Republican Christopher Shays said today on NPR’s “All Things Considered” that he was defeated in his Connecticut Senatorial re-election bid because Democrats linked him to George Bush, “…even though I only voted with him 50% of the time.”
Oh really? That statement invites a lot of questions. Mr. Shays, did you vote with him only 50% of the time because you knew that your party’s legislative control would carry the vote without you? For which issues and bills DID you vote with him?
And even more importantly, when George Bush insisted on the Iraqi invasion, where were you and your party providing oversight and demanding due process? When George Bush was encouraging bills eroding Constitutional freedoms, where were you and your party insisting on moderation? The people trusted you and your party to actively govern your Republican president, but you chose to get down on you knees before him like a crack whore at 3 A.M.
Even in defeat, Mr. Shays, you are blind to the reason you and your party have been swept out of office: NO New England Senatorial seats are held by Republicans, and damn few in the state of New York. Yet you blame the Democrats. How very sad.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Return of the Son of Rewarding the Republicans
Folks,
John McCain continues to migrate toward the right wing of the Republican Party.
As I warned in Rewarding the Republicans, now that he has been knighted, McCain is now paying obeisance to the lords and masters of his Republican realm.
Centrists were initially encouraged by McCain’s choice of foreign policy advisors from the “pragmatist”, or “realist” camp: Henry Kissinger; Colin Powell; John Lehman, Jr., Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy; Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy under Powell; and Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor to the first President Bush. All these have expressed either concern over the choice to go to war in Iraq, or the poor execution of the war.
But recently added to the short list to advise McCain on foreign policy are: former United Nations ambassador for the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton; columnist and Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Kagan; and former advisor to Trent Lott and founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Randy Scheunemann. These guys are first rate, neo-con assholes, and the fact that McCain is willing to let them into the tent should deeply trouble centrists hoping for a clear change of thinking from the Republican leadership.
“It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain’s soul,” said Lawrence Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President George Bush, who is a member of the pragmatist camp. “But if it’s not a fight, I am convinced there is at least going to be an attempt. I can’t prove it, but I’m worried that it’s taking place.” In addition, Mr. Eagleburger said, “there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can’t beat him, let’s persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues.”
Curiously, Condie Rice’s name is absent from this list of hawkish advisors. Could it be that she is being presently kept out of the limelight in preparation for the announcement that she will be McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate?
To complete the Republican trifecta of influence, look for the addition of domestic policy advisors from the Religious Right and economic advisors from the oil industry to the McCain tent over the next weeks.
This comes on the heels of a number of international developments that may indicate a buildup toward a war with Iran.
It’s obvious to me that a tremendous amount of damage has been done to our country over the last 7 years by the real axis of evil: religious nut-jobs, war-hungry militarists, greedy industrialists, and their political butt-boys. It’s time to show these fuckers that there is no place at the table for them, and work to restore our constitutional process, diplomatic common sense, and respect among the community of nations. It’s time for a wholesale disengagement from the Republican Party.
Your Pal, and Doin' the Left Thing
John McCain continues to migrate toward the right wing of the Republican Party.
As I warned in Rewarding the Republicans, now that he has been knighted, McCain is now paying obeisance to the lords and masters of his Republican realm.
Centrists were initially encouraged by McCain’s choice of foreign policy advisors from the “pragmatist”, or “realist” camp: Henry Kissinger; Colin Powell; John Lehman, Jr., Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy; Richard Armitage, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for international security policy under Powell; and Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor to the first President Bush. All these have expressed either concern over the choice to go to war in Iraq, or the poor execution of the war.
But recently added to the short list to advise McCain on foreign policy are: former United Nations ambassador for the George W. Bush administration, John Bolton; columnist and Senior Associate for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Kagan; and former advisor to Trent Lott and founder of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Randy Scheunemann. These guys are first rate, neo-con assholes, and the fact that McCain is willing to let them into the tent should deeply trouble centrists hoping for a clear change of thinking from the Republican leadership.
“It may be too strong a term to say a fight is going on over John McCain’s soul,” said Lawrence Eagleburger, a secretary of state under the first President George Bush, who is a member of the pragmatist camp. “But if it’s not a fight, I am convinced there is at least going to be an attempt. I can’t prove it, but I’m worried that it’s taking place.” In addition, Mr. Eagleburger said, “there is no question that a lot of my far right friends have now decided that since you can’t beat him, let’s persuade him to slide over as best we can on these critical issues.”
Curiously, Condie Rice’s name is absent from this list of hawkish advisors. Could it be that she is being presently kept out of the limelight in preparation for the announcement that she will be McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate?
To complete the Republican trifecta of influence, look for the addition of domestic policy advisors from the Religious Right and economic advisors from the oil industry to the McCain tent over the next weeks.
This comes on the heels of a number of international developments that may indicate a buildup toward a war with Iran.
It’s obvious to me that a tremendous amount of damage has been done to our country over the last 7 years by the real axis of evil: religious nut-jobs, war-hungry militarists, greedy industrialists, and their political butt-boys. It’s time to show these fuckers that there is no place at the table for them, and work to restore our constitutional process, diplomatic common sense, and respect among the community of nations. It’s time for a wholesale disengagement from the Republican Party.
Your Pal, and Doin' the Left Thing
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Fall of the American Empire?
Folks,
Doug Clark, in his superb Blog The Itenerant Pedant, recently asks/states, "But what about 'Checks and Balances'?" I hear you say. Let's look at the "checks" to unfettered Executive power. The Supreme Court? Yeah, maybe, except that we'll probably have colonies on Mars before that collection of egos first hears and then rules on any cases of Executive abuse. If they decide to punt it back to a Circuit Court first because the original ruling was missing a dotted "i" we could be looking at Alpha Centauri before there's a ruling. The Executive branch can do something tomorrow, the Judicial branch takes forever. The court is not capable of being a check on the Executive because the repair takes too long.
Congress. Yeah. Congress wields the "Power Of The Purse". And that, my friends, is ALL Congress wields. Subpoena? Not if the Justice Department doesn't want to enforce it, as they have refused to do on a Contempt Of Congress cite on Karl Rove. Testimony? Oversight? Not likely. (See above, Rove, Karl, Asshole, One Each)"
You pose an interesting question, Doug.
Who are the stakeholders here?
Our legislators, faced with a choice of either providing honest leadership or getting re-elected, are unwilling to get between a porcine and apathetic constituency of the individual citizen and the trough of unrestrained consumerism which seems to pass for the “pursuit of happiness” these days. For many, if not most politicians on both sides of the aisle, loyalty to the party comes first, and then loyalty to the constitution.
The capacity of the corporate citizenship to fund, influence and direct public matters through the legislative “farm system” is without question; and the corporate loyalty lies not necessarily with its countries’ constitution, but with its own self preservation and aggrandizement, to the delight of its majority shareholders, often multinational interests.
As you point out, any action taken by the Judicial Branch occurs long after the damage to our national fabric is done, and even then it takes blood in the streets, or the threat of it, to force the judicial inertia out of its natural inclination to preserve the status quo and do the right thing with respect to our unalienable rights.
Add to this mix the Religious Right, the American version of mullahs and ayatollahs, who disdain the logical and scientific approaches to our problems because those approaches contradict their emotional interpretations of mythical, apocryphal and misquoted scriptural texts, while ignoring the texts’ central messages of love and charity and nonviolence.
This leaves us with the aforementioned constituency of the individual citizen. As Joseph de Maistre said, and Thomas Jefferson amplified, “Every country has the government it deserves.” We have already foolishly subrogated out of largely manufactured and irrational fear many of our constitutional rights through the FISA and Patriot Acts in an effort to enhance our national security. Benjamin Franklin warned, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
It may be that we are travelling down the same path as great societies before us: corpulent and complacent, believing our own press releases of infallibility, destiny, and some deity’s love of our nation over the rest of his children. It seems that our American Neros provide us with 7-11 stores well stocked with sweets and tabloid titillations of Paris and Brittany and Brett, of sports steroids and politicians’ sexual escapades, much in the way the Roman emperors provided bread and the Circus Maximus. Just as our Roman ancestors, we risk being distracted as the plutocrats enrich their coffers while allowing the strength of the nation to decline and the barbarians gather at the gates.
Without a renewed sense of purpose by the individual citizen, a sense of the common good before the wealth of the individual, we cannot turn the scoundrels out of office and reclaim the goodness and pride of a nation striving to live up the highest ethical standards. It will take a sea change to really get things moving in a different direction, and as pessimistic as it sounds, I think it will require a national crisis, or two, to precipitate. The best that we can hope for in the short run is to elect a succession of Executives that refuse to continue to trample the Constitution and have an opportunity to seat some Supremes with an enlightened sense of restoring the balance of power.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Doug Clark, in his superb Blog The Itenerant Pedant, recently asks/states, "But what about 'Checks and Balances'?" I hear you say. Let's look at the "checks" to unfettered Executive power. The Supreme Court? Yeah, maybe, except that we'll probably have colonies on Mars before that collection of egos first hears and then rules on any cases of Executive abuse. If they decide to punt it back to a Circuit Court first because the original ruling was missing a dotted "i" we could be looking at Alpha Centauri before there's a ruling. The Executive branch can do something tomorrow, the Judicial branch takes forever. The court is not capable of being a check on the Executive because the repair takes too long.
Congress. Yeah. Congress wields the "Power Of The Purse". And that, my friends, is ALL Congress wields. Subpoena? Not if the Justice Department doesn't want to enforce it, as they have refused to do on a Contempt Of Congress cite on Karl Rove. Testimony? Oversight? Not likely. (See above, Rove, Karl, Asshole, One Each)"
You pose an interesting question, Doug.
Who are the stakeholders here?
Our legislators, faced with a choice of either providing honest leadership or getting re-elected, are unwilling to get between a porcine and apathetic constituency of the individual citizen and the trough of unrestrained consumerism which seems to pass for the “pursuit of happiness” these days. For many, if not most politicians on both sides of the aisle, loyalty to the party comes first, and then loyalty to the constitution.
The capacity of the corporate citizenship to fund, influence and direct public matters through the legislative “farm system” is without question; and the corporate loyalty lies not necessarily with its countries’ constitution, but with its own self preservation and aggrandizement, to the delight of its majority shareholders, often multinational interests.
As you point out, any action taken by the Judicial Branch occurs long after the damage to our national fabric is done, and even then it takes blood in the streets, or the threat of it, to force the judicial inertia out of its natural inclination to preserve the status quo and do the right thing with respect to our unalienable rights.
Add to this mix the Religious Right, the American version of mullahs and ayatollahs, who disdain the logical and scientific approaches to our problems because those approaches contradict their emotional interpretations of mythical, apocryphal and misquoted scriptural texts, while ignoring the texts’ central messages of love and charity and nonviolence.
This leaves us with the aforementioned constituency of the individual citizen. As Joseph de Maistre said, and Thomas Jefferson amplified, “Every country has the government it deserves.” We have already foolishly subrogated out of largely manufactured and irrational fear many of our constitutional rights through the FISA and Patriot Acts in an effort to enhance our national security. Benjamin Franklin warned, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”
It may be that we are travelling down the same path as great societies before us: corpulent and complacent, believing our own press releases of infallibility, destiny, and some deity’s love of our nation over the rest of his children. It seems that our American Neros provide us with 7-11 stores well stocked with sweets and tabloid titillations of Paris and Brittany and Brett, of sports steroids and politicians’ sexual escapades, much in the way the Roman emperors provided bread and the Circus Maximus. Just as our Roman ancestors, we risk being distracted as the plutocrats enrich their coffers while allowing the strength of the nation to decline and the barbarians gather at the gates.
Without a renewed sense of purpose by the individual citizen, a sense of the common good before the wealth of the individual, we cannot turn the scoundrels out of office and reclaim the goodness and pride of a nation striving to live up the highest ethical standards. It will take a sea change to really get things moving in a different direction, and as pessimistic as it sounds, I think it will require a national crisis, or two, to precipitate. The best that we can hope for in the short run is to elect a succession of Executives that refuse to continue to trample the Constitution and have an opportunity to seat some Supremes with an enlightened sense of restoring the balance of power.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The American Way
Folks,
Back in August, Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a commentary for MSNBC, titled Privacy Is True Price of Healthy Worker Discounts, blasting the notion of giving discounts on employee health insurance premiums for plan participants demonstrating healthy lifestyle choices.
Caplan points out, "Workers can lower their annual deductible (the amount you pay each year for health care or drugs before insurance kicks in) if they take company-administered tests every year to check blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and weight and to see if they smoke. For each health goal employees meet, $500 is knocked off their deductible."
He asks, "Do you really want your bosses and the insurance company giving you physicals and snooping around in your health care records to find out the most intimate details of your mental, sexual and physical health? It’s a pretty high price in terms of privacy to pay for a discount."
He goes on, "HMOs and insurance companies have proven completely unable to contain rising health care costs. This is mainly due to the fact that costs are fueled by an aging population using more services, an increased reliance on technologies and drugs whose prices are out of control, topped off by a massive dose of error, fraud and administrative waste."
Get a grip, Dr. Caplan! Of course people with healthy life habits should accept discounts on health insurance deductibles or premiums.
Ours is purportedly a free market system. The cost of goods and services are driven by their availability and usage. For example, our auto insurance is based largely on our driving behavior. And when we go to the supermarket, we don't pay a flat fee, we pay for the amount and quality of the groceries we choose.
By some estimates, three quarters of our American population is overweight or obese. One quarter of the population continues to use tobacco, despite being warned for fifty years of the dire health consequences. These people consume a disproportionate quantity of the available healthcare resources. Based on the free market system, if nothing else, these people should either show improvement in their lifestyle choices, or make a larger contribution to the funding of the healthcare resources that are available.
Furthermore, if people making poor lifestyle choices are not provided with incentives to change, why should they?
As far as privacy goes, it is readily apparent to the most casual observer that Brian is several hundred prime rib dinners and 12-packs over the line. We don't really need a health assessment to know that Sally's hacking and gasping for breath is directly connected to her 30 year love affair with the Marlboro Man. Or that 50 year-old Thomas looks 65, has high cholesterol and diabetes because he hasn't had his lazy ass out of the barcolounger for a 30 minute walk since Tatum O'Neal was jailbait.
Are the HMOs failing us? You bet. But even the best healthcare management system cannot protect us from ourselves. Mark Twain said "It's easier to stay out of trouble, than to get out of trouble." I'm so tired of the fat, prescription-addicted, cigar smoking gasbags pointing to the less fortunate members of society and pontificating on codes of personal responsibility.
The healthcare ship is sinking. The reasons are many, the remedies debatable. However, personal responsibility for one's health must improve. We are advised everyday that we have a personal responsibility for our financial well being. We have a personal responsibility to reject violence. We have a personal responsibility to curtail the illegal drug trade by not participating in its use. Why then is it someone else's responsibility to provide expensive healthcare to me for conditions I can prevent by living a healthier lifestyle?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Back in August, Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote a commentary for MSNBC, titled Privacy Is True Price of Healthy Worker Discounts, blasting the notion of giving discounts on employee health insurance premiums for plan participants demonstrating healthy lifestyle choices.
Caplan points out, "Workers can lower their annual deductible (the amount you pay each year for health care or drugs before insurance kicks in) if they take company-administered tests every year to check blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and weight and to see if they smoke. For each health goal employees meet, $500 is knocked off their deductible."
He asks, "Do you really want your bosses and the insurance company giving you physicals and snooping around in your health care records to find out the most intimate details of your mental, sexual and physical health? It’s a pretty high price in terms of privacy to pay for a discount."
He goes on, "HMOs and insurance companies have proven completely unable to contain rising health care costs. This is mainly due to the fact that costs are fueled by an aging population using more services, an increased reliance on technologies and drugs whose prices are out of control, topped off by a massive dose of error, fraud and administrative waste."
Get a grip, Dr. Caplan! Of course people with healthy life habits should accept discounts on health insurance deductibles or premiums.
Ours is purportedly a free market system. The cost of goods and services are driven by their availability and usage. For example, our auto insurance is based largely on our driving behavior. And when we go to the supermarket, we don't pay a flat fee, we pay for the amount and quality of the groceries we choose.
By some estimates, three quarters of our American population is overweight or obese. One quarter of the population continues to use tobacco, despite being warned for fifty years of the dire health consequences. These people consume a disproportionate quantity of the available healthcare resources. Based on the free market system, if nothing else, these people should either show improvement in their lifestyle choices, or make a larger contribution to the funding of the healthcare resources that are available.
Furthermore, if people making poor lifestyle choices are not provided with incentives to change, why should they?
As far as privacy goes, it is readily apparent to the most casual observer that Brian is several hundred prime rib dinners and 12-packs over the line. We don't really need a health assessment to know that Sally's hacking and gasping for breath is directly connected to her 30 year love affair with the Marlboro Man. Or that 50 year-old Thomas looks 65, has high cholesterol and diabetes because he hasn't had his lazy ass out of the barcolounger for a 30 minute walk since Tatum O'Neal was jailbait.
Are the HMOs failing us? You bet. But even the best healthcare management system cannot protect us from ourselves. Mark Twain said "It's easier to stay out of trouble, than to get out of trouble." I'm so tired of the fat, prescription-addicted, cigar smoking gasbags pointing to the less fortunate members of society and pontificating on codes of personal responsibility.
The healthcare ship is sinking. The reasons are many, the remedies debatable. However, personal responsibility for one's health must improve. We are advised everyday that we have a personal responsibility for our financial well being. We have a personal responsibility to reject violence. We have a personal responsibility to curtail the illegal drug trade by not participating in its use. Why then is it someone else's responsibility to provide expensive healthcare to me for conditions I can prevent by living a healthier lifestyle?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Son of Rewarding the Republicans
Judging from a couple of responses to Rewarding the Republicans, I guess I failed to make my point. That’s what happens to the elderly when they get all pissed off. It’s hard to stay on point when you turn 52 and you know it’s getting harder and harder every spring to run those 4 miles each day.
But I digress. Boys and girls, what I was trying to say in Rewarding the Republicans was that John McCain doesn’t represent. A large number, a very large number of the Republican faithful think Ol’ Johnny is just an amnesty away from being, (shudder!) a centrist. Centrists don’t play too well to the neo-militarist or Bible thumper squads that have become major stakeholders in the GOP. When I pointed out that he has become the presumptive nominee of his party by default, I meant to distinguish that situation from that of the contenders for the Democratic Heavyweight Crown.
Yes, yes, I know that honor now seems to hang by the decision of the superdelagates, but that situation is a far cry from the one the Grand Old Party finds itself in. Whomever the Democrats nominate, the entire party will get behind for the general election. The democratic nominee that emerges, Hil or Barry, will represent almost all the party, because both candidates have nearly the same vision; that’s part of their problem. They’re having a very difficult time distinguishing themselves from each other, partly because they’ve ripped each other off for ideas and stances on issues. But you don’t hear Janine Garafalo or Keith Olberman say “If Barak gets the nomination, I’m going to vote for McCain!” (I don’t think the jack-offs that support Nader count, because they peeled off from the Democratic party 8 years ago. I still haven’t forgiven them for helping put Shrub in office, but that’s another blog.)
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if McCain is forced to choose for a running mate someone from either the Neo-Con or Religious Right wings of the GOP.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
But I digress. Boys and girls, what I was trying to say in Rewarding the Republicans was that John McCain doesn’t represent. A large number, a very large number of the Republican faithful think Ol’ Johnny is just an amnesty away from being, (shudder!) a centrist. Centrists don’t play too well to the neo-militarist or Bible thumper squads that have become major stakeholders in the GOP. When I pointed out that he has become the presumptive nominee of his party by default, I meant to distinguish that situation from that of the contenders for the Democratic Heavyweight Crown.
Yes, yes, I know that honor now seems to hang by the decision of the superdelagates, but that situation is a far cry from the one the Grand Old Party finds itself in. Whomever the Democrats nominate, the entire party will get behind for the general election. The democratic nominee that emerges, Hil or Barry, will represent almost all the party, because both candidates have nearly the same vision; that’s part of their problem. They’re having a very difficult time distinguishing themselves from each other, partly because they’ve ripped each other off for ideas and stances on issues. But you don’t hear Janine Garafalo or Keith Olberman say “If Barak gets the nomination, I’m going to vote for McCain!” (I don’t think the jack-offs that support Nader count, because they peeled off from the Democratic party 8 years ago. I still haven’t forgiven them for helping put Shrub in office, but that’s another blog.)
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if McCain is forced to choose for a running mate someone from either the Neo-Con or Religious Right wings of the GOP.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Traits I Seek In a Leader
Folks,
This is something I wrote a while back, in the context of a miserable business relationship, but upon re-reading it I realized it has some interesting implications in the context of the political selection process. I hope you enjoy it.
It has been said that to get the most out of people, we must hold the bar high; to set low expectations, we obtain poor results. What do we expect from our leader? After almost 40 years of employment, here are some traits I seek in a leader.
1) Trustworthy. Meets or exceeds all of his obligations to his employees, customers, contractors, and suppliers, in a timely manner. He meet his obligations even when difficult; anyone can keep a promise when it's easy to do so, but a real leader keeps his promise even when the chips are down. People having past relationships with the leader have good things to say about him, and would be willing to do business with him again.
2) Calm. Business is crazy enough. I'm in it for the long haul, and a constant diet of tirades and threats doesn't lead to a lasting relationship for me. I need to know that a stable, well thought out business plan is in place, one that can be governed with a steady hand and a quiet voice. When the boss gets upset, it's rare, and for a good reason.
3) Rational. Willing to accept that his best thinking might not always be correct. Willing to discuss, rather than lecture. Willing to compromise, rather than dictate. Unafraid to face facts, despite implications or repercussions. Aware that people are at their highest motivation when they believe that they have a part in the decision making process.
4) Friendly, courteous, kind. The true leader has high self esteem, and a healthy respect for others. Treats and speaks to others at every level of employment as he wishes to be treated and spoken to. Sees others as more than disposable implements to complete tasks.
5) Generous. Ensures that adequate personnel, tools and materials are available to accomplish tasks. Provides annual goal setting and review of performance, and makes appropriate salary increases on a regular basis. Looks to the long-term financial health of the employee by contributing to his 401k or other savings plan. Looks to the long-term innovative health of the company by recruiting and employing highly qualified technical experts. Makes sure that his employees' needs are met before his own.
A great leader provides for long term corporate, innovative, and personal financial health within his company. Long term financial health of the company is the leader's primary responsibility, and the reason for his employment. To say it is a trait I seek in a leader is to trivialize the responsibility. I am unconcerned with this ability, as anyone who cannot meet this fundamental responsibility is unqualified to be a leader in the first place. To dismiss personal financial and innovative health in the pursuit of long term corporate financial health is to not try hard enough.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
This is something I wrote a while back, in the context of a miserable business relationship, but upon re-reading it I realized it has some interesting implications in the context of the political selection process. I hope you enjoy it.
It has been said that to get the most out of people, we must hold the bar high; to set low expectations, we obtain poor results. What do we expect from our leader? After almost 40 years of employment, here are some traits I seek in a leader.
1) Trustworthy. Meets or exceeds all of his obligations to his employees, customers, contractors, and suppliers, in a timely manner. He meet his obligations even when difficult; anyone can keep a promise when it's easy to do so, but a real leader keeps his promise even when the chips are down. People having past relationships with the leader have good things to say about him, and would be willing to do business with him again.
2) Calm. Business is crazy enough. I'm in it for the long haul, and a constant diet of tirades and threats doesn't lead to a lasting relationship for me. I need to know that a stable, well thought out business plan is in place, one that can be governed with a steady hand and a quiet voice. When the boss gets upset, it's rare, and for a good reason.
3) Rational. Willing to accept that his best thinking might not always be correct. Willing to discuss, rather than lecture. Willing to compromise, rather than dictate. Unafraid to face facts, despite implications or repercussions. Aware that people are at their highest motivation when they believe that they have a part in the decision making process.
4) Friendly, courteous, kind. The true leader has high self esteem, and a healthy respect for others. Treats and speaks to others at every level of employment as he wishes to be treated and spoken to. Sees others as more than disposable implements to complete tasks.
5) Generous. Ensures that adequate personnel, tools and materials are available to accomplish tasks. Provides annual goal setting and review of performance, and makes appropriate salary increases on a regular basis. Looks to the long-term financial health of the employee by contributing to his 401k or other savings plan. Looks to the long-term innovative health of the company by recruiting and employing highly qualified technical experts. Makes sure that his employees' needs are met before his own.
A great leader provides for long term corporate, innovative, and personal financial health within his company. Long term financial health of the company is the leader's primary responsibility, and the reason for his employment. To say it is a trait I seek in a leader is to trivialize the responsibility. I am unconcerned with this ability, as anyone who cannot meet this fundamental responsibility is unqualified to be a leader in the first place. To dismiss personal financial and innovative health in the pursuit of long term corporate financial health is to not try hard enough.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Rebuilding New Orleans
Folks,
Doug Clark (who writes the superb blog "The Itenerant Pedant",) comments:
As for all those taxes he lists at the end, they became necessary when the South proved, TWICE, that "States Rights" is semantically equivalent to saying "Doing reprehensible shit while somehow maintaining moral superiority about your RIGHT to do reprehensible shit." All the taxes Thomas Paine there listed are FEDERAL taxes. Prior to that the STATES fucking collected the taxes and forwarded a cut to the Feds. When South Carolina in 1861 showed why maybe, just maybe, that having strong state governments run by fucking LOONS responsible for funding the Federal Government wasn't exactly a recipe for stability, Federal taxes became necessary.
After WWI they became mandatory, and by the end of WWII it was ESSENTIAL to have taxes to protect us from the Soviets. Who is this guy anyway? A fucking COMMIE? Oh wait, no. Just someone who lives in one of the plushest fucking country clubs in the group of nations, but somehow thinks he PERSONALLY built the fucking clubhouse and thus should get to enjoy it for free. Ante up your membership dues, you selfish asshole.
I would suggest that to spend the tax money to re-build Louisiana into a strong, productive member of our country is a patriotic thing to do, something we can be proud of as a nation. And here are some quick questions to ask: How many billions of dollars have we spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Have we achieved our goals there? How many more billions are we willing to spend? Have we gotten our money's worth? Would we have been better off spending that money in the United States?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
A couple of months ago, someone forwarded an e-mail to me; you know, one of those redneck screeds blaming the "liberal" politicians and their never-ending taxes for the entire decline of Western civilization. Here's an excerpt:
This is too true to be very funny. The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending your tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu, is presently asking the Congress for $250 billion to rebuild New Orleans. Interesting number, what does it mean? Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans, your home gets $1,329,787. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington, D.C. HELLO!!! ... Are all your calculators broken??
While this is interesting information simply from the perspective of what the number "billion" means, the implication of how the money is actually spent is incorrect, the value of the spending is ignored, and there is an underlying philosophy to the message that is selfish, mean, and unpatriotic.
The author wrongly implies that the residents of Louisiana are going to be handed a suitcase full of cash; in reality, the money will be spent on vital infrastructure necessary to keep the state a productive part of the union.
The value of this spending is incalculable. 1) The purpose of the federal government is to provide a stable platform for the nation, without regard to regionality 2) Our strength as a nation is the ability to do as a whole the important things that benefit us as a society which we could not do as individual states 3) A productive, healthy and educated people form a strong, stable nation that is sustainable, competitive economically, and easier to defend against aggression from within or from outside 4) Our taxes are much lower than many, if not most western industrialized countries. 5) Because we now recognize the need to support and include all groups within our society, we have managed to avoid the social/economic based riots of the 1960's and the kidnap for ransom crimes so prevalent in other parts of the world where the underprivileged are ignored 6) We claim to be a "Christian Nation"; where is the spirit of compassion and sacrifice in this message?
Doug Clark (who writes the superb blog "The Itenerant Pedant",) comments:
As for all those taxes he lists at the end, they became necessary when the South proved, TWICE, that "States Rights" is semantically equivalent to saying "Doing reprehensible shit while somehow maintaining moral superiority about your RIGHT to do reprehensible shit." All the taxes Thomas Paine there listed are FEDERAL taxes. Prior to that the STATES fucking collected the taxes and forwarded a cut to the Feds. When South Carolina in 1861 showed why maybe, just maybe, that having strong state governments run by fucking LOONS responsible for funding the Federal Government wasn't exactly a recipe for stability, Federal taxes became necessary.
After WWI they became mandatory, and by the end of WWII it was ESSENTIAL to have taxes to protect us from the Soviets. Who is this guy anyway? A fucking COMMIE? Oh wait, no. Just someone who lives in one of the plushest fucking country clubs in the group of nations, but somehow thinks he PERSONALLY built the fucking clubhouse and thus should get to enjoy it for free. Ante up your membership dues, you selfish asshole.
I would suggest that to spend the tax money to re-build Louisiana into a strong, productive member of our country is a patriotic thing to do, something we can be proud of as a nation. And here are some quick questions to ask: How many billions of dollars have we spent destroying and rebuilding Iraq? Have we achieved our goals there? How many more billions are we willing to spend? Have we gotten our money's worth? Would we have been better off spending that money in the United States?
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Rewarding the Republicans
Folks,
I was having a conversation today with one my colleagues, a young, bright and impressionable moderate with conservative leanings. He was making a point about John McCain putting a new face on the Republican Party by being more moderate, a candidate likely to motivate the "Reagan Democrats" in the upcoming presidential election.
As a good progressive, I have some problems with that.
Ronald Reagan appealed to disaffected northern blue-collar workers in the '80's who no longer believed that the Democratic Party represented their interests. John McCain may be less ideologically- and more issue-driven than his predecessor, but he represents the same interests: the wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, a weak stance on the deficit, and a willingness to continue to prop up a healthcare system that rips off the working man and woman and undermines the social and economic strength of our country. Unless McCain can pull off a Rove-like deception to drive the election with social issues that have high emotional content but little real meaning to the well-being of the country, he will have a hard time explaining how his positions benefit the average Joe.
But even more troubling to me is that McCain is the default nominee of his party. He has apparently achieved the nomination only because the ultra-conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee early in the primary process, preventing either one from achieving a critical mass, not because he inspires his party to more enlightened thinking. The Neo-Cons hate his guts. Just ask Rush or O'Reilly. McCain will eventually have to pay his dues to the demagogue alliance that has co-opted the Republican Party.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Republican Party renounced the antiscientific, unconstitutional, and deceitful practices they have endorsed for the last 8 years and joined together to support a moderate candidate as a whole party, I might buy the idea that John McCain best represents the political center of the nation.
McCain is simply a sheep in wolf's clothing. The Republican Party cannot be rewarded for the accidental nomination of a moderate candidate.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
I was having a conversation today with one my colleagues, a young, bright and impressionable moderate with conservative leanings. He was making a point about John McCain putting a new face on the Republican Party by being more moderate, a candidate likely to motivate the "Reagan Democrats" in the upcoming presidential election.
As a good progressive, I have some problems with that.
Ronald Reagan appealed to disaffected northern blue-collar workers in the '80's who no longer believed that the Democratic Party represented their interests. John McCain may be less ideologically- and more issue-driven than his predecessor, but he represents the same interests: the wrong war in the wrong country for the wrong reasons, a weak stance on the deficit, and a willingness to continue to prop up a healthcare system that rips off the working man and woman and undermines the social and economic strength of our country. Unless McCain can pull off a Rove-like deception to drive the election with social issues that have high emotional content but little real meaning to the well-being of the country, he will have a hard time explaining how his positions benefit the average Joe.
But even more troubling to me is that McCain is the default nominee of his party. He has apparently achieved the nomination only because the ultra-conservative vote was split between Romney and Huckabee early in the primary process, preventing either one from achieving a critical mass, not because he inspires his party to more enlightened thinking. The Neo-Cons hate his guts. Just ask Rush or O'Reilly. McCain will eventually have to pay his dues to the demagogue alliance that has co-opted the Republican Party.
Maybe, just maybe, if the Republican Party renounced the antiscientific, unconstitutional, and deceitful practices they have endorsed for the last 8 years and joined together to support a moderate candidate as a whole party, I might buy the idea that John McCain best represents the political center of the nation.
McCain is simply a sheep in wolf's clothing. The Republican Party cannot be rewarded for the accidental nomination of a moderate candidate.
Your Pal, and Doin’ the Left Thing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)