

     When the vote is private the union officials do not know whom to beat up.  Most workers, out of simple fear, will SAY, but not mean, that they will vote to join the unions.  Thus, the union persuaders will be at a loss as to whom to injure.  Faced with this stress, they will pick random victims, or attack everyone.  Who wants this?  In fact, they may attack people who really would vote for unionization.  This would be an act of the utmost injustice.   

     With open voting the bone breaking would be limited only to those who would vote against unions.  Thus the violence would be far more focused and circumspect.  Who could possibly be against that?  This message was sponsored by the Teamsters.  Recall that when you need a union, you want the Teamsters. 

Here is another explanation of how Barack-onomics works.  There will be many, many fewer hours wasted in traffic jams.  There is because so many fewer people will drive to work, because they will not have any work to drive to.  And this will reduce global warming, which cause the ice caps to increase, and the benefit of this are too obvious to list. 

And it is obvious that, because of other obvious benefits, YOU should have your name on the A&E subscriber list.  Act today... or whenever you get around to it.  

 

ISN'T THIS OBVIOUS?

     THERE is a bill in Congress which deals with labor unions.  More specifically it deals with how workers vote to join or not to join unions.  The bill’s purpose is to make such voting open, as opposed to secret.  Apparently, such votes currently are usually secret.

     The opponents of the bill, mostly anti-union type Republicans, argue that such open, on the record, voting, will lead to violence by union thugs.  That is, union thugs can threaten a worker, before he votes, so that he votes the  union way.  Of course, this is a possibility, and is a perfectly valid reason to oppose the bill. 

      The proponents of the bill argue that, somehow, open voting makes it “easier” for workers to unionize.  I don’t understand how or why, and they never explain.  However, they also add that there have been only 4 or 5 incidents of union/voting intimidation in the last 4,100 years.  Thus, they argue, the objections based upon potential violence are nonsense.  

        Of course, there have been virtually no cases of intimidation.  How can a thug be certain whom to beat, if the ballot is secret?  There would be no way to know.  Interestingly, the opponents of the bill never point out this most obvious fact.  But then recognizing reality is not common among the current Republican members of Congress. 

 

A BONUS (which you do not have to give back)!  Here is more on Barack-onomics, and how it works.  It will make people happier.  Soon the greeters at Wal-Mart, and other stores, will be more sincerely grateful to see customers… or anyone with any money at all.  And  thus everyone really will “have a nice day.”      

 

 

A MATTER OF SEMANTICS?

    The issue of AIG (a wholly owned subsidiary of FreeMason, Inc) giving bonuses to its employees is a hot topic.  I personally hold that (1) the bailout was totally wrong, but, (2) once the money was given, giving bonuses is the right action.  Briefly, I hold the following.  IF you want X to exist THEN you employ the best means to keep X alive.  The current employees, most of whom have done a good job (according to news reports), are going to do better than a new employees, who will take years to learn where the copy room is, or was. 

      I now move to the issue of a bonus.  A bonus is, literally, a gift.  It is like a Christmas or birthday present.  A bonus is an extra payment.  In contrast, salaries and benefits are what the company is required to pay, as long as the employee is employed.  This may be all a matter of semantics, but semantics is (or are?) of supreme importance.  Semantics, despite often being dismissed by stupid people, mean the meanings of words.  And, IF we do not know the meanings of the words, which we use, THEN we are reduced to (at best) grunts and gestures.  Humanity is a direct function of semantics. 

      This means that the “defense” offered by the AIG officials, namely that they are “contractually obligated” to pay the bonuses, is pure nonsense.  This is exactly the same as saying one is contractually obligated to give a birthday present.  Social obligations are not a matter of contracts. 

      This seems to be quite typical of the “news” coming out of Washington and NYC these days.  Who knows what is going on?  Keep watching; it should be (more) fun. 

Here is more Barac-onomics, and how it will benefit us all.  Soon, as big firms fall like things which fall easily, many experienced executives will be “free.”  They will be unleashed upon, or into, the economy.  Having dodged taxes for years they will establish new businesses, which they will keep “underground,” i.e. decline to pay taxes on them.  And this will mean more pure profits, and more prosperity, because of less government involvement.   

IS LOU DOBBS THIS STUPID... REALLY?

     LOU Dobbs is a TV personality, who pretends to be a journalist.  He is on CNN, and, therefore, is in favor of killing as many very young people as people.  So---am I being repetitious?---he is stupid.  But is he THIS stupid… or was this a joke?  You judge, please. 

    Lou tends towards financial stories, and hating Mexicans.  Recently on his radio show he had Dennis Kucinich.  This is that really “odd” person who ran for the Democratic nomination in the last two presidential campaigns.  Dobbs described him as “highly principled.”  Dennis went from strongly pro-life to strong pro-death overnight, in order to achieve the nomination.  Dobbs considers this to be principled.  But wait, more stupidity follows. 

    The topic was the action of some of the bailed out banks.  Dobbs found out that these banks are investing their federal money overseas.  He was outraged.  How dare they!  Right now, when there is a financial crisis here, they are sending money out of the country.  Heads should roll--- or at least have brains in them.   

     Consider the situation, rationally.  The banks have to pay back this money, with interest.  So if they simply sit on it, then they lose money.  They can not loan it to businesses, which are cutting back and will not borrow more money.  They could provide mortgages to people who can not repay.  But this was one of the causes of the crisis. 

     So what are they supposed to do with the money?  Buy their own stock?  They are, prudently, seeking the best opportunities for investing, and making a profit.  And those are not around here any more, as Bam-Bam is not president of overseas. 

      Again, is Dobbs this stupid?  Probably, as almost everyone else is. 

An extra feature

Here is how Obama-nomics workS (One of a series).  People waiting on lines are very unproductive.  Waiting on long lines is quite common at Disney World.  Soon few people will have enough money for admission to it.  Thus, by not being on long lines, they will, of necessity, be more productive.  And thus we, the USA, shall productive-ize ourselves out of the recession.  Bam-Bam has it all planned.    

BEING UNFAIR TO BAM-BAM?

THE defenders of Bam-Bam often point out that he has been leader for a short time, and thus his policies have not yet had a chance to take effect.  Therefore, he has inherited the problems, which continue and worsen.  To put it another way:  you can not be angry with the contractor for not yet rebuilding the house, while it is still on fire. 

    I, however, hold that the condemnation is valid.  The contractor is continuously feeding the fire, and shooting at the firemen.  He has no plans to rebuild the fire.  And he does not have any building materials.

    His policies are doomed.  Anyone who has a basic understanding of economics knows that (he and) they will fail.  Yet very few are willing to commit themselves to this prediction.  Why this is so is another question. 

    Rather than giving, again, the reasons why they can not work, allow me to give an analogy from sports.  A football team has tree parts:  offense; defense; kicking game.  Suppose that a team, last season, had a wonderful defense.  Yet they lost every game---every one---because they could not score points.  Then, after the season ends, the team only acquires more defensive players, who will now only sit on the bench. 

      That is, instead of dealing with defects, and facing reality, they have emphasized exactly what they should have ignored.  Unless the rules change, or the league changes, the next season also will be unsuccessful.  It does not require any clairvoyant to predict what then will happen. 

      Predictions can be made, and easily so, when conditions are kept relatively stable, and rules are known.  And if I turn out to be wrong then I shall refund the money you paid for this. 

And I predict that if you subscribe to the A&E then you will be wiser, and have more (or less) hair depending upon your gender, age, and inclination. 

P.S.  As an added attraction, I shall add some “Barrack Benefits.”  These are improvements which, as nation, we can expect under the reign of our tribal chief.                                                                                                                          ----Increased happiness!  Those couples, who are unable to conceive, will find adoption much, much easier… as parents sell abandon their children, which they are no longer unable to afford.   

    

OBAMA BEING OBAMA

   THERE are two ways validly to attack someone.  The first is to show that he and/or his views are wrong by some external standard.  The second is to show internal inconsistency.  All truth and goodness is consistent, but not all, which is consistent, is good and true.  I hold that the current, and future, policies of Leader Bam-Bam are objectively wrong, by any rational standard.  However, I shall not employ this analysis.  I shall deal with what I see to be invalid attacks on his policy.  That is, I shall, per force, defend him… to a degree. 

    Bam-Bam advocates a Keynesian “recovery” program.  This advocates spending to create demand, which will then spur production.  This does, and can, NOT work.  But, again, the key(nesian) goal is to spend, spend, spend.  For this purpose bills and a budget were proposed and passed.  

    The criticism is that there are many (thousands?) of “earmarks.”  But this I mean relatively minor, usually quite specific, programs.  This is called “pork.”  By this I mean something which is intended to benefit one person, or location, or industry, as opposed to the entire country.  The critics, mostly Conservatives, attack all of this as being “politics as usual,” and thus not being consistent with Bam-Bam’s promise to bring real change. 

    Let me suggest this.  Bam-Bam wants lots of spending.  And then his bills contain lots of spending programs.  And the Congressmen, realizing that the money is going to be spent anyway, try to get some for their districts, to benefit specific constituents.  In other words, Bam-Bam is being accused of actually trying to do what he is says that he is trying to do.  And Congressmen are serving their various districts.  And this is being inconsistent?

    I do not like defending him.  However, can not his critics actually use truth to attack him?  There are many other weapons available. 

    You can learn how to use truth to attack almost everyone, by reading the A&E.  Call today, or whenever you feel like it; we are quite flexible.