Saturday, August 27, 2011

FAST TALKING


Unlike many Americans and nearly all Democrats, I learned long ago that the thing to do when you make a mistake is to own up to it, take the consequences, learn from it, and move on. Of course when I do something right I want to do the same thing which is why I'm so opposed to inefficient government subjecting me to excessive taxation to take care of those that don't do these things, but I digress. This is actually not another political blog.


You see, I was running late for an appointment a couple of weeks ago. Not late late, but not my customary 5 or 10 minutes early, and wasn't paying attention to my speed. As I was driving down a main thoroughfare I rounded a corner, and there they were. The Travis County Revenue Enhancement Department, Motorcycle Division. And there I was the only car visible on the road, and I had their radar pointed directly at me. I glance at my speedometer, and they had me dead to rights. I was doing 60 in a 45. So, I flipped on my hazards, waved to them as I passed by them, and turned onto a side road.



As soon as I turned onto said side road I saw a parking lot with a shade tree I could pull under, and it being well over 100 I decided both the sheriff's deputy and myself would be more comfortable under the shade so I drove the extra block to park under the tree.



At first the deputy was somewhat belligerent sounding when he asked, “Why'd you make me follow all the way into this parking lot?”

I responded truthfully, that I figure we'd both be safer and more comfortable under the shade off the roadway. He allowed as to how the shade was nice, and let that go. He then asked me if I knew why he'd pulled me over.




I responded in keeping with my take your punishment like a man and move on way of life, “I'm guessing, just guessing mind you, that it was because I came around that corner going like the hammers of hell were chasing me.”

He actually snickered. Now it's important to realize that all I really wanted to do was take my ticket and get back on the road. He asked, “Where were you going in such a hurry?”




Here again, I truthfully answered, “I have a doctor's appointment, but it's not an emergency, I'm just running a few minute late. But that's not really even the deal, I simply wasn't paying attention.”



He then spent a few minutes running my license, registration, and inspection. Presumably to make sure I wasn't a wanted ax murderer driving a stolen not inspected car. Then he approached my window again, handed me license and insurance, and said, “I don't normally do this, but since you took responsibility, and found shade, I'm going to let you go with a warning.”



Got on his bike, and rode off. So it just goes to show you guys that even when screwing up taking responsibility makes things much less harsh than they have to be.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

EAT THE RICH


Twice now I've had the conversation with people that we should call the rich's bluff and let them leave. When discussing what will happen when we tax them to highly. But let's think a minute about what would happen if we did that shall we. The thing that immediately concerns me is that we'd loose our most productive individuals. The ones who had proven in the harshest test of all that they can get things done that benefit, indeed keep alive, their fellow man, the market place.

Now they're gone, but our needs for their goods and services are not. So what do we do? We are forced to bring in our second string. These are not bad guys, but they are not as good as their former competitors or they'd have been run out with the competitor. Now eventually, in a generation or two we'd breed a new first string, and they'd figure it out for themselves.




But what happens during those generations? Well we suffer shortages in goods and services. Our beans aren't canned, our cars aren't built properly, and clothing falls apart. Some of us probably suffer directly from hunger simply because the mechanisms that bring us our foods are now far less efficient than they had been. In short we have huge amount of suffering to go through while our market place breeds new efficiency. We probably don't die off as a race or anything, but it wouldn't surprise me that some of us die of malnutrition, hunger, or disease because food couldn't be delivered fast or with high enough quality to them.



Now let's assume that we survive that transition, and we've gotten back on track with the production of our goods and services. Great. But guess what? The market has made those that guided us through that transitions WEALTHY! And, we have accomplished the dubious goal of exchanging one set of wealthy people for another set of wealthy people at great price in suffering and possibly human life.

Is that really the intelligent thing to do?

I think not. I think instead we should study the rich, and teach their methods to our children via Dave Ramsey's or Dr. Thomas Stanley's works. Then we should emulate them. As I've said in the past, if you make more rich people the result will not be more poverty.

Monday, August 8, 2011

WHAT IS OURS?



So, why is it that we seem to feel that we have a right to that which is the property of others? That is what taxes are after all, us helping ourselves to the property of others. And of course to some degree those that produce that property do owe something for the legitimate services of the government. But at what point does it become legalized theft? To me that point is fairly simple to define. That point is the point at which that property is taken to pay for things that are contrary to our constitution.

Even a partial list of those things would be so long I haven't the time nor inclination to write it out for you. But to see the list of things that are justified all you have to do is read Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution. And, as soon as we stray away from those we stray into legalized theft. Something that is legal of course, but totally immoral.


'The tyranny of the majority,' is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America. It simply means that the majority can tyrannize anyone one it wishes if it can merely get the votes. But, and this is where many people loose their way, legal is NOT the same thing as moral. We need to rethink these concepts for America and maybe think that our need does not make it moral to take from others that which is their property. So, when you next hear that such and such group isn't paying their fair share, ask yourself, “How is it that I have any claim on it at all?”

Saturday, July 30, 2011

SICKENING!

I recently was having a Facebook discussion on the debt ceiling debate, and something happened that made me loose my temper in ways I haven't done in years. I'll post the comments below, and my response. I'm curious as to my fellow Facebook friend's thoughts.

Post 1:

Perhaps you could explain to me how Obama is supposed to get ANYTHING done with a Republican held House whi has stated on numerous occasions that their sole purpose is to be sure Obama is a one term President. No thought about serving their constituents, just serving their special interests and making sure they are re-elected.



Post 2:
"When independent organizations all agree that a balanced approach including spending cuts and tax increases are the best approach, yet Republicans sign a pledge not to raise taxes and hide behind it. Sometimes governing means making unpopular decisions be it for the best of us iun the end. Did your parents give you everything you asked for? Mine didn't and I didn't like them at the time, but that was their job too."



Post 3:
"As a middle class soon to be lower class person, I am tired of reading about the massive profits that the oil companies are making yet we continue to subsidize them. And the rich folks that manage to pay no taxes because they can lobby Congress to do their bidding. I'm MAD AS HELL as the saying goes."

Now here is what I responded with. My version is crammed into two posts even though it wasn't posted that way due to Facebooks silly enter thing, but I crammed them like this because that's how I intended them:

Post 1:

My congressman is NOT my parent. He/she is my employee! Their job is to do as I instruct. If that means obstruction Obama at each and every turn to make him a one term president then so be it. If that means not raising taxes that is what it means.

If you are such a child still that you need your government to parent you then I feel sad for you.

In the mean time if you don't want your class to be lowered go into business and build your own wealth. That's what capitalism is about.




Post 2:
I'm sorry, but you're entitlement attitude, and take care of me desires are sickening. Man up, take care of yourself and your family. Don't use the thug power of the government to steal from those of who do you whiny childish brat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Post 3:
And if Obama can't handle my employee doing his job then he who is also my employee is free to resign!




That is the end of the online as of this writing, but I'm sure it'll continue. In the meantime I'm torn, I did not have the words to tell this piece of human debris in what contempt I truly hold him, on the other you catch more flies with honey than vinegar so did I screw up? Should I have made my points in a less blunt way to try to get the light to shine in?



What do you guys think?

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

ATLAS IS SHRUGING!

Nearly every day without fail…men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay their car note. They can’t feed their families. They don’t have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just…you know…what’s the use? I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They’d be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What’s the use? I see these guys—I see them with tears in their eyes—looking for work. And if there’s so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there’s no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So…basically what I’ve decided is not to open the mine. I’m just quitting. Thank you.”



That is a quote from Ronnie Bryant of Jasper AL on a coal mine he was attempting to open as reported on theblaze.com. The link is below so that you can watch the video if you wish.  The bottom line is that he got fed up with the red tape he was being bound by, and decided to heck with it.  In some regards I can't blame him, but it is more than a little sad and a very bad day for the residents of Walker County who really needed the work.



The real issue is that many tell me that this won't happen. That more and more can be heaped on the producers and they'll just smile and take it. They won't, and I don't expect Mr. Bryant is the last. Heck, I wonder how many went quietly before him with no cameras to document it.



Ronnie Bryant

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

SORE WRISTS

I have always wanted to learn to play guitar, but gave it up as a lost cause years ago for a lack of time. I even gave the guitar I'd been given away. But lately the itch has come back. Then came Independence Day lunch at my in-laws. My step father in law is a guitar player and he and his sons played some after lunch so I was really feeling it. I even started shopping, and had a list of models to check from, but I hadn't shelled out any money.


Then comes a boring Friday evening. So I go pawn shopping and even take the old ball and chain with me. I'm looking at guitars and she's looking at jewelery. Now I really don't have the cash for a guitar and the $700 ring she's looking at, but I really want a guitar and I've always wanted to get her a better ring than the one she has so it hits me. I have an extra gun that will more than cover them both. So I go tell her my idea. She says she doesn't want the ring, but needs a laptop for her new job. So we look at lap tops, and nothing grabs her, but 3 pawn shops later we find a nice little Toshiba net book and THE guitar I really wanted. Upshot of it was we went back Saturday morning and made the deal which included an electronic tuner and case for the guitar.



So, I download a you-to-can-play-the-geetar lesson off the internet, and start plucking away. Now I'm experiencing a whole new level of pain in my fingertips. And, my wrists haven't been this sore since I discovered those magazines in my dad's nightstand. And, no, I still can't play guitar, but I'm working on it.

Monday, June 27, 2011

WHY JOBS EXIST

Highlighted lately by the National Labor Relations Board's fight against Boeing setting up a new plant in South Carolina is the fact that many people don't realize the reason jobs exist in the first place. There seems to be the misunderstanding that jobs exist for the employees. Nothing of course could be further from the truth. Jobs exist to produce profit for the business owner. Be that owner the shareholders of a Fortune 100 company or Mom & Pop's grocery on the corner. That is the sole reason that jobs exist.


You see to employers labor, or the cost of providing jobs is a necessary expense not the purpose of the exercise. As a business owner you don't hire someone so you can watch them sit in a chair and make widgets all day. You hire someone to obtain widgets so that you can sell them at a profit. That profit of course being to you what the pay check is to that widget maker.



Since by definition EVERYTHING in a business is done with the intent of creating profit, hiring someone is scrutinized the exact same way. For example these are the thoughts that run through the owner's head before he places an ad to hire a new employee: Right now we can make 100 widgets per week with 2 employees. That's 50 per employee per week. I think I can sell 150 widgets per week since the widget market is picking up and my competitor just retired. So considering that AND the facilities costs I can hire another person and give myself a raise.

You will note nowhere in there was the thought: I really should provide a job for some stranger just because it would be a nice thing to do. That is because providing jobs is not what companies are about. Providing profit is what companies are about. Now that same business owner may very well stop off at 3 charities and 2 churches after work to donate his time and profit, but when he's at work making widgets he's not thinking altruistic thoughts.  He's thinking how to maximize profit.




So the next time you hear someone whining that people aren't hiring, think about why it is people get hired in the first place, and remember that they need to find someway to make themselves profitable to an employer and they'll have no problem getting a job. But, if they try to force an employer to pay so much for their widget making labor or only make widgets in non competitive areas labor costs wise then they'll send our fictitious widget maker out of business, or out of the country. So be careful what you try to get out of your job. You don't want to price yourself such that it's cheaper to let you stay home. Because there is no good business reason not to let you do so, and considerable reason to not only allow it, but force it.

Friday, June 24, 2011

WHAT IF THEY'RE WRONG

What if the scientist saying that man is killing the planet via global climate change are wrong? Now before you start assassinating my character indulge me for a moment please. I'm not asking what if there is not global climate change? Rather, what if it is a natural phenomena that man has no control over? Ponder that and it's implications.

Right now the basic premise is that man is causing Global Climate Change. Now let us assume that the global climate is changing for the sake of this argument. Let us further assume that since science has known some things in the past that turned out not to be true (the sound barrier will never be broken, the planet is flat, the sun revolves around the planet etc) that the global climate is not changing due to man's affect on the planet. That it is simply a natural phenomena that we have no control over, and yet we still keep going down this path of cutting back on energy usage, and carbon dioxide restrictions. Where does that lead us?




Well, as near as I can tell it leads us to less and less energy usage which may not be a bad thing, but it also leads us to less and less technological advances. So let's say we go back to farming with horse drawn plows and spinning our fabric by hand. All of that is human and animal labor intensive. So here we are working in more hazardous and labor intensive ways outdoors more exposed to the weather, and the weather is getting more and more harsh.



Now, I don't know how many people die each year currently of exposure, but that number has to now go up from simply having more of the population exposed. In the meantime generation by generation we're going more agrarian simply to feed ourselves without our polluting machines. Which lead to cutting back on our industrial capacity which means that things like refrigerators and air conditioners are being manufactured less and less, because they are part of the problem. Not to mention automobiles that can be used to transport the sick to health care facilities rapidly. All of this adds up to a decreasing life span.



Then one day we wake up and realize that oops, the climate is still getting more and more harsh, despite our new Luddite lifestyle. But, knowing us we decide to give it some time. And another generation goes by, and still the things get more harsh. So for several generations now we've been getting more and more harsh in the climate department, and there are fewer and fewer of us.



The Einstein definition of insanity occurs to someone, and finally the ones left are convinced that we need to adapt to our changing environment rather than try to change it. But now we have to start from scratch. Not totally because hopefully we kept a lot of the information available in book form at least. But it takes time to spool up. And, that information is designed for a climate considerably different than the one we have now so we have to adapt them. All of which means we may very well be yet another generation away from getting adapted to the new climate.



Now, what if, we turned out to have waited one generation to long?



Oops. Now we are no more as species. Is that really what we want? Actually there are probably some that do, but I am not among that number. So I'm thinking we should take some of this hysterical energy we're devoting to arrogantly trying to change the climate, and channel it into adapting to the changing climate just in case. Worst case scenario, there is no global climate change, and we've developed more technology to make us more comfortable and safer. I kind of don't see that as a bad thing. Or there is, we're at fault, and we've developed technology to help us bridge the gap before we're on the brink of extinction which I also don't see as a bad thing.



Just a little something to consider.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

WHO'S TO BLAME?

So, who's really to blame for all of the manufacturing jobs going overseas? Well, we still had as of 2007 (the newest numbers I could find) the largest manufacturing output in the world. But even so it is true that we as a nation are moving away from manufacturing towards what has been termed the information age. You may have heard that term before.  

What it means is that we will need less manufacturing and more of other types of labor. Not necessarily that we'll just need less labor. With that in mind some people think the corporations that are moving manufacturing jobs over seas are evil, and greedy. Well to them I say: You do realize that the point of a corporation is to make money for it's shareholders don't you? Oh wait, apparently a significant percentage of you do not. So, let me lay it out for you.

It is the job of the corporation to provide profit for the shareholders. There is really nothing more complicated than that. A company, any company, exists solely to generate cash which the company owners use as their pay check. A corporation is merely a company that is owned by a group of shareholders who all want that same thing. Payment for the corporation using their investment. But under ZERO circumstances are publicly traded corporations in business for any other reason than to generate profit. Sorry if that's to politically incorrect for you, but that's all they is!

The vast majority of shareholders want a rising profit year over year. Not as a measure of greed, but usually as a measure of a healthy company. You see a stagnate or dropping profit margin is typically a sign that company is starting to degenerate. And if you have your hard earned dollars invested in that you don't want to see a degeneration or devaluing of your investment. And it can happen to the largest and oldest of companies. Montgomery Wards went from having raised it's dividend for 50+ straight years to out of business in less than 3. So just as your mom watched your temperature when you were sick as a child, you watch the profit line as it is the single quickest way to judge the health of a corporation.

This brings us to profit. There are exactly two ways to produce that profit increase, and only two ways to produce that profit increase:
  1. Increase revenue (money in)
  2. Decrease expenses (money out)
That's it there ain't no more.

Revenue is set by the market. You are only going to pay so much for any item before you decide you don't need it that bad. That goes for everything from that AC/DC shirt that you bought at that drunken concert in 1982 to your house. And, there is only so many units you can produce and sell in a year. Once those maximums are reached the company must start looking for ways to lower expenses.

Typically the single largest line item on any companies expense ledger is labor. Oops, gotta hate that one. But it's true. Employees and their related expenses are typically the single largest expense of any corporation. So they tend to get looked at first when cutting expenses comes up. Because the single easiest way USUALLY to cut expenses is to cut labor costs either by lay offs or moving to a climate that has cheaper labor

It is not the corporation's job to supply jobs. Jobs are merely a necessary expense that happen to benefit the employees. That's right folks. As I've shown so far the company doesn't exist to pass out jobs, it exists to make money for the shareholders. As an employee you are only going to be around as long as you bring in more than you take out. Live with it. It's the way it is.

And, the government can't do a darn thing about it. While the government can control cost via taxes and regulatory expenses which are usually the 2nd largest item on expense sheet. It can't change the market nor make employees profitable except through taxes and regulation.

Labor costs are also set by the market. If labor here in the US won't build widgets as cheap as labor in foreignstaniland then it is the corporations DUTY to its shareholders to move to foreignstaniland. That's right, those evil corporations that must now do their job and move to foreignstaniland. Like it or not.

So, who is to blame for all of this job exportation. Well, frankly you and I are. You see WE are the vast majority of shareholders either directly or through our various retirement plans. Hmm, bet you never thought about that did you. But it's true. Most stock is held by investors of some sort or another. Mostly through mutual funds that you invest in through your 401k or other retirement plan. Even those currently politically correct to vilify multinational oil companies. You own these companies as sure as you own (presumably) the shirt on your back. So if you penalize these companies you are in essence ripping your own shirt. Kind of a silly thing to do to a vintage AC/DC concert shirt if you think about it that way isn't it?

The corporate officers that are lambasted as greedy bastards are usually merely employees trying to give us what we want in order to keep their job. That's right, mostly they are paid with a more complicated package than the average joe. Which includes stocks, and special retirement incentives etc, but the bottom line is that their usually hired hands brought in to do a job. And most of them are conscientious about doing that job as well and as ethically as they can. Are there some exceptions? Sure, but they are just that exceptions. That's why you hear about them. Kind of like why you don't hear about the 10,000 flights a day that land safely, but let one airplane go down and you can't get away from it on the news for weeks. Same with corporations. You'll hear about the Enrons, but not the SAICs of the corporate world. And yes SAIC is a real company and it's listed in the Fortune 500. But odds are you've never heard of it. Why? Because they do their job well and ethically with a minimum of fanfare except to their stock holders.

Now some say, “But we have no power as shareholders.” And to some degree that's right. You are not going to be able to go into the board room and start dictating policy. But all of us, as a whole, telling our financial advisers that we want more profit so we can afford that giant motorcycle to tour on when we retire is heard loud and clear in those board rooms. And that wish is heeded. So, if you don't like what a company is doing simply quit buying their products and dump their stock. Or, shut up and quit whining, and start working on making American jobs competitive on the world market. Like it or not we live in a global economy and we have to compete globally.  Because like it or not we are responsible for their actions.  Not some evil board members.  They, like our politicians, work for us, and we are responsible for their actions.

The other fix is to innovate so that our jobs allow us maintain our way of life and our workers to make what they need to. Of the choices I prefer that last one. And more importantly I believe in the ability of the American people to do just that, make their economy and therefore their jobs more innovative so that we can manufacture our widgets elsewhere without harming our selves.

Sunday, June 5, 2011

ENUMERATED POWERS

Some say that stating that the Constitution doesn't specifically allow for it, therefore it must not be Constitutional is a failure of logic. But I say hogwash! If you are told, 'You will do these things and nothing more.' then you authorized those things and nothing more. In the constitution we have that specific situation. We have a specific list of duties for the federal government in Article 1 Section 8 (summarized by yours truly):

*To Tax to carry out the list bellow
*To borrow money
*To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, the States, and with the Indians
*To establish Rules on Immigration bankruptcies
*To coin Money, fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
*To Punish counterfeiting
*To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
*To enforce patents and copyrights
*To make courts inferior to the supreme Court;
*To enforce maritime and international law
*To declare War
*To maintain the military
*To cal forth the Militia
*To organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia, called to serve actively
*To administer Washington DC and build other federal use facilities
*To make all Laws to do the above

Then to put the cherry on the cake in the 10th amendment specifically states that:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

To me the VERY logical conclusions of those FACTS is that the list of enumerated powers is all there is. Anything else must be handled by the people or the states. Now, as I have said in the past there is some bad case law that we have to deal with, but the constitution itself is pretty clear.

Saturday, June 4, 2011

GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE IN THE US CONSTITUTION

I really get tired of people pulling the 'general welfare' clause of the constitution.  Its meaning is pretty clear, and it was bad case law that allowed it be used as it is today to do things blatantly unconstitutional.  So, let's explore it for a bit.  It may not change that we have to abide by this case law, but it does explain it.


The term 'general welfare' appears twice in the United States Constitution. Once in the preamble, and once in section 8 which lists the powers of congress.

First the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

SCOTUS has held that - the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments"

That's pretty cut and dried. Now for section 8:

There it is in the first power:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; “

Thomas Jefferson explained the latter general welfare clause for the United States: “[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”

The key point in the Jefferson explanation is - "...provide for the welfare of the Union...." So he pretty much spells it out that it was intended to be used for the welfare of the nation as a whole NOT individuals.

To me that is one of the key points: when the Founders meant individuals they used the term 'the people' when they meant as a nation they used the United States. This would seem in and of itself to to mean that taxation was to be collected for use in the other enumerated powers NOT for individual gains. There shouldn't be any other issue, but the sad fact is that there has been some seriously bad case law that has changed that. However the base dispute goes all the way back to James Madison and Alexander Hamilton.

James Madison advocated for the ratification of the Constitution in The Federalist and at the Virginia ratifying convention upon a narrow construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers

Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of the country over any other.

I find it interesting that Hamilton espoused his view only after ratification. To me that is enough to dismiss Hamilton, but in several cases. Notably 'US vs Butler' and 'Steward Machine Company v. Davis' the SCOTUS ruled fairly Hamiltonionish (to coin a phrase), but then later in life one of the Justices (citation needed) admitted that he (and hinted that others might have) voted as they did to head off FDR's attempt to pack the court. So they basically destroyed the constitution in order to save the court. Kind of scary, but I think many of the US's problems stem from those bad cases.


Friday, June 3, 2011

DANCER'S HIGH

Now as I sit here typing this with my right foot in a cast and throbbing in pain (thank you modern science for codeine) I am immensely grateful to the gods of dance that they let me have 2 of these this week before I had to stop for a month. One Tuesday and one Wednesday. The one Wednesday especially will be one I relive on my death bed I bet. Both were in practice sessions after lessons at separate classes. My wife and I hadn't taken the classes because we knew I would not be able to finish them due to the cast, but we'd gone to the after class sessions just to be with our people and enjoy ourselves before the forced hiatus. I am of course referring to the perfect dance. The dance that transports you a higher plane of existence.  I don't expect every one to understand this, but my friends who dance will. Hopefully it will inspire some of my non dancing friends to start.

The perfect dance doesn't happen very often, but occasionally everything works just right and you get that perfect moment in dance. It's you, your partner, and the music all becoming one entity that exists in a place not of this world.

I had never understood the concept of a runner's high until the first time this happened to me. It was 20 years ago, and up until then my learning to dance was primarily a way to meet women. One in which I'd had limited success I might add, but I'd stuck with it since I've never been very good at quitting. I can't tell you her name, but she was my instructor's professional partner, we were dancing two step in a now long gone night club in North Austin. From that moment I realized that I could no longer exist without dance.

It was years before I had that experience again, and even now when my health lets me dance regularly it's only an occasional thing, but I still hope for it every time I walk on the floor. I wish I had the words to describe it fully, but I don't. I once heard that every dance was a short relationship, and that's true, but when the perfect dance comes along it's even more intimate. It's as if your souls touch and intertwine with the music and if you could you would exist there forever.

And, it doesn't matter what type of dance. It can be country, ballroom, or as in the case this week my favorite West Coast Swing. So, if you haven't been dancing for a while, or if you've never been, go! It's the only way to fly.

PS – it's times like this that I wish I had more literary talent to describe the feeling so if you don't fully get it don't blame the dance blame the dancer :)

Saturday, May 28, 2011

UNWORTHY

Every once in a while something happens to remind me how unworthy we are of the sacrifices made for us by our soldiers. But would you believe that one of those instances was while shopping this morning? I was going into one of the big box membership stores, I won't say which one other than to say that there's a family in Arkansas that's just a tad bit more wealthy. Anyway, there I was heading into the store with nothing more than my shopping list on my mind, and there they were - JROTC from a local high school. Of course they were there in honor of Memorial Day. As I walked in, and then out when I was done shopping they called attention, and saluted me. Now I'm not special they were doing this for all customers going and coming. But it made me a bit uneasy. I finally figured why.

Here I am a middle aged guy who's offer to serve was declined, and these kids who are in high school and already preparing to defend our country and way of life. With their life if necessary. And, they're saluting me? That is wrong. I am simply unworthy of that honor. If anything I should have been saluting them and thanking them.

Every time I get pessimistic about our nation, this sort of thing happens to me. Here are a bunch of upper income high school kids, and they at age 13 – 18 are already planning for a life of service, and hardship to protect our rights. This was not a poor section of town, and the school in question was not some inner city hell hole that would force kids into this. Indeed this was one of the richer parts of town, and better schools full of kids who's families have money and privilege. And they're going to be the next generation of officers serving our nation with all the hardship and sacrifice that entails. Amazing!  If that doesn't give you hope I don't know what will. So, remember our fallen this weekend. That is what Memorial Day is for, but keep in the back of your head that a new generation stands ready to take up the banner, and move us forward into the future, and take pride in them.

Friday, May 27, 2011

PALIN THE TROJAN HORSE?

It is I, your humble commentator, and amidst Sarah Palin announcing her new tour, and everyone starting to wonder if she's getting ready to jump into the 2012 presidential race I wonder if it's not all a ruse.

I can see very clearly in my mind's eye a group of republicans going to Sarah and proposing a way she can make money selling books and speaking engagements while throwing the democrats off the scent. You see by her merely stepping up her profile she has all the dems in a twidget for one reason or another over the fact that she may be running. Either they are happy because they think they can beat the ditzy broad from Alaska, or they're scared out of their mind that she's about to whup them like they so richly deserve.

You see it doesn't matter to my imaginary republicans, either way they can work in the background, and whoever does become the republican nominee has an open field to run in while all the silly dems are still chasing Sarah who's running up and down the sidelines leading them on a merry chase to nowhere. Then all of a sudden they have less time to go after whoever winds up with the nominee, and Sarah has a couple of extra million to add to her fortune, and has the dems to thank for it.

Which is why I firmly believe that this is all a ruse. Not sure I want it to be true, but my feeling is that she's not running. That all of this is intentionally or not simply providing cover for the republicans to do as they wish for a while.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

MONEY GARDENS

You know the more I think about 'tax the rich' or 'spread the wealth' plans they really annoy me. I have recently begun a small vegetable garden, and even eaten some of the tomatoes I have begun getting. And the other day while tending that garden it hit me, that a business is like a garden on a much longer term and larger scale.


In a garden you get out in spring and work your tail off tilling, fertilizing, planting, weeding, and so on. This is much like a business, in the beginning you work 60 – 80 hours a week or more marketing, funding, selling, manufacturing, hiring, filing taxes, and the myriad of other jobs you have to do to get a start up off the ground.


Then your plants start to come in, and you get to relax. There's still not much fruit, but you can see your work starting to pay off, and occasionally you can step out for a day or so to enjoy life. The plants are starting to do their work, and require just a little input and maintenance from you to keep producing and hopefully growing. In business this means you can step away from your plant or store for a week or so and take the wife on a vacation. But that week is all you can afford, and usually only then once every couple of years or so. But your hours are probably down to say 50 – 60 a week, and you can actually put your children to bed some evenings. If the phone doesn't ring with some calamity.


Finally comes the harvest. The garden has grown all it's going to, and you have start picking and eating the food. THIS is why you did all that work back in spring. You get to eat your own food, grown with you own hands, in your own soil. It's not only useful, it's hugely satisfying on a deeply emotional even for some spiritual level. In business this is where you are established, and you have a good staff that handles most of you day to day stuff for you. You can sort of begin to retire here knowing that you money garden is starting to ripen. But WAIT! Now steps in the government and says you are the winner of life's lottery, and your fru... I mean money has to be spread around to those that did not plant anything and are less 'lucky'.


Now they weren't around when you were breaking your back hoeing the rows, planting the seeds, or lugging water and fertilizer all over the place, but now they want your food? We wouldn't dream of taking a gardeners food like that, and yet we have no problem taking a man's money when he spends a life time growing a business or investing wisely. How is that morally right I ask you.


So next time you hear 'tax the rich' think of your garden, and how mad you would be if the government just came in took your harvest and handed it out to those that watched TV all spring and summer while you were in the yard working, and tell them not just, “No,” but, “Hell no! No fucking way!!!!”


Because that business is that owner's garden, and he deserves every bite of food he gets. And like most gardeners I know I'd bet that he'll be trying to give away the excess rather than let it go to waste. Either by reinvesting in other businesses or through charity. So it will get spread in the owner's way as it should.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

EDUCATIONAL MONEY

Outrage around homeless mom charged for sending son to better school


The link above is for a Yahoo news story about a homeless lady who's crime was to try to get her children into a good school by using a friend's address. The attitude of the school system can be summed up by a quote from school board president Jack Chiaramonte, "There has to be a penalty for stealing our services."


Well I have a couple of issues with that. The services are not his. They are the property of the tax payer, but let's lay that aside. I'd bet that his attitude would be completely different if the educational money was attached to the child, and not the district. If he had to compete for that money he'd be trying to steal that kid from the other schools, not whining that he had an extra. This is a prime example of how a free market system would produce a better attitude in our educators.


Personally I'd just as soon see the money never be taken from the parents in the first place, all schools be privatized, and the parents just have the freedom to educate their kids as they see fit. Now I'm not naive enough to think that would work either. There are many lazy parents who would just let their kids run wild and be a burden to society forever, but since we can't have my ideal I do think some way to attach the money to the kid would be the best answer.


Which brings us to vouchers. I like the idea of a voucher, then the schools have to compete for the money. Especially if you also allowed the schools to set their prices. At the minimum end of the scale would be the WalMarts of education. Solid basic schools that would educate the majority of students to a decent level, but have very few frills. At the other end you would have the boutiques of eduction. They would charge more, but you and your kids would get more for your time, money, and effort. In between would be the Sears of education. Not Walmart, but not a boutique either. These schools would be a nice happy medium. And of course there would be a nearly infinite number of gradients in between, and as a parent you could pick your school based on your criteria of your kids aptitude, your location, budget, and any other factor you'd care to use.


But for some reason this is considered bad for parents and kids. I'm not sure I get it. Especially when the option is putting the parent in jail and leaving the child an orphan in a lousy school. Exactly how is that good for our children?


PS - The friend who provided the address? Now she's homeless also as she got evicted for her 'crime' of allowing a homeless friend shelter occasionally. Boy, that's compassionate ain't it.

Sunday, March 6, 2011

THARS GOLD IN THEM THAR REDNECKS

Now I am not a sophisticated investor. I stick to the basics, I buy things cheap, and try to sell them high. I do fairly well at this when I engage in it. But, money is a fascinating subject and I study it. Lately I've been reading a book on investing and one of the methods it suggested was to invest in dividend paying stocks. And, I am sophisticated enough to understand that. I buy a small chunk of the company and they pay me my share of the profits every so often. I get that. It's nearly as simple as buy low sell high. Even I can understand that.

So, just as if I have any money to throw at the market I was futzing around and looking up dividend paying stocks, and found  a couple of things. First off they're hard to find.  Second stocks that pay a decent return are even more rare. But they are out there. However, the most amusing thing I found was that apparently, there's gold in rednecks. The average dividend is 3% or less, but World Wrestling Entertainment pays nearly 11%. That's right those dudes with strange names, and in funny spandex costumes pay like a slot machine. Not as good as real estate stocks mind you, but right up there. I'm sure that says something about our society, but I have no idea what. In the meantime I'll be watching WWE on the street if it takes a dip I may buy a share or two.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

JUST WHAT RIGHTS ARE BEING INFRINGED HERE?

I'm a bit confused about this situation in Wisconsin. I mean it's somewhat unclear what rights are being infringed. I mean to my knowledge no one is saying to the Wisconsin public employees that they can't unionize, nor that they can't gather, nor that they can't protest. All the citizens of Wisconsin are saying through their elected officials is, “Hey, sorry, but we can't afford this anymore.”

I mean from down here in Texas it looks an awful lot like an 8 year old whining that he can't have a cookie, and when Mom says, “Sorry we're out of cookies. You'll have to wait until we have more money in the budget for cookies, or buy them out of your allowance.” And instead of accepting the facts of life the little brat just screams louder. And I'm supposed to feel sorry for this booger eater? I think not. And having it be a giant group of supposed adults makes it even less attractive.

And let's look at it from a rights point of view. Sure the union members have a right to unionize, and they also have a right to redress their perceived grievances through that union. But what about the rights of the employers? I mean why should the citizens of Wisconsin not be able to buy their labor from ANY source they want to? I mean why should the citizens be restricted to one market source for the labor they need? Don't they have a choice too? I mean why doesn't it work both ways?

To me it comes down to the facts that right go both ways. Let's think about it this way. Let's say the Dave needs his lawn mowed, and Bob is in the lawn mowing business. Now, why shouldn't Dave just call Bob, and say, “Bob, how much to come mow my lawn?” And, have Bob simply quote a price.

Instead in a unionized state Bob BY LAW has to say, “Call Phil, Phil handles my lawn mowing bookings.” Now that runs up the costs for both Bob and Dave since Phil must get paid. In this scenario of course Phil is the union, and he's sucking money out of EVERYBODY'S pocket. It's not any more complicated than that. And to make it worse Phil takes the money that Bob is FORCED to pay him, and contributes that money to the local politicians to ensure that it remains illegal for Bob and Dave to get together legally and privately. It is just unclear why that is legal, much less considered a right to be protected.

Now don't get me wrong, If Bob WANTS Phil to handle his bookings fine. If Dave want's one of Phil's clients to mow his lawn – fine. But, if Dave and Bob want to get together privately it should be none of Phil's business, and certainly none of the politician's business.

In the meantime, just because you whine about no cookies, or not getting your union demands met that does not mean you're rights have been infringed. It simply means the other side is exercising it's right to say, “No!” So quit whining about your supposed rights, and go to work.

Friday, February 18, 2011

ENCOURAGER IN CHIEF

I don't usually dedicate these, but this one is for Ronald Reagan, happy 100th Mr. President.

=========================================

One of the titles given the President of the United States is Commander in Chief. This is of course because in addition to his other duties he has the awesome responsibility of being in charge of our military. But lately that title has been being used by the civilian world. I have a problem with that. Mainly that the American people don't need a Commander in Chief in the White House, we need an Encourager in Chief. The American people don't need to be commanded. They need to be turned loose and encouraged to run their own lives.

This is especially true lately when it appears that the entire world is trying to slip into George Orwell's world of 1984, and let Big Brother take care of them. So many people are demanding more and more from the government and once they realize that the government doesn't produce it merely takes we are in for one serious down hill ride. It could conceivably wind up in another civil war, and even the end of America as we know it.

So what we need is another Encourager in Chief like Ronald Reagan. Now for the purposes of this discussion I don't care about your politics, or Reagan's. What is important was his tone. I distinctly remember his campaign ads when he ran in 1980. I remember the 'Sunrise in America' ad, and the speeches he gave, and I remember he took a nation that was feeling distinctly run down and even ashamed and made us feel good about ourselves. Basically he told us that we could do whatever we wanted to do, as our forefathers had done. And he was right. For the 8 years he was in office most of us felt actually proud to be American again. And after the hideousness that was Vietnam, the shame of Nixon and Watergate, and the atrocity that was Carter we desperately needed to feel proud again.

And I believe once again we need that. We need to understand that we are the people who fought off the reigning super power of it's day to establish it's sovereignty, and established the first capitalistic republic in the world. Then for an encore we did things like conquered a continent, and put the first humans on the moon. That's not even touching on things like curing polio, and other diseases. Oh, and let's not forget saving western civilization for the likes of Mussolini and Hitler. Which not incidentally entailed stopping one the great genocides of modern history.

Our ancestors did this, in some cases our parent's had roles in these great achievements. Are we now to believe that we need the government to help us go to the doctor? Or to make a simple living? I think not. So what we need is another Encourager to help us remember that we can do whatever we set our mind to.

I wish I was that man, but I fear I am not. But I will continue to encourage the American people every chance I can that yes, we can do it. Whatever it is. And we don't need the government to do anything for us. So be proud of our history, and of our accomplishments, and realize that everyone from George Washington to your great uncle killed in Normandy in D-Day is counting you to make to make your children future as great as the one they left for you. If we all do that it can once again be Morning in America.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Beerconomics

I stole this from a NSFW site, and so rather than link to that site I just cut and pasted it here.  It's an economics lesson that maybe some of you can relate to.  It was supposedly written by an economist from the University of Georgia.  I have no idea if the economist given credit for even exists, much less wrote it.  But regardless of it's origin it is a great analogy for our system and what the progressive tax system does to screw everyone.  ESPECIALLY the poor when the class warfare card is used.

-------------------------------

EXPLAINING OUR UNITED STATES TAXING SYSTEM WITH BEER


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:


The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.


So, that's what they decided to do.


The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.'


The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.


And so:


The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).


Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right,'exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!'


'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'


'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'


The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.


The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important....they didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes DO get the most benefit from a tax reduction. They also PAY more than the rest. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia


For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!