Fair is a place where you get cotton candy

I am tired of all the talk about fairness. I’m afraid we’re going to hear it for another 13 months. It appears to be Obama’s re-election campaign slogan. It is a great tagline but what does it really mean?

The problem is that “Fair” is not an absolute. It is riddled with personal and circumstantial bias. Is it fair that a bank shouldn’t be allowed to make a profit but Apple can? Everyone applauds Steve Jobs for everything he did to change the world (and we should) but guess what – he made billions doing it. Is that fair? Maybe Apple should sell their products for less so more people can afford them. That seems fair to me.

While we’re at it, Hollywood should base movie ticket prices on our income level. If a progressive tax system is fair then why not a progressive movie ticket price? Paying $8 to $10 to see a movie is a bigger sacrifice to someone living at the poverty level. Are you listening Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Sean Penn?

We need to get back to the truest of all of life’s axioms – Life is not fair.

There’s a great quote that has been attributed to many people over the years - “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor – rich is better”. The bottom line is that it sucks to be poor”. If it didn’t we’d all be poor. There’d be no incentive to be rich. I don’t know if that’s fair or not but that’s the way it is and must be in a free society.

We must do what we can to help the poor rise up but government directed redistribution of wealth is not the answer. Either is creating a rift in this country between the haves and have nots. That’s not leadership it’s just campaigning.

So if you want the cotton candy, go to the fair; but bring your wallet because it’s not free.

So now he's a racist!

I watched in amazement the last couple of years as the Republicans put forth female candidates.  I thought that the enlightened, forward thinking (dare I say progressive) liberal media would have given them a fair shake.  And the equal rights touting, bra burning NOWers would have as well.  I was quite surprised at the backlash they all received.  The incredible furor of Sarah Palin could not be matched but they sure tried with Michelle Bachmann.  I am in no way endorsing either woman but the vitriol and biased reporting stunned me.

So you would think I would not be surprised when this same "enlightened" group went after Herman Cain so quickly.  But alas I was.  The moment Cain showed significant positive movement in the polls, the hate and fear mongers came out, and came out loud.  Janeane Garofalo was quick to talk nonsense about Cain being paid to run to hide the Republican racist agenda.  She couldn't give a black man credit for being his own man with his own ideas?  And who's the racist?

Then Democratic strategist Cornell Belcher (whoever he is) called Herman Cain a racist because he suggested that the African American community was brainwashed into voting for Obama.  Ok maybe Herman should have said fooled into voting for Obama (like half of America was) but still - a racist?  I tried to give liberals (and the press that covers them) the benefit of the doubt once - but not anymore.  They will use any tactic they can, no matter how low, to discredit a challenger to the Messiah.  All this even after Obama has repeatedly shown he does not, nor never did, walk on water.

Just remember - when you are discussing politics with someone, and they throw the racist term in your face - you've won.

I tried to stay out of this, but. . .

I keep hearing all the talk about raising the debt ceiling.  Of course we have to raise it so America does not default, cause a financial crisis, and effectively destroy the human race!  But raise it at what cost?  I like to use analogies to make sense of complicated issues.  I relate the country's finances to those of the average household.  If you get in trouble with your credit card and hit the limit you can easily contact the bank and ask them to raise your debt ceiling.  Usually they'll be more than happy to do so. 

Is that going to solve your household budgeting problem?  No.  Most families cannot appreciably raise the amount of revenue they bring in (especially in this economy) so what to do, what to do.  To solve the problem you have to cut spending and actually live below your means.

The government has the unique opportunity to raise more revenue (in theory) by raising taxes.  (I tend to believe this actually does not raise revenue but I'll save that for another post)  But should they?  Isn't that like giving more crack to the addict?  We have to break the cycle of outrageous over spending.  Both parties have contributed to this in the past so there is plenty of blame to go around.  But now one party is saying No - we are not going to give you more revenue, just make the necessary cuts. 

In the end I believe a deal will be struck and, yes, the Republicans will have to give a little, but hold firm to your principles people and let's get our fiscal household under control.

We can't let the Inmates run the Asylum

Let 'em protest.

The Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio budget/union battles have been good fodder for the media.  Just once I wish they would talk about the real issue.  It is not an attack on all unions - only pubic worker unions.  It is not an attack on the working class.  In fact, the working class pays the public workers salaries and benefits.  This legislation will help the working class.  It is incestuous to think that the workers can elect the bosses they would then "negotiate" with.  FDR knew this was a bad idea and said so.  Samuel Gompers, one of the fathers of labor unions, said that public workers should not be allowed to unionize.

Lock 'em out.

The fight between the haves and haves in the NFL and NBA is just as illustrative.  First of all, they are fighting over billions of dollars so can either side really lose?  But remember - that money is part of a free market and paid by choice by the sponsors and fans.  Can/should the workers (athletes) call the shots?  The owners are the business men and women who created the market.  There are more people that can run, jump, throw, and catch then there are that can build multi-billion dollar markets.

Of course workers will object when they can no longer call the shots or, worse yet, feel something is being taken away.  What's gotten lost is that they should not have had those things in the first place.

There are only two choices:   Either the market and business owners make the rules or the government does.  I believe in free markets and capitalism so I prefer the former.  But in no way can the workers make the rules.  There are enough organizations, agencies and laws to protect workers.  There is also enough choice and opportunity that workers who feel oppressed can move on or start their own venture. 

Once they're the owner they'll probably feel different about the whole situation.

It's the Sticks & Stones. . .

Remember the old adage?  . . . they'll break your bones but words will never hurt you.  Tell that to the main stream media.  I watched in total sadness the news of the shootings in Tuscon.  And I also watched in total disgust how the MSN instantly tried to make this about political speech.  They didn't have any facts yet but they just couldn't miss out on a chance to take advantage of a tragedy.  Yet after the Fort Hood shootings they were all quick to say we can't jump to conclusions (about motive or Muslim influence) because the guy was mentally unstable.  There is no proof that political rhetoric had anything to do with what happened in Tuscon.

The responsibility lies solely with the Jack Wagon (I'm not going to print his name) that did the shooting.  OK, some of the blame should go to his parents and anyone else "close" to him.  But it's not about vitriolic speech or gun laws.  It is about a guy who is lost, crazy, or whatever and nobody noticing.  I never used to like Hilary Clinton's line that "It takes a Village" because I think it takes a family.  But I can appreciate that not everyone has a supportive family and may need the village to take notice.  In this case both failed.  But in the end it all comes back to personal responsibility. 

But no, now the liberals want to monitor and censor free speech.  It is just like with terrorism; if we let it change who we are as a nation then the terrorists win.  And I always find it interesting what they want to ban. 

They will wholly defend our right to burn the American flag or display provocative art.  But, if they had their way, we wouldn't be able to say we are going to target a person or district as part of political discourse?  Absurd.  Maybe they should talk to their entertainment industry cohorts and work to reduce the violence in TV, movies, and video games - or at least not to glorify it.  That effects society more than a heated debate. 

So sorry MSN, it is not Sarah Palin's fault, it is not Rush's or Glenn's or Fox News.  It is a failure of respect for human life and that is what we should all work to get back.

To all of the victims and families of the victims - God Bless you all and our prayers are with you.

As California goes . . .

. . . so goes the nation.  According to a California consultant, the number of companies leaving the state in 2010 is up to 144!  In 2099 the number was 51.  So why the threefold increase?  The companies want to reduce their California footprint because of the anti-business environment of the state.  They are moving to attractive, lower-cost alternative locations like Texas, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Virginia and Utah.  And of course they are moving to other countries that appreciate that it is business that drives the economy, not government.

California's posture of  high taxes and intense regulation damages companies' ability to compete.  This is a problem that faces the entire country, not just California.  Will people take heed?  If the current culture in Washington is any indication then, no, we won't.  Raising taxes, increasing business regulations, and forcing questionable environmental restrictions on American manufacturers is sure to drive even more business (and jobs) overseas.

I live in a city that is less than business friendly.  We have plenty of open spaces, parks, and bike trails but apparently not enough revenue to run our schools and library.

Maybe we should all pay more attention to California.  They are a shining example of where we are headed.

111 reasons. . . and still counting

So if Obamacare is so darn good why have 111 companies asked for, and received, one year waivers?  They don't have to participate.  There are some pretty big companies, unions, and insurers.  You can find a list of these exempt companies on the Department of Health & Human Services website at http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html .

This opens up the discussion to so many questions:

Who decides what companies get one?
Why do companies need one?
How does this affect the companies forced to participate?
Wasn't this supposed to be better?
Wasn't this supposed to drive down costs?
Why has the MSN not picked up on this story?
Just what was the hurry?
How do we apply?

This whole fiasco explains the results of the mid-term elections.  First of all read the damn bill before you vote.  Second - Government is best that governs least and, third, fast government is bad government.  Repeal this crap then give me:

Gridlock Sweet Gridlock.