Sunday, March 29, 2009
What's In My E-Mail
"I think of a hero as someone who understands the degree of responsibility that comes with his freedom." ~ Bob Dylan
The following was sent to me by e-mail this morning:
Missing from the news
You're a 19 year old kid, critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the La Drang Valley , 11- 14-1965, LZ Xray, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around he world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because there are no Medi-Vac markings on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were told not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the waiting doctors and nurses. And he kept coming back....... 13 more times..... and took over 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor recipient Ed Freeman died September 26, 2008, in Boise, Idaho, at the age of 80.
Paul Newman died that day too.
But I guess you knew that.
The following was sent to me by e-mail this morning:
Missing from the news
You're a 19 year old kid, critically wounded, and dying in the jungle in the La Drang Valley , 11- 14-1965, LZ Xray, Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 to 1, and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns, and you know you're not getting out. Your family is half way around he world, 12,000 miles away, and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day.
Then, over the machine gun noise, you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter, and you look up to see an un-armed Huey, but it doesn't seem real, because there are no Medi-Vac markings on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you. He's not Medi-Vac, so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fire, after the Medi-Vacs were told not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in, and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire, to the waiting doctors and nurses. And he kept coming back....... 13 more times..... and took over 30 of you and your buddies out, who would never have gotten out.
Medal of Honor recipient Ed Freeman died September 26, 2008, in Boise, Idaho, at the age of 80.
Paul Newman died that day too.
But I guess you knew that.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Herding Cats
"I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boyscouts." ~ Rodney Dangerfield
Over at American Descent, a blog who's creator showed a complete lack of common sense and intelligence by asking me to be one of the administrators (as Groucho said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members"), a thread has developed in the comments section of an entry about house bill H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, in which lawmakers have proposed creating a volunteer, yet mandatory civilian youth force.
Of course, mandatory volunteerism is an oxymoron. If it's mandatory, it can't be voluntary.
And vice versa.
Naturally, such a well written and well thought out blog post has brought the Libtards out of the woodwork, as most good Conservative commentaries so often do, to object and to ridicule with all the typical Liberal half truths, obfuscations, spin, and distractions.
My own contributions to the thread are not particularly insightful or very well thought out, I admit, but I have been feeling unusually surly and curmudgeonly lately, and am pretty much fed up with the blind Obama worship being exhibited by mindless Liberal Obamaphiles since Obama burst onto America's political scene. So, I just let 'er rip without regard to sensitivities.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But a few hours ago, while I was traveling to Northern Virginia to do some of my own voluntary (but not mandatory) volunteer work, a thought occurred to me:
It would be almost worth allowing such a bill to pass just so we can watch Obama and his minions attempt to force America's youth into volunteering for anything.
Anyone who knows teenagers know they will never willingly do anything that any authority figure wants them to do.
We all know that Obama's plan to subject America's youth to this indoctrination program is specifically targeted towards the youth in our inner cities. Of course, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful, especially among inner city young people.
The youth in our inner cities have only three main goals in life:
1. Getting both rich and high off Drugs.
2. Playing Basketball.
3. Becoming a rap star. (not necessarily in that order)
Now, knowing the inner city youth of America has these lofty goals in mind, what makes Mr. Obama think they will put those goals aside to volunteer to do anything if it doesn't include basketball, drugs, or rap? Even if he makes such voluntary projects mandatory?
For that matter, does he really expect suburban youth to acquiesce? Especially those who's parents make over $250,000 a year?
It just aint going to happen.
Obama's plan will be as easy as pushing a rope.
Uphill.
I'd really like to see how Obama is going to do what parents of teenagers have failed to do since time began. Make teenagers do what they're told.
I wonder. When it becomes obvious he has bit off much more than he can chew, how will he react? Will he attempt to punish them for their disobedience? What punishments will he suggest?
He might as well try to herd cats. In fact, herding cats would be easy compared to trying to make American teenagers volunteer to do anything constructive.
Now, if Obama wants them to destroy or demolish something, I'm sure he will find little difficulty finding volunteers.
But finding teenagers willing to help? That's a laugh.
Over at American Descent, a blog who's creator showed a complete lack of common sense and intelligence by asking me to be one of the administrators (as Groucho said, "I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members"), a thread has developed in the comments section of an entry about house bill H.R. 1388: Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, in which lawmakers have proposed creating a volunteer, yet mandatory civilian youth force.
Of course, mandatory volunteerism is an oxymoron. If it's mandatory, it can't be voluntary.
And vice versa.
Naturally, such a well written and well thought out blog post has brought the Libtards out of the woodwork, as most good Conservative commentaries so often do, to object and to ridicule with all the typical Liberal half truths, obfuscations, spin, and distractions.
My own contributions to the thread are not particularly insightful or very well thought out, I admit, but I have been feeling unusually surly and curmudgeonly lately, and am pretty much fed up with the blind Obama worship being exhibited by mindless Liberal Obamaphiles since Obama burst onto America's political scene. So, I just let 'er rip without regard to sensitivities.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
But a few hours ago, while I was traveling to Northern Virginia to do some of my own voluntary (but not mandatory) volunteer work, a thought occurred to me:
It would be almost worth allowing such a bill to pass just so we can watch Obama and his minions attempt to force America's youth into volunteering for anything.
Anyone who knows teenagers know they will never willingly do anything that any authority figure wants them to do.
We all know that Obama's plan to subject America's youth to this indoctrination program is specifically targeted towards the youth in our inner cities. Of course, it doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of being successful, especially among inner city young people.
The youth in our inner cities have only three main goals in life:
1. Getting both rich and high off Drugs.
2. Playing Basketball.
3. Becoming a rap star. (not necessarily in that order)
Now, knowing the inner city youth of America has these lofty goals in mind, what makes Mr. Obama think they will put those goals aside to volunteer to do anything if it doesn't include basketball, drugs, or rap? Even if he makes such voluntary projects mandatory?
For that matter, does he really expect suburban youth to acquiesce? Especially those who's parents make over $250,000 a year?
It just aint going to happen.
Obama's plan will be as easy as pushing a rope.
Uphill.
I'd really like to see how Obama is going to do what parents of teenagers have failed to do since time began. Make teenagers do what they're told.
I wonder. When it becomes obvious he has bit off much more than he can chew, how will he react? Will he attempt to punish them for their disobedience? What punishments will he suggest?
He might as well try to herd cats. In fact, herding cats would be easy compared to trying to make American teenagers volunteer to do anything constructive.
Now, if Obama wants them to destroy or demolish something, I'm sure he will find little difficulty finding volunteers.
But finding teenagers willing to help? That's a laugh.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Underestimating Obama
"Crime does not pay ... as well as politics." ~ Alfred E. Newman
I've been thinking. We might be underestimating just how effective Barack Hussein Obama's policies are.
I discussed The bonuses awarded to AIG's executives in a previous entry, in which I mentioned bonuses generally are awarded to employees that surpass certain goals over and above their every day duties, but in doing so, I led readers to assume the AIG executives who received those bonuses didn't deserve them.
In point of fact, I don't really know if they deserved them or not. It could be, that the executives who were awarded bonuses were employees who actually did reach the goals established in their respective contractual agreements. Perhaps the employees who failed to meet the qualifications stipulated in their contracts didn't get any bonuses at all.
I assume it is possible that some employees did their jobs exceptionally well, while the rest of the corporation foundered.
Be that as it may, We now are hearing reports of hundreds of people converging outside the private homes of various AIG executives to protest the awarding of these bonuses. They are outraged that taxpayers are funding the bonuses.
The perception is that these unnamed executives are greedy, callous, and altogether evil for daring to accept money freely given to them by their superiors in appreciation for their work, or at least because bonuses were written into their contracts regardless of achievement.
I am trying to picture these evil, evil bonus recipients:
I can picture a middle aged, bespectacled, balding, white man, bursting into his boss's office and demanding bonus money. I can picture him ranting and raving, spittle flying out of his mouth, while he's waving his arms about wildly, and screaming about how he will quit, or sue, or something much more drastic, if he isn't given hundreds of thousands of dollars for his hard work which inexplicably resulted in the failure of his entire department.
And I can picture his supervisor, quaking in fear before his underling, dropping to his knees in supplication before this intimidating spectacle, and pledging undying devotion, along with blustery promises that he would never, ever, "as God is my witness" deny his employee his just due.
Is this the picture Obama and his cronies are painting? Is it believable? In who's twisted world is this scenario even a remote possibility?
This is Obama's agenda. He wants to create a situation in which the corporations are evil and the government is the hero. And these hundreds of naive citizens are playing right into his hands.
The fact is, These bonuses were awarded by the upper echelon administrators of AIG, with the full complicity of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States of America. And their unabashed willing accomplices in the American media, who helped to propagate all out class warfare.
They had Carte Blanche to dole out these bonuses directly from Obama's omnibus spending bill, which the "transparent" Obama simply had to rush to sign before the wheels of Congress spun completely off the rims. He portrayed the economic problems of America to be an urgent crisis.
But that isn't how Obama's administration has spun it, is it?
Obama has nothing to do with this turn of events. His hands are clean. Geithner, the tax cheat, is blameless. Dodd, and Franks, and the other miscreants in Congress and the cabinet are spotless, aren't they?
It's all the evil, evil AIG executives who are at fault. The ones who received the bonuses. Not the one's who sprawled prostrate at the feet of Congress, begging for help in the form of enormous bail-out funds, the bulk of which they promptly deposited into several foreign banks.
The money distributed to their own in the form of bonuses was miniscule in comparison.
But Obama and his gang made sure the outrage was directed to the right sources.
But now, thanks to Obama's press agents, also known as the American media, these same evil executives are cowering inside their spacious homes, petrified with fear over the prospect that their lives, and the lives of their families are in imminient danger.
Blood may end up being spilled before it's all over.
And why? Because Obama needs to distract the American people from the real crime. His economic policy, which is crippling, and perhaps even destroying America's economy.
Obama's arrogance and insensitivity towards everything this great country holds dear, the democratic American dream, has moved to institute policies which may eventually destroy our country.
Look, there is a distinct possibility that many of these executives who received bonuses shouldn't have received them. But that is AIG's business. Not Obama's.
None of these companies should have been bailed out in the first place. The free market works just fine when it's left alone. It's not unlike Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" for business. Only the strong or wisest should survive. If the companies cannot make it without help, they should be allowed to die, and better stronger companies take their place. That's free market capitalism, and it's worked pretty well since the founding of this country.
The true reason Obama wanted to hand out taxpayer money wasn't to help business or the economy. The real reason was so he could wrest control of them.
When corporations allow the government to bail them out whenever they fail to manage their money responsibly, they give up control to the government. It's part of the package deal. "If we help you out of this present situation, you, in turn, will have to do as we say".
That's what Obama wants. To control the corporations.
Today, the corporations. Tomorrow it may be you.
I've been thinking. We might be underestimating just how effective Barack Hussein Obama's policies are.
I discussed The bonuses awarded to AIG's executives in a previous entry, in which I mentioned bonuses generally are awarded to employees that surpass certain goals over and above their every day duties, but in doing so, I led readers to assume the AIG executives who received those bonuses didn't deserve them.
In point of fact, I don't really know if they deserved them or not. It could be, that the executives who were awarded bonuses were employees who actually did reach the goals established in their respective contractual agreements. Perhaps the employees who failed to meet the qualifications stipulated in their contracts didn't get any bonuses at all.
I assume it is possible that some employees did their jobs exceptionally well, while the rest of the corporation foundered.
Be that as it may, We now are hearing reports of hundreds of people converging outside the private homes of various AIG executives to protest the awarding of these bonuses. They are outraged that taxpayers are funding the bonuses.
The perception is that these unnamed executives are greedy, callous, and altogether evil for daring to accept money freely given to them by their superiors in appreciation for their work, or at least because bonuses were written into their contracts regardless of achievement.
I am trying to picture these evil, evil bonus recipients:
I can picture a middle aged, bespectacled, balding, white man, bursting into his boss's office and demanding bonus money. I can picture him ranting and raving, spittle flying out of his mouth, while he's waving his arms about wildly, and screaming about how he will quit, or sue, or something much more drastic, if he isn't given hundreds of thousands of dollars for his hard work which inexplicably resulted in the failure of his entire department.
And I can picture his supervisor, quaking in fear before his underling, dropping to his knees in supplication before this intimidating spectacle, and pledging undying devotion, along with blustery promises that he would never, ever, "as God is my witness" deny his employee his just due.
Is this the picture Obama and his cronies are painting? Is it believable? In who's twisted world is this scenario even a remote possibility?
This is Obama's agenda. He wants to create a situation in which the corporations are evil and the government is the hero. And these hundreds of naive citizens are playing right into his hands.
The fact is, These bonuses were awarded by the upper echelon administrators of AIG, with the full complicity of the Legislative and Executive branches of the United States of America. And their unabashed willing accomplices in the American media, who helped to propagate all out class warfare.
They had Carte Blanche to dole out these bonuses directly from Obama's omnibus spending bill, which the "transparent" Obama simply had to rush to sign before the wheels of Congress spun completely off the rims. He portrayed the economic problems of America to be an urgent crisis.
But that isn't how Obama's administration has spun it, is it?
Obama has nothing to do with this turn of events. His hands are clean. Geithner, the tax cheat, is blameless. Dodd, and Franks, and the other miscreants in Congress and the cabinet are spotless, aren't they?
It's all the evil, evil AIG executives who are at fault. The ones who received the bonuses. Not the one's who sprawled prostrate at the feet of Congress, begging for help in the form of enormous bail-out funds, the bulk of which they promptly deposited into several foreign banks.
The money distributed to their own in the form of bonuses was miniscule in comparison.
But Obama and his gang made sure the outrage was directed to the right sources.
But now, thanks to Obama's press agents, also known as the American media, these same evil executives are cowering inside their spacious homes, petrified with fear over the prospect that their lives, and the lives of their families are in imminient danger.
Blood may end up being spilled before it's all over.
And why? Because Obama needs to distract the American people from the real crime. His economic policy, which is crippling, and perhaps even destroying America's economy.
Obama's arrogance and insensitivity towards everything this great country holds dear, the democratic American dream, has moved to institute policies which may eventually destroy our country.
Look, there is a distinct possibility that many of these executives who received bonuses shouldn't have received them. But that is AIG's business. Not Obama's.
None of these companies should have been bailed out in the first place. The free market works just fine when it's left alone. It's not unlike Darwin's theory of "survival of the fittest" for business. Only the strong or wisest should survive. If the companies cannot make it without help, they should be allowed to die, and better stronger companies take their place. That's free market capitalism, and it's worked pretty well since the founding of this country.
The true reason Obama wanted to hand out taxpayer money wasn't to help business or the economy. The real reason was so he could wrest control of them.
When corporations allow the government to bail them out whenever they fail to manage their money responsibly, they give up control to the government. It's part of the package deal. "If we help you out of this present situation, you, in turn, will have to do as we say".
That's what Obama wants. To control the corporations.
Today, the corporations. Tomorrow it may be you.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Introducing A New Blog And Another Obama Gaffe
"You have all the characteristics of a popular politician: a horrible voice, bad breeding, and a vulgar manner." ~ Aristophanes
Yesterday, I received the following announcement in my e-mail:
Being from Illinois, I understand politics- It's a pay for play world. As such, I, President Barry O, has a deal for you. Not as good as an AIG exec, but pretty good none the less.
In an effort to reach out to my fellow Americans, I have launched my very own secret blog. Problem is, it's too secret. So Rahm had a great idea. I should offer a primo adviser gig to whoever sends us the must hits. I don't understand what that means, but Ram runs the show around here- so the offer stands. The link is http://presidentbarryo.blogspot.com/
President Berry O
What this means is whoever sends us the most traffic gets a charechter named after them. Mention us in a post, refering traffic to us, and we will count up the referals from sitemeter. Whoever sends us the most traffic gets a weekly or better link as his or her charechter appears. All participants will be named to the Presidents Economic Board of Advisers. Think of it- you and Volcker hanging out at the fed-- Rahm
In spite of all the misspellings, (doesn't Barry know about spellcheck?)which normally puts me off, I visited his site and found it (if I ignore the misspellings) quite humorous.
I'm not sure how important it is to me to "get a character", or get a "weekly or better link", but I have to give him points for his marketing efforts.
So, for that unique marketing effort alone, I urge my few readers to visit Barry's site. I will recommend it for now, as long as it doesn't get too silly to endorse in the future.
Now, speaking of Barry... By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about his reference to The Special Olympics on last night's "Tonight Show", with Jay Leno:
(Listen closely after he mentions his 129 bowling score)
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that his remark was simply intended as self-deprecating humor, and not a veiled, understated slur of the mentally handicapped. I've said worse on occasion.
But then, I'm not the President.
This same man (and his devoted followers)who pretends to be offended at the slightest hint of an insensitive remark should know better than to let slip any comment that could be interpreted by the ever-increasing super thin-skinned segment of our population as so egregious and condescending.
He should know one can't make any kind of remark that might offend anyone.
I have a special needs child myself, but I wasn't particularly offended by his remark. I'm just not as thin-skinned as some.
It could have been simply an unfortunate, naive, less-than-sensitive joke, with no bad intentions, but it could have been (and most likely was) a glimpse into the true character of this lying fraud who pretends to be a hero to the oppressed, underprivileged, and downtrodden.
He's been in office for less than 60 days and already he has embarrassed himself and the office of President several times.
Obama is the real joke.
Yesterday, I received the following announcement in my e-mail:
Being from Illinois, I understand politics- It's a pay for play world. As such, I, President Barry O, has a deal for you. Not as good as an AIG exec, but pretty good none the less.
In an effort to reach out to my fellow Americans, I have launched my very own secret blog. Problem is, it's too secret. So Rahm had a great idea. I should offer a primo adviser gig to whoever sends us the must hits. I don't understand what that means, but Ram runs the show around here- so the offer stands. The link is http://presidentbarryo.blogspot.com/
President Berry O
What this means is whoever sends us the most traffic gets a charechter named after them. Mention us in a post, refering traffic to us, and we will count up the referals from sitemeter. Whoever sends us the most traffic gets a weekly or better link as his or her charechter appears. All participants will be named to the Presidents Economic Board of Advisers. Think of it- you and Volcker hanging out at the fed-- Rahm
In spite of all the misspellings, (doesn't Barry know about spellcheck?)which normally puts me off, I visited his site and found it (if I ignore the misspellings) quite humorous.
I'm not sure how important it is to me to "get a character", or get a "weekly or better link", but I have to give him points for his marketing efforts.
So, for that unique marketing effort alone, I urge my few readers to visit Barry's site. I will recommend it for now, as long as it doesn't get too silly to endorse in the future.
Now, speaking of Barry... By now, I'm sure everyone has heard about his reference to The Special Olympics on last night's "Tonight Show", with Jay Leno:
(Listen closely after he mentions his 129 bowling score)
I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and agree that his remark was simply intended as self-deprecating humor, and not a veiled, understated slur of the mentally handicapped. I've said worse on occasion.
But then, I'm not the President.
This same man (and his devoted followers)who pretends to be offended at the slightest hint of an insensitive remark should know better than to let slip any comment that could be interpreted by the ever-increasing super thin-skinned segment of our population as so egregious and condescending.
He should know one can't make any kind of remark that might offend anyone.
I have a special needs child myself, but I wasn't particularly offended by his remark. I'm just not as thin-skinned as some.
It could have been simply an unfortunate, naive, less-than-sensitive joke, with no bad intentions, but it could have been (and most likely was) a glimpse into the true character of this lying fraud who pretends to be a hero to the oppressed, underprivileged, and downtrodden.
He's been in office for less than 60 days and already he has embarrassed himself and the office of President several times.
Obama is the real joke.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Bonuses For Failure
"There can be no real individual freedom in the presence of economic insecurity." ~ Chester Bowles
When I was in mid-level management for a national corporation (now defunct), the company had a payroll system that included a base salary, commissions, perks, and a bonus system.
The bonuses were based on achievement. If we did our jobs exceptionally well, we received bonuses, the amounts of which were directly affected by going over our established quotas. We had a monthly bonus system, and a quarterly bonus system, and a yearly bonus system. We had what we called a monthly, quarterly, and yearly TSQ (Targeted sales quota)that we had to surpass in order to be eligible for a bonus.
I said, "surpass".
That means, the amount of the bonus was determined by the percentage of earnings over the TSQ. If I went ten percent over TSQ, for example, I received a bonus commiserate with that overage. Fifteen percent garnered me a graduated bonus accordingly. And so on.
Many of the other managers made six figure salaries when their various bonuses were figured in by the end of the year. Of course, they were regional and district managers. I never rose above department manager. Although I did manage to receive some monthly, and a couple of quarterly bonuses in my thirteen years in the business, I never made six figures in a year. I also earned a couple of incentive trips. One a Carribean cruise, and one to the Ixtapa resort in Mexico. Plus a nomination for one national award, in which I finished second in the company.
But I digress.
All of a sudden, the upper management employees of AIG are on the hot seat for receiving bonuses, ostensibly paid for by us, the American taxpayers.
Now, I don't understand this at all. Why are any employees of AIG receiving bonuses in the first place? They lost money.
What kind of company rewards bonuses for failure?
Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd are now sanctimoniously decrying the payment of these bonuses, as well they should, since they were two of the most vocal in favor of authorizing the bail-out of the financially ailing AIG.
But their protestations ring hollow.
Dodd and Obama are the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG. Dodd received the most campaign donations and Obama ran a close second.
And now, we find out that Dodd is the Senator who inserted, in the bail-out bill, the exception that authorized the payment of these bonuses.
Now, of course, he's saying he didn't.
He is saying he doesn't know how that exception got into the bill. If we are to believe Dodd (who, of course, has nothing to gain from lying about his role in the current scandal), the provision to go ahead and pay bonuses somehow magically appeared in the bill without authorship.
I have heard rumors that the bonuses awarded to the AIG executives were specified in their current contracts. Perhaps this is true, but once again, what kind of company would agree to terms with employees to go ahead and pay bonuses when they lose money?
My own contracts specifically provided for bonuses if I surpassed the TSQ on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. Nowhere was there any clause that directed the company to pay me extra if I failed to achieve my goal. The only bonus I would have received in that case would have been to keep my job.
If AIG agreed to pay their executives huge bonuses for losing money and driving the company to the brink of bankruptcy, it was a stupid agreement, and they don't deserve to be bailed out.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
In a free market system, there is no valid reason for the government to bailout any company, regardless of the circumstances. It is not the governments job to save irresponsible businesses.
If they fail, that is the price they pay for overspending and poor management.
Now Obama and Dodd have gotten us into this mess, from which there seems to be little hope of recovery.
And why?
I don't know.
But, if they've done it because of some kind of perceived obligation to AIG and other companies in return for their generous contributions to their respective campaigns, Obama should be impeached and Dodd should be jailed.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, anyway. AIG sent billions of that bail-out money to foreign banks. The bail-out money paid in bonuses for incompetent employees at AIG is a merely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money sent to other countries.
This whole thing reeks of incompetency, graft, malfeasance, and scandal.
We must recall all monies handed out to all the various recipients of all bail-out money. We must rein in this incompetent and irresponsible government.
We must stop the bleeding.
UPDATE: Apparently, Chris Dodd has abandoned his previous defense that someone sneaked that provision into the Omnibus bill. According to NewsMax:
WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
OK, so I will allow the Judge to reduce his sentence, and, if Dodd is telling the truth (finally), Obama should go to jail, too.
When I was in mid-level management for a national corporation (now defunct), the company had a payroll system that included a base salary, commissions, perks, and a bonus system.
The bonuses were based on achievement. If we did our jobs exceptionally well, we received bonuses, the amounts of which were directly affected by going over our established quotas. We had a monthly bonus system, and a quarterly bonus system, and a yearly bonus system. We had what we called a monthly, quarterly, and yearly TSQ (Targeted sales quota)that we had to surpass in order to be eligible for a bonus.
I said, "surpass".
That means, the amount of the bonus was determined by the percentage of earnings over the TSQ. If I went ten percent over TSQ, for example, I received a bonus commiserate with that overage. Fifteen percent garnered me a graduated bonus accordingly. And so on.
Many of the other managers made six figure salaries when their various bonuses were figured in by the end of the year. Of course, they were regional and district managers. I never rose above department manager. Although I did manage to receive some monthly, and a couple of quarterly bonuses in my thirteen years in the business, I never made six figures in a year. I also earned a couple of incentive trips. One a Carribean cruise, and one to the Ixtapa resort in Mexico. Plus a nomination for one national award, in which I finished second in the company.
But I digress.
All of a sudden, the upper management employees of AIG are on the hot seat for receiving bonuses, ostensibly paid for by us, the American taxpayers.
Now, I don't understand this at all. Why are any employees of AIG receiving bonuses in the first place? They lost money.
What kind of company rewards bonuses for failure?
Barack Hussein Obama and Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd are now sanctimoniously decrying the payment of these bonuses, as well they should, since they were two of the most vocal in favor of authorizing the bail-out of the financially ailing AIG.
But their protestations ring hollow.
Dodd and Obama are the top two recipients of campaign donations from AIG. Dodd received the most campaign donations and Obama ran a close second.
And now, we find out that Dodd is the Senator who inserted, in the bail-out bill, the exception that authorized the payment of these bonuses.
Now, of course, he's saying he didn't.
He is saying he doesn't know how that exception got into the bill. If we are to believe Dodd (who, of course, has nothing to gain from lying about his role in the current scandal), the provision to go ahead and pay bonuses somehow magically appeared in the bill without authorship.
I have heard rumors that the bonuses awarded to the AIG executives were specified in their current contracts. Perhaps this is true, but once again, what kind of company would agree to terms with employees to go ahead and pay bonuses when they lose money?
My own contracts specifically provided for bonuses if I surpassed the TSQ on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. Nowhere was there any clause that directed the company to pay me extra if I failed to achieve my goal. The only bonus I would have received in that case would have been to keep my job.
If AIG agreed to pay their executives huge bonuses for losing money and driving the company to the brink of bankruptcy, it was a stupid agreement, and they don't deserve to be bailed out.
Which is what I've been saying all along.
In a free market system, there is no valid reason for the government to bailout any company, regardless of the circumstances. It is not the governments job to save irresponsible businesses.
If they fail, that is the price they pay for overspending and poor management.
Now Obama and Dodd have gotten us into this mess, from which there seems to be little hope of recovery.
And why?
I don't know.
But, if they've done it because of some kind of perceived obligation to AIG and other companies in return for their generous contributions to their respective campaigns, Obama should be impeached and Dodd should be jailed.
This is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, anyway. AIG sent billions of that bail-out money to foreign banks. The bail-out money paid in bonuses for incompetent employees at AIG is a merely a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money sent to other countries.
This whole thing reeks of incompetency, graft, malfeasance, and scandal.
We must recall all monies handed out to all the various recipients of all bail-out money. We must rein in this incompetent and irresponsible government.
We must stop the bleeding.
UPDATE: Apparently, Chris Dodd has abandoned his previous defense that someone sneaked that provision into the Omnibus bill. According to NewsMax:
WASHINGTON -- For a while, the disappearance of an executive bonus restriction from last month's economic stimulus looked like sleight of hand worthy of a Las Vegas stage. No one could explain how the provision faded into thin air. On Wednesday, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., acknowledged that his staff agreed to dilute the executive pay provision that would have applied retroactively to recipients of federal aid.
Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, told CNN that the request came from Obama administration officials whom he did not identify.
OK, so I will allow the Judge to reduce his sentence, and, if Dodd is telling the truth (finally), Obama should go to jail, too.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
St. Patricks Day
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." ~ Thomas Jefferson
St Patricks day should serve to remind us all of Ireland's struggle for independence.
The following video has nothing to do with St Patrick and everything to do with the indomitable Irish spirit. Because of the refusal of the Irish people to submit to the oppressive rule of England, Ireland is now an independent country. Centuries of oppression by the English resulted in bloody uprisings throughout Ireland's history.
This is true of all cultures.
Despotic rule always produces blood. Either because of revolt, or by the iron hand of the oppressors themselves.
Freedom is never free.
All world leaders, including Barack Hussein Obama, would do well to remember how far freedom loving peoples are willing to go to win and preserve their freedom.
No sacrifice is too great.
No prize more worthy.
St Patricks day should serve to remind us all of Ireland's struggle for independence.
The following video has nothing to do with St Patrick and everything to do with the indomitable Irish spirit. Because of the refusal of the Irish people to submit to the oppressive rule of England, Ireland is now an independent country. Centuries of oppression by the English resulted in bloody uprisings throughout Ireland's history.
This is true of all cultures.
Despotic rule always produces blood. Either because of revolt, or by the iron hand of the oppressors themselves.
Freedom is never free.
All world leaders, including Barack Hussein Obama, would do well to remember how far freedom loving peoples are willing to go to win and preserve their freedom.
No sacrifice is too great.
No prize more worthy.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Jackie Mason -- A Racist?
"By these things examine thyself. By whose rules am I acting; in whose name; in whose strength; in whose glory? What faith, humility, self-denial, and love of God and to man have there been in all my actions?" ~ Jackie Mason
Jackie Mason, the famous (or infamous, depending on one's particular ideology) comedian, is in trouble again. Apparently, he used a racial epithet when describing Barack Hussein Obama in his act on Saturday night.
What horrible racist insult did Mr. Mason utter that so inflames the media?
Disclaimer: The following word might be deemed offensive to race baiters, whites suffering from white guilt, and Liberals of every stripe.
The word that Mason used to describe Obama is, (drum roll, please) "SCHWARTZA".
Schwartza? What is Schwartza? According to the news reports, "Schwartza" is a Yiddish term, meaning...Wait for it...."Black".
Black? Wait a minute. Isn't black the very description of Obama that Liberals celebrate? Isn't that the singular trait that Obama's adoring followers believe makes him qualified to be President in the first place?
It couldn't be his policies. No one had any idea what his policies were on election day. He obviously wasn't elected because of his policies.
It couldn't be his verbosity. He demonstrated continually that he couldn't make a speech without relying heavily on a teleprompter.
It couldn't be his beliefs. He made it a point to make absolutely sure we didn't equate his beliefs with the beliefs of any of his mentors, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or with his heroes, such as Cesar Chavez and Saul Alinsky, or with his friends, such as Bill Ayres and Tony Rezco. If he didn't share their beliefs, we have no clue as to what he really does believe.
Except that he's a Marxist.
After the election, the only positives the media could say about him was that he isn't Bush, and is the first black president. Indeed, as early as last Friday, I heard Chris Matthews say (with his own mouth, no less)that Obama is black.
Why isn't Chris Matthews being persecuted for being a racist? Didn't he, in essence, say the exact same thing? What's the difference?
How is it that Jackie Mason is now labeled a racist for merely stating an obvious fact about the duck in chief?
It's no secret that Jackie Mason is a Conservative. It's also no secret that Obama and his followers don't like Conservatives. So, could it be that those who pretend to be offended by Jackie Mason's words are simply over-reacting, and intentionally trying to create a scandal where no scandal exists?
The fact is, Jackie Mason is an equal opportunity offender.
I once saw a comedy special featuring Jackie Mason when he made several ethnic jokes and didn't manage to offend anyone. I remember specifically him saying, "I have great respect for the black man in this country, Could you buy a Cadillac with no job?"
The blacks in his audience didn't complain or walk out in disgust. They laughed.
I know the real objection to Jackie Mason's remark: He was referring to Barack Hussein Obama. We all know it is heresy to say anything even remotely critical of Obama. He can call a black man a black man. He can call a Jew a Jew. He can call an Italian an Italian.
But if he calls Obama a black man, he is a racist. But that isn't the only reason he's a racist. Oh, no. He is a racist because he's a Conservative that calls Obama a black man.
And that, my friends, is unforgivable.
Jackie Mason, the famous (or infamous, depending on one's particular ideology) comedian, is in trouble again. Apparently, he used a racial epithet when describing Barack Hussein Obama in his act on Saturday night.
What horrible racist insult did Mr. Mason utter that so inflames the media?
Disclaimer: The following word might be deemed offensive to race baiters, whites suffering from white guilt, and Liberals of every stripe.
The word that Mason used to describe Obama is, (drum roll, please) "SCHWARTZA".
Schwartza? What is Schwartza? According to the news reports, "Schwartza" is a Yiddish term, meaning...Wait for it...."Black".
Black? Wait a minute. Isn't black the very description of Obama that Liberals celebrate? Isn't that the singular trait that Obama's adoring followers believe makes him qualified to be President in the first place?
It couldn't be his policies. No one had any idea what his policies were on election day. He obviously wasn't elected because of his policies.
It couldn't be his verbosity. He demonstrated continually that he couldn't make a speech without relying heavily on a teleprompter.
It couldn't be his beliefs. He made it a point to make absolutely sure we didn't equate his beliefs with the beliefs of any of his mentors, such as Reverend Jeremiah Wright, or with his heroes, such as Cesar Chavez and Saul Alinsky, or with his friends, such as Bill Ayres and Tony Rezco. If he didn't share their beliefs, we have no clue as to what he really does believe.
Except that he's a Marxist.
After the election, the only positives the media could say about him was that he isn't Bush, and is the first black president. Indeed, as early as last Friday, I heard Chris Matthews say (with his own mouth, no less)that Obama is black.
Why isn't Chris Matthews being persecuted for being a racist? Didn't he, in essence, say the exact same thing? What's the difference?
How is it that Jackie Mason is now labeled a racist for merely stating an obvious fact about the duck in chief?
It's no secret that Jackie Mason is a Conservative. It's also no secret that Obama and his followers don't like Conservatives. So, could it be that those who pretend to be offended by Jackie Mason's words are simply over-reacting, and intentionally trying to create a scandal where no scandal exists?
The fact is, Jackie Mason is an equal opportunity offender.
I once saw a comedy special featuring Jackie Mason when he made several ethnic jokes and didn't manage to offend anyone. I remember specifically him saying, "I have great respect for the black man in this country, Could you buy a Cadillac with no job?"
The blacks in his audience didn't complain or walk out in disgust. They laughed.
I know the real objection to Jackie Mason's remark: He was referring to Barack Hussein Obama. We all know it is heresy to say anything even remotely critical of Obama. He can call a black man a black man. He can call a Jew a Jew. He can call an Italian an Italian.
But if he calls Obama a black man, he is a racist. But that isn't the only reason he's a racist. Oh, no. He is a racist because he's a Conservative that calls Obama a black man.
And that, my friends, is unforgivable.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Making Use Of Free Market Health Care (For Now)
"A Hospital is no place to be sick." ~ Samuel Goldwyn
I spent Monday shopping and taking my wife out to eat to celebrate her birthday. Her Birthday was Tuesday, but we could not celebrate it that day, because she spent her birthday in the hospital, in Richmond, recovering from surgery to replace her right knee. She has a private room, so I was allowed to spend the night in her room, which, as it turns out, does not a restful night make. The hospital staff must have been in and out of that room 20 times during the night to prod, probe, stick, poke, and generally bother her, all the while disturbing my sleep as well. Imagine waking someone up to give them a sleeping pill!
Sounds like an Obama policy to me.
She will remain in the hospital probably until at least Saturday this week depending on how she heals.
I will be spending my time divided between work and the hospital. I will have little, if any time, for blogging. I haven't had time for blogging this week up until now. And I really don't have much time for blogging today. I have to go into my office to do some paperwork, and then out to Ashburn, VA to work tonight.
Richmond to Ashburn is about a 140 mile swing. And then back to Fredericksburg, another 65 miles or so.
Tomorrow morning, I will probably drive back to Richmond to spend some time visiting my wife.
Sheesh! I'm tired already!
Oh well, it could be worse.
If she had waited about a year or so to have this surgery, due to Obama's health care plan, (modeled on Canada's and/or Great Britain's plan) she likely would have had to wait a couple of more years just to get in, and then possibly still be turned down because Obama's health care Czar would decide whether or not her procedure was a necessity.
Anyway, now you know why I am not blogging this week. If you wondered.
So, don't abandon me yet. I shall return.
I spent Monday shopping and taking my wife out to eat to celebrate her birthday. Her Birthday was Tuesday, but we could not celebrate it that day, because she spent her birthday in the hospital, in Richmond, recovering from surgery to replace her right knee. She has a private room, so I was allowed to spend the night in her room, which, as it turns out, does not a restful night make. The hospital staff must have been in and out of that room 20 times during the night to prod, probe, stick, poke, and generally bother her, all the while disturbing my sleep as well. Imagine waking someone up to give them a sleeping pill!
Sounds like an Obama policy to me.
She will remain in the hospital probably until at least Saturday this week depending on how she heals.
I will be spending my time divided between work and the hospital. I will have little, if any time, for blogging. I haven't had time for blogging this week up until now. And I really don't have much time for blogging today. I have to go into my office to do some paperwork, and then out to Ashburn, VA to work tonight.
Richmond to Ashburn is about a 140 mile swing. And then back to Fredericksburg, another 65 miles or so.
Tomorrow morning, I will probably drive back to Richmond to spend some time visiting my wife.
Sheesh! I'm tired already!
Oh well, it could be worse.
If she had waited about a year or so to have this surgery, due to Obama's health care plan, (modeled on Canada's and/or Great Britain's plan) she likely would have had to wait a couple of more years just to get in, and then possibly still be turned down because Obama's health care Czar would decide whether or not her procedure was a necessity.
Anyway, now you know why I am not blogging this week. If you wondered.
So, don't abandon me yet. I shall return.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Victory In Iraq
(with original artwork by yours truly)
"Victory belongs to the most persevering." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
The scene is an underground room buried somewhere deep within the mountains of Afghanistan.The room is nearly bare except for two metal folding chairs located directly in front of a long folding table littered with newspapers, both American and Middle Eastern. On the wall, directly behind the table, is a bank of television monitors tuned to various news programs originating from stations all around the world. Al-Jezeera, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and even FOX news, etc.
Achmed sits at the table, poring over news reports from The United States.
Abdul enters, stage right.
Abdul: Praise Allah, and Mohammad his holy Prophet! What news, Achmed, my friend?
Achmed: All praise and glory to our great and wonderful Allah! Abdul, I have very good news! Allah has blessed us for all our hard work in our holy jihad against the infidels!
Abdul: Allah be praised! What good news, if you please?
Achmed: The wonderful and merciful Allah has granted us, by His grace, an extended vacation! We can take the next 18 months off, to recuperate and regroup.
Abdul: Praise indeed to our Holy God, Allah, who has honored us with this wonderful sabbatical! Which of our relentless attacks against the infidel has earned us this highest of honors?
Achmed: All praise to Allah, for His mercy and Judgment! Allah is great and knows all, for he has provided us an ally in American government, who has at last rewarded us for our effort and announced America's surrender!
Abdul: Praise Allah! What ally is this, my friend and battle mate?
Achmed: All honor and praise to the great Allah! Our new American ally is none other than the new American President, Barack Hussein Obama! He has announced he will remove the infidel armies from Iraq! And, praise be to Allah, he has told even us when they will leave!
Abdul: Allah has answered our prayers! Praise be forever to Allah and death to His enemies! When will the infidels leave, my friend?
Achmed: Allah shall be praised indeed, Abdul, The American President has announced that he will withdraw the troops by August of next year!
Abdul: Allah has surely provided us a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but why, after all this time, do we have to wait so long to take our much deserved vacation?
Achmed: Praise Allah! That's the best part, my friend! We no longer have to wait to take vacation! Now that we know the definite date of our victory, we can relax now, take our vacation now, and wait until then. Then, we can renew our efforts unimpeded by the infidels.
Abdul: Allah is great! I get it now, my friend! All we need to do now is lay back and wait until the Americans think we have stopped fighting, and then, when they finally pull out, we can renew the fight with renewed vigor! We will destroy Israel and all the infidels! Praise Allah! We have won!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
"Victory belongs to the most persevering." ~ Napoleon Bonaparte
The scene is an underground room buried somewhere deep within the mountains of Afghanistan.The room is nearly bare except for two metal folding chairs located directly in front of a long folding table littered with newspapers, both American and Middle Eastern. On the wall, directly behind the table, is a bank of television monitors tuned to various news programs originating from stations all around the world. Al-Jezeera, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and even FOX news, etc.
Achmed sits at the table, poring over news reports from The United States.
Abdul enters, stage right.
Abdul: Praise Allah, and Mohammad his holy Prophet! What news, Achmed, my friend?
Achmed: All praise and glory to our great and wonderful Allah! Abdul, I have very good news! Allah has blessed us for all our hard work in our holy jihad against the infidels!
Abdul: Allah be praised! What good news, if you please?
Achmed: The wonderful and merciful Allah has granted us, by His grace, an extended vacation! We can take the next 18 months off, to recuperate and regroup.
Abdul: Praise indeed to our Holy God, Allah, who has honored us with this wonderful sabbatical! Which of our relentless attacks against the infidel has earned us this highest of honors?
Achmed: All praise to Allah, for His mercy and Judgment! Allah is great and knows all, for he has provided us an ally in American government, who has at last rewarded us for our effort and announced America's surrender!
Abdul: Praise Allah! What ally is this, my friend and battle mate?
Achmed: All honor and praise to the great Allah! Our new American ally is none other than the new American President, Barack Hussein Obama! He has announced he will remove the infidel armies from Iraq! And, praise be to Allah, he has told even us when they will leave!
Abdul: Allah has answered our prayers! Praise be forever to Allah and death to His enemies! When will the infidels leave, my friend?
Achmed: Allah shall be praised indeed, Abdul, The American President has announced that he will withdraw the troops by August of next year!
Abdul: Allah has surely provided us a light at the end of the tunnel, no doubt, but why, after all this time, do we have to wait so long to take our much deserved vacation?
Achmed: Praise Allah! That's the best part, my friend! We no longer have to wait to take vacation! Now that we know the definite date of our victory, we can relax now, take our vacation now, and wait until then. Then, we can renew our efforts unimpeded by the infidels.
Abdul: Allah is great! I get it now, my friend! All we need to do now is lay back and wait until the Americans think we have stopped fighting, and then, when they finally pull out, we can renew the fight with renewed vigor! We will destroy Israel and all the infidels! Praise Allah! We have won!
Abdul and Achmed together(while dancing around the room in euphoria): Praise Allah! Praise Allah! Praise Allah!
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Fashionable Obama
"Why can't I just eat my waffle?" ~ Barack Obama
Google "Michelle Obama sleeveless dresses" and you'll come up with 38,300 hits, and that's only those exact words.
Most of the sites that address this subject are complaining about Ms Obama's lack of fashion sense. Well, since I have no fashion sense of my own, I'll take their word for it.
When her husband, B. Hussein Obama, was asked about Michelle's seeming fashion faux pas, He demonstrated his superior knowledge of Constitutional law by replying, "I don't see what all the fuss is about. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee us the right to bare arms?"
He must be right. After all, he is a Constitutional law professor.
Google "Michelle Obama sleeveless dresses" and you'll come up with 38,300 hits, and that's only those exact words.
Most of the sites that address this subject are complaining about Ms Obama's lack of fashion sense. Well, since I have no fashion sense of my own, I'll take their word for it.
When her husband, B. Hussein Obama, was asked about Michelle's seeming fashion faux pas, He demonstrated his superior knowledge of Constitutional law by replying, "I don't see what all the fuss is about. Doesn't the Constitution guarantee us the right to bare arms?"
He must be right. After all, he is a Constitutional law professor.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Simple Minds Think Alike, Too
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." ~ Albert Einstein
The reason I haven't posted lately is because the majority of news stories lately have been about Obama's stimulus package. I haven't found much else worthy of comment.
And I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert on economics.
I have been trying to make sense of this whole thing, and I have to admit, I can't. I have been trying to view this stimulus package through the eyes of Obama's supporters to ascertain exactly why they support it, when it looks like sheer madness to me. I am reminded of a saying on a key chain I once saw:
"I am trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
I fail to see how it could ever work, even in a fantasy world.
Here is something I've learned in my fifty-seven years of struggling to make a living:
If you don't have any money, you can't solve the problem by spending more.
Of course, I never had the advantage of being able to legally print up more money when the existing funds run out.
Still, even with that advantage, I fail to see how even the most simple minded could think this plan will work.
Well, Obama is nothing if not simple minded, apparently.
The reason I haven't posted lately is because the majority of news stories lately have been about Obama's stimulus package. I haven't found much else worthy of comment.
And I am not, nor have I ever been, an expert on economics.
I have been trying to make sense of this whole thing, and I have to admit, I can't. I have been trying to view this stimulus package through the eyes of Obama's supporters to ascertain exactly why they support it, when it looks like sheer madness to me. I am reminded of a saying on a key chain I once saw:
"I am trying to see things from your perspective, but I can't get my head that far up my ass."
I fail to see how it could ever work, even in a fantasy world.
Here is something I've learned in my fifty-seven years of struggling to make a living:
If you don't have any money, you can't solve the problem by spending more.
Of course, I never had the advantage of being able to legally print up more money when the existing funds run out.
Still, even with that advantage, I fail to see how even the most simple minded could think this plan will work.
Well, Obama is nothing if not simple minded, apparently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
