chuckthompson's Diary

Harry Reid may be my new hero.

But I’m not really sure yet – its complicated. The word is that his version of the obamacare bill is going to allow states to opt out. The little weasel is taking this approach to offset resistance in Nevada so he can get re-elected.

“We’ve spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with senators who’ve shown a genuine desire to reform the health-care system,” Reid said. “And I believe there’s a strong consensus to move forward in this direction.” The Senate provision would give states the right to opt out of a government plan, though Reid spokesman Jim Manley was unable to provide further details, describing the legislative language as a work in progress that has yet to be scrutinized by the Congressional Budget Office.

Even though the little weasel is doing it for all the wrong reasons, he is opening the door to a big Obama failure and putting this issue smack-dab in the laps of the states – where it belongs in the first place, if it belongs anywhere at all.

In a, surprisingly, clear view into the mind of a liberal writer, a Washing Post article by David Broder is titled “Damaging option for liberals – Harry Reid’s self-serving bow to states’ rights.”

There is an air of desperate improvisation to Sen. Harry Reid’s scheme to pass a “public option” as part of health-care reform but at the same time provide an easy exemption for any state that objects to it. The warning flags ought to be flying for anyone who can count to three — let alone 60. The Democratic majority leader embraced this odd idea in hopes of satisfying two conflicting imperatives. On the one hand, he is under relentless pressure to satisfy the labor-left of his party in Washington, where a government-sponsored insurance plan has become the symbolic prize in the game, and back home in Nevada, where he needs union support to survive a scary election next year.

Now that is one fine example of speaking out of “both sides of ones mouth” isn’t it? It really does smack of desperation.

Broder goes on to pose the questions “Consider the precedent that would be set if a major piece of social legislation were to be passed with a states’ rights provision. Imagine, for example, if Franklin Roosevelt had signed the first Social Security law with the proviso that any states with Republican governors and legislatures could exempt themselves from its coverage.”

Just imagine. States exercising their rights. What an outrageous concept!

The problem, of course, is that even if states opted out, the coverage for the ones that didn’t opt out would be paid for, in part, by the the residents of the states that did opt out.

On the other hand, imagine all the moochers and illegaliens who would move out of the opted out states to the states which didn’t opt out. There’s a benefit to consider. It might even be a big enough benefit to offset the disproportionate taxation. If the moochers and illegaliens moved out, they would take their welfare, healthcare, free housing, etc with them. Those of us left would no longer be burdened with meeting all of their needs. That cost saving might offset the lost taxes. And, without the free healthcare given to the moochers and illegaliens healthcare costs would drop dramatically in the opt-out states making healthcare in those states more affordable. Hmmmm. That sounds like a plan to me.

Go Harry!

Blackface doesn’t always equal racism

Blackface, when it is used to ridicule or denigrate is certainly racist in my view. However, if it is used in other ways, it is not. For example, the movie “Black like me” did a good job of causing some people to understand what it was like to be Black in America at one time and hopefully changed the views of some people to be more tolerant of others. There was nothing racist about it.

If a White couple wanted to portray the President and First Lady at a costume party, would it be racist for them to go made up to look Black? If your answer is “yes”, how do you justify it? If they went without make-up and hung signs around their necks identifying themselves as the President and First Lady wouldn’t it be denying the “Blackness” of the First Couple? In my view, not acknowledging that they are Black (by portraying them as Black) would be racist. Are costumes portraying Black people now off-limits to people of other races? Isn’t that the attitude of those who say that any criticism of President Obama comes from a racist perspective? Objectively think about that for a minute.

Currently there is a huge flap in Dallas over a Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader, Whitney Isleib, who attended a Halloween Party dressed, and made up, as the celebrity lil’ Wayne. Unless she was trying to ridicule him because he is Black, I don’t see the big deal. In one of the photos she is seen posing with two Black women. (At least I think they were Black – maybe they were in “blackface” too.) The two Black women don’t look uncomfortable in the photo and I would think that if she was exhibiting some sort of racism they wouldn’t have posed with her. And if they thought her “costume” was racist and they went along with it, wouldn’t they be “traitors to their race?” One could say that she was promoting lil’ Wayne and his music. After all, “imitation is the sincerest of flattery.”

I do see it as a big deal that people are trying to make it into something about race and calling for her head. I do see it as a big deal that the media are trumpeting it as though it were racist. I do see it as a big deal that there are those in our society who are always ready to throw the race card. All of those things promote divisiveness between the races. And isn’t that, in itself, racist?

And, for all you offended White people, read Urban Sports Talk and Entertainment to see the views of some actual Black people on this subject.

In order to be fair, I think I should also give you this site written by a charming and open-minded woman.

Are McDonald’s hiring practices discriminatory?

There is a McDonalds in my neighborhood which I have been patronizing for about 10 years. I go there about 3-4 times per month. In all those years the store has always been extremely well-run, clean, convenient and my order has not been screwed up even once. FYI, I rarely order anything in the standard configuration – I don’t like pickles, onions, etc. When I go inside I am always greeted in a friendly way by a smiling employee in a spotless, pressed uniform. The parking lot is clean, the trash receptacles are frequently emptied and the tables are always clean.. They even practice proper flag etiquette – Old Glory doesn’t fly in the rain there which is really exception these days. Overalll, the McDonalds in my neighborhood is very well run. It is owned by a partnership between Ed Bailey and McDonalds called Baibrook – which has a truly awful web site. Baibrook has over 60McDonalds locations in the Dallas area.

Mr. Bailey is an icon for the American success story. And McDonalds is an icon for American business success.

My neighborhood has a mix of poor and middle-class. It is has significant populations of Hispanics African-Americans and Whites, plenty of teen-agers and plenty of retirees, apartments condominiums and homes. There is no shortage of available labor for a business like the McDonald’s in my neighborhood.

I’ve noticed something odd about the McDonald’s in my neighborhood however. And in thinking about it, something insidious comes to mind.

In my experience (I’ve been paying attention for several years now), 100% of the non-customer conversation is in Spanish and 100% of the employees are Latino. The moment the employee stops speaking directly to the customer, they begin speaking Spanish. That is not exactly a huge problem for me, but it is improper language etiquette.

The bigger problem is that it totally eliminates the possibility for success of any non-Spanish-speaking employee. I have noticed once or twice a non-Spanish-speaking African-American or elderly employee there, but they never last long. In an environment where employees are directed and supervised in Spanish, how can a non-Spanish-speaking employee be successful? Why would anyone hire someone they knew, in advance, would not be successful? Why would anyone even apply for a job in an environment which conducts business in a language an employee didn’t understand?

The rhetorical answers to the above questions, of course, are they wouldn’t and they couldn’t.

What that means to me is that the Spanish-speaking workplace environment of my neighborhood McDonald’s precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers. And, since most Spanish-speakers are Hispanic, a workplace environment which precludes employment by non-Spanish-speakers is effectively, if not factually, discriminating if favor of Latinos and against non-Latinos. The practice of Spanish-speaking in the workplace creates a self-perpetuating environment of employment discrimination.

Tax the rich! Thats the solution.

First though, we have to figure out who the rich are. Well, that’s easily defined. Anyone with more money than you.

So if your neighbor has more money than you do he should be the one paying the taxes because he can afford it more easily than you can. Right? Good. We’ve settled that.

There’s an article in the The New York Post today which is worth reading. I’ll use several quotes from it in this article. Here’s the first quote:

“New Yorkers are fleeing the state and city in alarming numbers — and costing a fortune in lost tax dollars, a new study shows. More than 1.5 million state residents left for other parts of the United States from 2000 to 2008, according to the report from the Empire Center for New York State Policy. It was the biggest out-of-state migration in the country.”

Why are they leaving? In great part due to the taxes imposed upon them. There are other reasons like the cost of living, but I’m going to focus on taxes.

“The average Manhattan taxpayer who left the state earned $93,264 a year. The average newcomer to Manhattan earned only $72,726.”

Income tax in New York is about 10%. What that means is that the taxpayers who left were paying about $9,300 per year in state income taxes and the ones who replaced them are paying about $7,200 per year – a $2,100 shortfall in taxes. Since every single tax dollar (and more) is spent by the state something must be done to offset the shortfall. What can be done? Well, they could cut spending. Or they can raise taxes on everyone. Or they can raise taxes on the “rich.”

Well now, the “rich” are those making around $73,000. So when their taxes get raised how will they pay their bills? Won’t their disposable income go down? Of course it will but so what? They’re rich – they can afford it. But wait a minute. Doesn’t that mean they’ll buy fewer things with their disposable income? So what? They don’t need those “things.”

When they don’t buy those “things” some businesses will have to fire employees because they can no longer afford them. No big deal, they’ll go on unemployment until they find a job. But won’t that make the overall cost of unemployment go up? Sure. We’ll raise taxes on the rich to pay for it. What will happen when we raise those taxes? More New Yorkers will leave and be replaced by people making even less money because of the laws of supply and demand – those unemployed people are looking for work and flooding the employee market which will drive down the cost of labor. You can see where this is going. Soon the homeless will be considered the new rich.

What happens to the ones who leave? Where do they go? They go to states which have lower taxes. That means they have more disposable income. What do they do with that disposable income? They spend it. What happens when they spend it? Jobs are created. What happens when jobs are created? A shortage of employees occurs – there is a greater demand for employees. Then what? Supply and demand comes into play again and wages go up. More disposable spending. More jobs. Higher wages. The states which end up with the tax refugees end up collecting more taxes without raising taxes. What does the state do with those additional taxes? Well, they spend it – creating even more jobs – or they pay down debt which leaves a surplus of revenue which can allow for lower taxes which leads to more disposable income, etc.

Even Forrest Gump could understand this – more taxes result in less revenue and lower taxes result in more revenue. More revenue results in more spending. More spending results in a higher standard of living for everyone – maybe even the mooches. Read more at oboner.com

Should the FED be setting salaries for corporations?

The short answer is I’m not sure. For me, it depends on several things about which I am completely ignorant. Nevertheless, I have an opinion or two.

Where does the FED derive it’s authority to set salaries?

If the authority derives from agreements (made at the time the FED loaned money to them) with the corporations, then yes they have the authority. If the corporations don’t like that, then they shouldn’t have agreed to it and faced the consequences of not getting a loan from the FED. Someone who loans you money has the right to set conditions upon the loan. If you don’t like the conditions, either don’t agree to the conditions or borrow the money elsewhere. Once you agree, you have no standing to complain about what you agreed to.

If the FED has invented its authority that’s another story. They should not.

If Congress has passed legislation giving the FED the authority, that’s wrong too.

But, to me, none of those things are the issue here.

There’s a lot of talk right now about how offended the public is over the outrageous salaries and bonuses of management in some companies.

Publically held corporations are funded by shareholders, bonds and loans. Ultimately the control of the corporations rests in the hands of the shareholders. Any members of the public who are not shareholders should mind their own business and businesses in which they don’t hold shares are not their “business”. If non-shareholders are offended by the way a business is run they can express their dissatisfaction by not buying products from those businesses. if you don’t like the way a business is run, don’t invest in it or don’t buy their products, or don’t do business with them. On the other hand, if you are a shareholder, it is certainly your right to be concerned about the way your company is being run. Speak up. Form, or join, some sort of group whose collective share of the company is significant enough to effect the outcome of elections of Boards of Directors and vote in Directors who will direct the officers of the company in a way which meets your needs. Alternatively, sell your shares and invest your money in a company which operates the way you think it should – or put your money under your mattress.

The problem I have noticed over the last 15-20 years is that Directors are hand-picked by CEOs in order to authorize what the CEO wants to do. So shareholders have two major problems, the CEO and the Board. Shareholders can vote out the Board and the Board can control the CEO. But shareholders go along with the company by signing proxies for their votes and then complain when they don’t like the way the company is run or the compensation of its employeees. Quit whining shareholders. You have a say/vote and if you don’t like something don’t give your vote away to management. On one hand you’re telling management to vote for you and on the other hand you’re compaining about what they do with your vote.

All that is to say that if you (shareholders) hadn’t enabled these companies to function immorally, pay themselves obscene salaries/bonuses, fly around the world in private jets, have board meeting in exotic locations and generally live the high life on your money we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Read more of what I have to say at chuck-thompson.com

The Megan Williams Hoax – keeping racism alive.

The “Reverend” Al Sharpton quick study. You would think that after the Tawana Brawley and The Duke LaCrosse incidents he would have learned to practice a modicum of restraint. You might think that, but you’d be wrong. That’s because Sharpton makes his living from gullible African-Americans and the extortion of cowardly corporations. And he has honed his scam to a fine point – naturally, he’s back in the news over Megan Williams. He’s in the news primarily because he can always be counted on to be the first to throw the race card.

In this case, six white people went to jail because they pled guilty to crimes against Megan Williams – a black woman. Plea agreements on the advice of Public Defenders insured “swift justice”, though Sharpton and Malik Zulu Shabazz (why do people choose these goofy names?) complained that it wasn’t enough. Shabazz is a part of the New Black Panther Party and Black Lawyers for Justice . Between Sharpton and Shabazz a virtual firestorm of outrage took place in the gullible African-American community. Too bad it was a big, fat lie.

“She is recanting her entire story,” attorney Byron Potts told reporters in Columbus, Ohio, about his client, Megan Williams, who moved there after the incident. “She says it did not happen. She fabricated it.” ”It sounds to me that there are innocent people held in jail for something they did not do,” Potts said. “I have no idea what convinced them to plead guilty.” He said Williams knows that by recanting her testimony, she could be prosecuted for lying about the incident. ”She still wants to come forward. She’s been fully advised that she could potentially be charged and end up in the penitentiary herself,” he said.

Megan Williams, the “victim” has recanted the entire story, states that her mother and others (I wonder who they could be?) encouraged her lie and will no doubt soon be holding a news conference where a Legal Defense Fund will be called for. She’s already raised over $70,000 from the initial fake hullabaloo. She claims she never saw any of that money. Interestingly, Shabazz acted as attorney for Williams and her mother – I wonder if he saw any of the money? Her mother was acting for her, but the mother is dead now and can’t defend herself. I think an investigation of the whereabouts of the $70,000 should be started.

Even if Megan Williams has the IQ of a sack of okra she understands that as a result of clearing her conscience she may face charges and prison time herself. Her current lawyer has stated that he has advised her of that and that she understands. The race card crown says she is lying now and that begs the question – what could be her motive for lying about lying? Especially considering the penalties she will no incur herself.

I’m not saying the convicted whites didn’t commit crimes. The fact is I don’t know and it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that they did. Maybe some or all of them should be in prison. My point is that if Sharpton, Shabazz and others of their ilk hadn’t screamed racism, marched, rallied and lied to put political pressure on the prosecution and the police there might have been a fair trial.

When will the African-American community wake up and realize that these jerks have no interest in ending racism? They live to perpetuate racism. They make a fine living stirring up the gullible African-American community. They are soul-less, black-hearted fat cats.

Obama bluffed and then folded.

The Obama Administration took a stand against FOX news yesterday. It was a bluff.. NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN called his bulff and Obama folded. And when he folded, he did it like a spoiled child.

The Administration advised the major news media that it would make it’s Pay Czar, Ken Feinberg, available for a “round robin” series of interviews by all of the major networks – except FOX. This follows interviews by various Administration officials recently where the Administration attempts to make its case that FOX is not really a new organization because it broadcasts stories critical of the Obama Administration. It’s a naked, blatant attempt to control the press in the same way that a tin-pot dictator like Chavez would.

Well, NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN all said if FOX was not included they would not interview Feinberg either. Oops. The Administration backed down. FOX would be allowed to interview – but only for 2 minutes instead of the 5 minute interviews the other networks got. What a bunch of whiney crybabies!

I doubt this suppression of Free Speech is over yet. The Administration weasels will just try to figure out another way to suppress Obamas detractors. I predict they exact revenge against those who wouldn’t back down.

Obama seems to be turning “folding” into a high art. He folded when Russia called his bluff, he folded when Iran thumbed their noses at him, he folded when North Korea raised the stakes.

You can’t have it both ways.

The idea that when government steps in to protect you from yourself it is repugnant and overstepping its boundaries doesn’t fit with support for government intervention in other individuals lives. One of governments roles is to protect us from others. That is valid and useful. But when government forces itself and its rules on an individuals right to live freely it is not useful and, in fact, is way out of line with what government should be doing. In other words, don’t protect me from myself.

Yet, I see and hear both conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans every day demanding that government step on other peoples individual rights.

A current example of the point I’m attempting to make is the move towards the legalization of marijuana. Christians, conservatives and Republicans have their panties in a wad over this issue. Why? Because they don’t like it, that’s why. The fact is the use of marijuana should be an individual decision and interference in an individuals use of it by government is as much a nanny-state tactic as obamacare.

Before you get all wound up, let me go on the record as stating unequivocally that I am not a user of marijuana. I tried it once about ten years ago and it was not for me. However, I have had a few friends over the years who did use it. In some cases, I was in their presence while they were smoking it. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen any effect on them except a “mellowing out.” That is not so say they couldn’t have been dangerous to themselves or others if they were driving or something – I just don’t know. Further to that point, I do use (and have mis-used) alcohol on occasion and have been in the presence of others who have mis-used alcohol on many occasions. They are almost always a danger to themselves and others. Look at the number of deaths associated with drunk driving. How many deaths are you aware of due to pot-smoking. Personally, I am aware of none. In fact I can’t even recall ever hearing about one. I am using the marijuana issue to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

Back to my point now.

Even MADD doesn’t advocate a ban on alcohol. They advocate for safe driving. I think if they advocated for a ban they would be out of business so to speak. If someone wants to smoke pot and “mellow out” why should it matter to government? If someone wants to sell pot and not pay the taxes on it that’s another story. Do you see the difference? One person sells something which is supposed to be taxed (a proper use of government authority) and should be dealt with accordingly for his violation of the law and another person wants to mellow out and in the process violate no law other than an inappropriate law which violates his personal freedom.

Those same Christians, conservatives and Republicans (including myself) are all wound up about President Obama trying to jam his demented obamacare plan down our throats because, for one thing, it impinges on our right not to have health care by fining those who don’t choose to buy health insurance. There are other considerations, of course, but this one serves for my analogy.

The issue is not obamacare or legalization of marijuana – it is allowing our rights as individuals and citizens of the United States to be diminished. The issue of maintaining our rights as individuals and doing what we choose to do as long as it doesn’t harm others is what is important. We should ALL be able to agree on that.

Stop worrying about illegal immigration

Those who sneak over the border or overstay their visas generally do it to seek employment. Obamas plan to turn the US into Zimbabwe will keep out the illegal immigrants. After all, you don’t see anyone sneaking over the border into Zimbabwe do you?

In fact, lets compare Barack Obama to Robert Mugabe.

From Wikipedia: Mugabe’s government supported the Southern African Development Community‘s intervention in the Second Congo War; expropriated thousands of white-owned farms; printed hundreds of trillions of Zimbabwean dollars, causing hyperinflation; and harassed and intimidated such political opponents as the Movement for Democratic Change.

Mugabe has described his critics as “born again colonialists”, and both he and his supporters claim Zimbabwe’s problems are the legacy of imperialism, aggravated by Western economic meddling.

Obama’s government supports ACORN’s intervention in the Mortgage Banking industry, the Internal Revenue Service and HUD. Obama has expropriated major financial, insurance and manufacturing businesses; prints trillions of dollars, which will soon cause hyperinflation; and harasses and intimidates such political opponents as FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.

Obama regularly denounces his critics, sometimes engages in name-calling, and both he and his supporters claim America’s problems are the legacy of slavery, aggravated by personal and corporate greed.

The Colonialism enigma.

America was discovered and initially populated by colonialists. It’s constitution was written by colonialists. In almost all the cases I can recall around the world colonialists were white, Christian, Western Europeans. America’s rise to the heights it has risen to are a direct result of white, Christian, Western European Colonialism.

That is not to say that the melding which occurred over the years of different cultures incorporated in American society has not had a beneficial effect because it has. We would not be what and who we are today without immigrants and the diversity in culture they brought with them. We could not have risen to the heights we have without the contributions and labor of those who came here hoping to live the American Dream or without the labor and culture brought by slaves and indentured servants.

However, thinking about it objectively, “the American Dream” is one developed primarily as a result of English-speaking, Christian, Western Europeans. They made it possible for all those immigrants to emigrate. They made it possible for all those immigrants to function freely, to vote and to achieve. Colonialism changed the world in a positive way. Yes, there are many instances where the indigenous population and culture were trampled along the way. But even with that, colonized countries grew, their economies prospered, their people gained a better standard of living than what they had when the colonists arrived, their children were educated, their lives grew longer, more of their babies lived, they were mostly able to speak and travel freely.

And then colonialists became “bad people”.

The children starving in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for “change” expecting the government to take care of all their needs. The unemployed in Zimbabwe today are the children of those who voted for change. Those rioting in the streets today are the children of those who were dancing in the streets in anticipation of change. The owners of dusty unproductive farms piled high with broken, rusty once-high-tech farm equipment today are the children of those who once worked on productive farms which gave Zimbabwe the title of “breadbasket of Africa”. What wealth still exists there has been “re-distributed” to thieving politicians and their families – not the people who voted for change.

We are moving from a nation of self-reliant, self-starting, ambitious achievers to a nation of mooching “changer-wanters” who don’t learn from history that big government never enriches anyone but the politicians and their henchmen. Be careful what you wish for….