Creating Jobs Could Be Beneficial In Many Ways

I am sure that there must be more than a handful of readers out there who have experienced the frustration of being forced to rely on Customer Service/Tech Support representatives who are physically located many thousands of miles away from the source of the problem that has forced you to attempt to communicate with them.

And I use the word “communicate” advisedly.

My personal encounters began with the purchase of a new computer to replace the six-year old (ancient, I have been informed by many in the industry) model that seemed increasingly unable to handle the demands for increased RAM to power the newest “apps”.  Not a bad con game, this: continuously invent new and exciting programs that require ever-growing amounts of operational capacity, which in turn guarantees that your new computer will be obsolete in a disturbingly brief passage of time … requiring an update of equipment …. and on and on, ad infinitum.

Anyway, I was somewhat entranced by the capabilities of the new system that I purchased, particularly the ability to hold face-to-face conversations, through an ingenious system labeled “Skype”, with my oldest son, who is currently teaching conversational English to South Korean high school boys.  But the bloom soon faded from the rose when almost immediately my new computer exhibited a maddening tendency to randomly freeze up and stubbornly resist any attempts to reboot.

And so my relationship with the computer company’s Technical Support/Customer Service gnomes began.  Many hours built up attempting to converse with these entities, who I discovered resided in some warren in India, and who would invariably begin our conversations with a litany of questions that were always the same and had been exhaustively discussed during previous calls.  Communication clarity would vary, since some of these folks were reasonably conversant in English while others spoke with an accent that was difficult to understand.

I soon grew to despair over the iron-clad protocol that directed these conversations.  These folks are carefully programmed to apply a limited number of solutions to an infinite array of problems and I soon grew weary of having my computer taken over by these faraway trolls who would, after many minutes, happily pronounce my problem solved.  The problem, of course, would return in days or a week or so later and it would be back to the drawing board with another “technician” who would stoically recite the same questions and follow the same procedures with the same results.

My increasing irritation was eventually rewarded with arrangements being made to swap out the machine’s hard drive. A U.S. technician appeared on my doorstep and announced that his only function was to make the equipment switch and therefore could not do any testing to determine if indeed a faulty hard drive was the source of the problem.

The problem almost immediately again reared its ugly head, prompting more lengthy telephone “conversations”.  I finally grew irate enough to demand that the obviously faulty system be replaced and that opened a true Pandora’s Box of frustration and misery.  Technical Support referred me to Customer Service through a series of “holds” that eventually linked me back to Technical Support who informed me that they could not replace the entire unit and referred me to Customer Resolution, etc., etc.

During one heated (on my part) exchange, I demanded to be connected to an American representative, but was informed that such would be impossible.  After explaining that my next approach would be a truly nasty email to the company CEO that would include my unfavorable evaluation of Customer Service/Tech Support, I was informed that an attempt to make such a connection would be implemented, but the requested result could not be guaranteed.  I’m sure that the poor rep on the other end of the line had a story to take home to their significant other about the “customer from hell”.

I did indeed send off a nasty email that included detailed threats of forthcoming defamation.  I’m not sure which action was the effective one, but a few days later I spoke with a very pleasant gentleman here in America who assured me that a replacement computer would be on the way.  His word was good: I have the new unit beside me as I write this – yet to be installed - but the attempt will be made as soon as my blood pressure returns to a more comfortable level.

The point being, of course, that all of this aggravation could have been easily prevented through quick corrective action.  I have since learned through some contacts in the computer service/repair industry that such occurences are not uncommon and that the computer manufactures do little or no field testing on new products, but instead rely on the consumers to do this for them.  They have found it to be less expensive to replace “lemons” than to take the time and effort to prevent them.  Customer satisfaction has been relegated to a seat much further to the rear of the auditorium.

I apologize for taking so long to reach my subject of the title of this rant.  My suggestion to our government is this:  If you are truly committed to finding jobs for Americans (are you listening, Mr. President?) then simply make it a requirement that any American company providing goods or services within the United States must staff its Technical Services and/or Customer Support divisions with American citizens in an American location.  End of discussion.

The result?  Many jobs for Americans and an astounding reduction in the blood pressure levels of the American consumer.

And don’t route me through a maze of bureaucratic stations who will each assure me that it cannot be done.  Enough pissed off people can make it happen.

Recognizing the Enemy

I am no admirer of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.  Some on the Left have characterized their emergence as a Liberal answer to the success of the Tea Party, but I fail to see a loose coalition of union movements, idealistic emotional adolescents, George Soros’ tools, and 1960′s leftovers and wannabes as the equal to a true grass-roots movement that was responsible for the election of a significant portion of the newest members of Congress.

Then again, I also refuse to recognize anarchy as a viable solution to our nation’s current financial and social miseries.

Still, the OWS protestors have successfully highlighted the influence that Wall Street and other corporate entities have over our national policies and politics.

Let’s be honest.  Wall Street bought itself a President.  Even if one is intentionally ignoring the evidence of massive Wall Street financial contributions to the Obama election campaigns (past and ongoing), consider the infiltration of Obama’s Cabinet by stalwarts of the corporate world:

Obama’s first National Economic Council director, Lawrence Summers, (of hedge-fund giant D.E. Shaw and venture-capital firm Andresssen Horowitz) who has also had some nice paydays courtesy of Lehman Bros., JPMorgan Chase, and Citigroup.

Citigroup’s Michael Froman, deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

Hartford Financial’s Neal Wolin, deputy Treasury secretary.

JPMorgan’s William Daly, Obama’s recent Chief of Staff and his predecessor Rahm Emanuel of Wasserstein Perella.

And a true star: Fannie Mae’s Tom Donilon, national security adviser (No kidding.  One of the geniuses who contributed mightily to Fannie Mae’s woeful state of affairs – upside down to the tune of trillions of dollars is running national security.  Plus, the former director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, was on the board of IndyMac when it went defunct.  Makes one feel warm, toasty and secure, eh?)

And we don’t want to forget the leaders of the Obama economic-transition team Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs, Citigroup) and venture capitalist vulture Warren Buffet.

Nor should we overlook Treasury Secretary/tax cheat Tim Geithner, who came up through the ranks as part of the Robert Rubin-Hank Paulson-Goldman Sachs cabal and went on to a position as chairman of the New York Fed where he was able to bestow tens of billions of federal (taxpayer) dollars upon a failing Citigroup through a structured investment that allowed the government to buy a 27 per cent share in the bank, for which it paid more than the entire market value of the institution.

But Obama is certainly not adverse to redistributing boatloads of goodies to other members of the corporate world such as his man David Alexlrod’s firm being allowed to set up Astroturf campaigns on behalf of Exelon subsidiary ComEd (despite the president’s voluminous denunciations of “Big Oil”).  Nor was Obama hesitant to appoint GE chief Executive Jeff Immelt to his White House jobs commission, or choosing former Kraft and Duke Energy board member Mary Schapiro to run the SEC.

(My acknowledgements to National Review contributor Kevin D. Williamson for the article “Repo Men”, from which this rogue’s gallery of unofficial lobbyists was compiled).

If you would like a more extensive examination of the joined-at-the-hip relationship between the Washington establishment and the Wall Street crowd, please peruse Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison, by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution.  This laundry list of recent “Congressional insider-trading, self-dealing, IPO shenanigans, inexplicably good investment luck” should be enough to set your blood pressure at unhealthy levels.

The thing that shines through here is not merely the utter inadequacy of the Obama Presidency, but the utter corruption of our government structure and the complete moral collapse of both Congress and the Executive Branch.  And this is hardly limited to Democrats and their past and present administrations, but has been a burgeoning problem for decades.

Anyone who has been a member of the Washington establishment for more than two terms in office is justly suspect and that certainly includes the current four members of the Maine Congressional delegation.

It is long past time for our political establishment to be held accountable for these shortcomings, but to accomplish true “hope and change” the voters must be willing to closely scrutinize the records and actions of all candidates for office and most likely will have to make an electoral choice between the lesser of two evils – at least for the near future.

But keep in mind that the true measure of American exceptionalism is that we still have the opportunity to make changes through electing officials who can be directed to do the best for the population as a whole.  Allied against ethics and morality is the entitlement mentality and the significant number of citizens who are dependent upon Washington for a continuing check.

Iraq – An Ongoing Tragedy

It is of course no coincidence that American troops have been “brought home” from Iraq just prior to the beginning of an election year.  Wars and other conflicts are always planned, implemented, supervised and terminated by the ruling political structures.  The goals originally professed therefore generally have little to do with the eventual outcome of the action, having been adjusted to conform to the open (or hidden) desires of the current power structure.

Bears a strong resemblence to campaign promises, does it not?

Certainly the precipitous and poorly thought out withdrawal of American forces from Iraq clearly shows that the outstanding performance of America’s military has gone for naught and that chances are at least even that the Iraq may soon degenerate into the tribal and chaotic internecine squabbling which is the current trademark of so many Middle East countries.

Without the restraining influence of American and other international forces to act as a buffer, the fragile coalition under the rule of Shiite prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is already exhibiting expanding fracture lines.  The Kurds of northern Iraq continue their quest for autonomy.  The remnants of Saddam’s Sunni ruling class continue their contributions to sectarian violence through their increasing bomb attacks against Shia landmarks and population, while al Qaeda is replenishing its depleted jihadist forces throughout the country (with the help of Iran).

Neighboring countries are only too happy to exacerbate the divisions, Iran’s Shia government continuing to expand its influence through Moqtada al-Sadar, Turkey launching excursions into the Kurdish province and Syria sniffing at the doorstep.

The costs of the war in Iraq can be totaled thusly: 4,287 American lives lost and many thousands more wounded and maimed; as of last summer, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that to that point America had spent $709 billion to finance this exercise in nation building, while the Congressional Research Service pegged the number even higher at $784 billion.  These figures are obviously not complete and do not include the future costs of replacing millions of dollars worth of military equipment that is being left behind and will have to be replaced in order to keep the military units involved even marginally operational.

All of this blood and treasure expended to provide the Iraqi government and its people with the arguably-implanted “freedom” to govern, sustain, and defend  themselves while serving as an ally in the “War on Terror”.  Our hasty retreat may well undermine any or all of those accomplishments, despite the hard work and sacrifices on the part of our military.

Nation-building is not a desirable option in this day and age, particularly when dealing with the nearly insurmountable societal problems posed by the tribal mindset of such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan.  Our military has been weakened and our national resolve depleted.    It will take years to restore the damage inflicted upon our military’s human and equipment resources, and the current demands to inflict massive cuts in military spending and readiness could not come at a worse time.

It was a mistake to embark on such protracted military campaigns when more precise and targeted operation to retaliate against our country’s enemies might well have been as effective.  In addition, this is not the time to adopt a Ron Paul-like isolationism foreign policy profile.  All the more reasons to underline our desperate need for strong, intelligent, committed leadership from our political class to reverse the deterioration of America’s strength.

And all the more reason to underline the vital importance of this fall’s elections.

 

 

Do You See What I See?

There were many Christmas Days that I spent in far-away places when I was a much younger man, and I am very grateful that I have been able to enjoy home and family over the last several decades after I had settled back down in Maine.  Being able to spend this particular holiday with loved ones in a warm and familiar environment is, for me, a great part of the blessings that this time of the year can bring.

For a number of reasons, I find it difficult to comprehend the motivations behind the escalating “war against Christmas” being waged by some members of our society.  Oh yes, I recognize that the rants protesting the “crass commercialization” of this special celebration have some validity.  Particularly after being exposed to the gleeful recitation via the media of examples of behavioral obscenities highlighting the mass idiocy observed during the shopping frenzies prior to Christmas Day.

And yet …….

I have been fortunate to observe many acts of kindness and charity committed by people who have no desire (or need) for the kind of recognition so craved by politicians, celebrities, and others who see generosity of spirit and sharing as a billboard to promote their own desperately constructed public personas.  There are, for instance, families who have gone out of their way to ensure some happiness at Christmas for those less fortunate by donating gifts deducted from their own sometimes meager resources.  Or those who volunteer their time, goods and money to charities who work tirelessly to improve the lives of the truly needy.

I recently had a conversation with a friend who expressed the opinion that society has undergone a radical change, has been lured into the sinuous embrace of materialism to the point where the ties so carefully constructed through religion, public morality, school-taught ethics, and bonds cemented through a sense of community have all but vanished.

To be sure, many of the fraternal organizations that have provide charitable support and community support as part of their moral and ethical structure are currently battling shrinking membership (my Masonic Lodge and my wife’s Lions’ Club are two personal examples).  Still, both of these organizations continue with their charitable activities, understanding that membership shortages are cyclical in nature and that there is always a small core of committed members who can keep things going.

My friend and I agreed that dedication to structured beliefs has, for many, become something to be avoided because the secular society that has become so recently popular is dedicated more to the worship of self and the “freedom” to become beholden to self-gratification above all else.  Discipline, restraint and common sense are in many cases to be derided, not emulated, and such a creed severely limits the opportunity for true compassion.

There are always choices to make, I believe, and the opportunity for good – as well as evil – exists in all humans.  I will always admire someone who shows, through their actions and words, that they have a strong moral and ethical base that consistently directs their interactions with their fellow beings.  Those are the ones that I am happy and willing to associate with.

Tradition, faith and morality have traditionally built such a cadre.  And there are many of them in evidence, if one is willing to take the time to look – and evaluate – and yes, judge.

I hope that all of you who have chosen to spend a few moments with me have enjoyed a Merry Christmas with those who matter most to you.

Anarchy is Not a Solution

Time Magazine is justly known for its quixotic selections for its “Person of the Year” magazine covers, but their most recent selection of “Protestors” really stretches the envelope.

To be sure, protestors around the world have been instrumental in gaining some success against dictators and other forms of suppressive government, but to lump all protestors into the category of positive achievement strains credulity to its limits.  Take the recent sacking of the British Embassy in Tehran, for example, or the riots in London and other parts of England.

And, of course, our own homegrown “Occupy” movements.  Admittedly these theatrics have won the adulation of prominent Democrats such as the president and Nancy Pelosi (certainly reason enough to skyrocket the level of skepticism), but in reality these gatherings of disaffected, perennial adolescents owe their longevity in large part to both a doting and Leftist media and the machinations of manipulative movements such as Communism, labor unions and the anarchist community – all adherents to the policies of “mob rule”, not democracy.

“Protestors”, by the way, don’t have to win their spurs by being arrested (note the paucity of arrests, not to mention the absence of filth, violence, crime and general antisocial behavior, following huge crowds at Tea Party rallies).  There are many forms of effective protest that result in changes to “the system” that are nonviolent in nature and in conformance with the rule of law.

The utopian longings of the “Occupy” protests betray their anarchistic lineage.  “Wall Street greed” is a favorite sophomoric appellation of the mobs, who apparently are all to eager to ignore their own greed – guaranteed “subsistence wages” whether employed or not, forgiveness of education loans, mortgages, etc. - which seems to flower from the envy fueled by the ancient pogrom of class warfare (a staple of the communist manifesto).

Economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, Thomas Sowell, suggests that “If the government has been sending too much of the taxpayers’ money to people in Wall Street – or anywhere else – then the corruption of politicians is the problem.  ‘Occupy Wall Street’ hooligans should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington”.

But logic and clear thinking runs far back in the pack compared to the heady rhetoric and mindless emotions of both mob and media.

In an article by Matthew Continetti in the November 28 edition of The Weekly Standard titled, “Anarchy in the USA – The roots of American Disorder” (available online at http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa609222.html), Mr. Continetti remarks that “Never in living memory has a movement been so widely scrutinized and yet so deeply misunderstood”.  In this timely and well-researched article, Mr. Continetti lays bare the motivations of the movement’s theorists and prime movers, while questioning “whether the sympathizers or the critics really understand the idea and the method of the movement”.

“The idea”, he contends, “is utopian socialism.  The method is revolutionary anarchism”.

He traces the influences of socialism in America back to the addressing of a joint session of Congress by Robert Owen, a successful Welsh businessman and socialist, who in the speech shared his dream of cooperative villages where workers would see their poverty alleviated and their spirits transformed.  The site of this American utopia would be New Harmony, on the Wabash River in southwest Indiana.  Owen welcomed converts to his new colony in April of that year, boasting that, “I am come to this country to introduce an entire new state of society, to change it from the ignorant, selfish system, to an enlightened social system which shall gradually unite all interests into one, and remove all cause for contests between individuals”.

The results were hardly idyllic, with rational structure being in short supply.  A crippling lack of skilled laborers, significant laziness and commonplace shortages due to central planning all contributed to the formation of factions that split off from the main group.  Adding to the discontent was the close monitoring by the community “leaders” of the activities and beliefs of every member, the banning of alcohol and the separation of children from their parents.  This “new empire of peace and good will to man” dissolved within four years.

It is not difficult to draw parallels between New Harmony and the confusion that characterizes the “Occupy” sites.

The utopian has a long history of antagonism toward two of the building blocks that characterize the evolution of a free society: private property and the middle class, or “bourgeois” culture, says Continetti.  “The utopian is repelled by two things in particular.  One is private property.  The other is bourgeois culture.  Monogamy, monotheism, self-control, prudence, cleanliness, fortitude, self-interested labor – these are the utopian’s enemies”.

In other words, the utopian would happily see western civilization divorced from the advancement pioneered by The Renaissance and returned to the centuries containing the Dark Ages and before.  And we can, through perusal of history, form a clear picture of how beneficial those times were.

“Anarchism”, says Continetti, “has a theory and even a canon: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman and others” and its modern proponents, such as Noam Chomsky, who writes that “Any consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership by the means of production and the wage-slavery which is a component of this system as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely taken and under the control of the producer.”

Today we are faced with what Continetti lables a “new anarchism” that has risen from the antiglobalization movement and which is characterized by David Graeber as a “rejection of the old-fashioned guerilla strategy of seizing state control through armed struggle, with their call instead for the creation of autonomous, democratic, self-governing communities, in alliance with a global network of like-minded democratic revolutionaries”.

As usual, political movements of any stripe are all about gaining power.  The antics of the “Occupy” groups are encouraged by any number of factions whose goal is to destroy our nation that has previously flourished under the guiding principle of freedom of choice to ensure freedom of opportunity and remake it into a country ruled by technocrats and dedicated to a Marxist-oriented cronyism economy.

I highly recommend a thorough reading of Mr. Continetti’s article, particularly before nest fall’s major election.

Hunting 2011 – A Mixed Bag

First of all, I want to thank my new friends in West Virginia for a very enjoyable stay at their stomping grounds in the mountains.  Larry, Dave and Tom, your hospitality and around-the-fire, end-of-the-day companionship was fun and relaxation at its finest.  Jack, in addition to all of the preceding, your culinary skills in contributing to some great meals were greatly appreciated – and congratulations on that nice 8-point that finally rewarded your persistence.

Hunting camps can be one of the best aspects of the hunting experience and good companions are not easy to find and maintain.  I consider myself very fortunate to have met these gentlemen and to have had the benefit of their company.

West Virginia offers challenges both physical and mental that differ from the Maine hunting experience and I have yet to fill a permit.  I will have to borrow a page from Jack’s book and cultivate patience.  I did see some nice bucks, but not in a shooting environment; nevertheless, it is always a thrill to see deer at any time or place.  Understandably, Jack might not categorize the nighttime encounter between a buck and the side of his truck in that vein.  My opportunities have been limited and, to be frank, my tactics could stand improvement.  But hunting is not meant to be simple or easy and one needs to learn as you go.

But, on the whole, West Virginia continues to be a very positive experience and one that I will look forward to repeating.  Good friends, good food and beautiful surroundings.

I came home on Thanksgiving Day to find eight inches of heavy, wet snow on the ground.  I managed to spend an hour or so that evening taking limited stock of the evidence that the deer had left in my back lot.  There seemed to be plenty of traffic, including evidence of a mature back that I had been tracking and hoped to encounter.  Unfortunately, the next day would put an end to those dreams.

My wife had told me that late Wednesday afternoon, near the end of the snowstorm, two young men in a pickup truck had driven down our driveway to ask permission to chase a buck that they had just seen in our front field.  My property is long, narrow lot slightly less than 138 yards wide by a little more than one-half of a mile long with housing developments on either side and across the road on the front end.  Since it was late afternoon with darkness approaching and these folks were not known to my wife and also unfamiliar with the territory, she expressed reluctance to grant permission for them to pursue the deer.  They were polite enough, seemingly accepting the situation, and left.

It was not until Friday morning, when I resumed hunting my back acreage, that I discovered a bloody trail in the snow where a buck had been dragged out to an adjoining private road and loaded onto a pickup.  All of this activity had obviously designed to avoid any contact with my house or its residents.  Backtracking to the gut pile, I discovered that the buck’s genitals had been affixed to a nearby sapling.

From examining foot prints and talking with neighbors, I deduced that three men in two trucks had parked on the main road across from my front field, traveled through screening undergrowth to a point approximately 250 yards from my house and waited until the meandering buck came into view.  Three shots were fired, aimed back toward the main road and tangentially toward the vicinity of at least one bordering house.

To say that I am miffed is an understatement.  Here in Maine, state law clearly states that hunters are to ask permission to hunt private property.  This requirement was obviously circumnavigated by these “slob hunters”, the kind of individuals who are careless with their lanes of fire and uncaring of property owners’ rights and safety and disrespectful of the game that they are lucky enough to encounter – precisely the kind of people who are a small minority of hunters but give the rest of us a bad name.

I have never before posted my property, but next year signs will go up and I will be very limited in granting permission to locals who are ethical enough to ask.

At this point I do not have a feel for the numbers for the deer harvest.  I saw deer in my front field nearly every night, but they arrived well after dark and departed well before dawn.  The roller coaster weather, fluctuating from cold to unseasonably warm, probably will have contributed to keeping the numbers down.

There are partridge (grouse) around in small numbers.  Ducks are more limited that in previous years, even though the lakes, rivers and ponds have remained free of ice here in South-Central Maine.

So, not a productive season in the respect of game in the freezer.  But, in the way of enjoying time spent in the woods and on the streams and enjoying the company of some really nice people, my season ranks well on the plus side.

I am happy with those boons.

Maine Hunting Update

I have seen very few ducks up to this point.  The flight paths seem to have deviated from the coastal areas, at least in regard to ponds, lakes and rivers.  I have seen several flocks of geese numbering over thirty.

Partridge are sparse, probably due to the cold, wet spring which always cuts down the population because of its effects on hatchlings.

Maine seems to have a bumper crop of apples this year.  Last year I saw very few deer around my house and fields, but this year there seem to be at least a couple almost every night in the field between my house and the road and I recently saw five at one time.  They appear to be in good health and there is an abundance of food.  We had a four-inch accumulation of snow in late October, but it has now all melted.

So far I have yet to see a deer in the woods.  Our temperatures have been alternating between warm and cool, with lowest being in the mid-to-low twenties, with no prolonged cold periods.  This enables the deer to confine their traveling and feeding forays to the hours of darkness, heading for their sanctuaries before daylight and not wandering again until after dark.  Not helpful for hunters who prefer to stake out traveling paths leading to feeding areas.

Doe permits were greatly reduced this year.

There are deer around, but hunters are going to have to work harder than usual to encounter them.

 

Bits ‘N Pieces, 2d Edition

First and foremost, my heartfelt admiration and thanks is sent out on this special day to all of my fellow veterans both past and present who have contributed to the safety of our country.  You guys and gals have kept the faith to the highest degree and your service and sacrifices are a burden that should be proudly borne – we share a camaraderie that the civilians do not understand.  “Honor, duty, country”.  It is what we do.  God Bless you all.

1.  If anyone can seriously deny that the mainstream media is awash with the hypocrisy that its members are quick to assign to anyone not of the Liberal persuasion, then last night’s scurrilous attack on Herman Cain by “moderator” Maria Bartiromo should erase any doubts in the mind of those who viewed/heard her “questions” directed at the Republican Presidential candidate.  “Can you explain why anyone would be asked to vote for a candidate with serious moral or ethical problems?” was the essence of her line of questioning.  Even if one does not consider the fact that at this time claims of sexual harassment are emanating from anonymous and other somewhat questionable sources, Ms. Bartiromo seems to be all too quick to judge Mr. Cain guilty, while overlooking the recorded sins of such Liberal heroes as Teddy Kennedy (a serial sexual harrasser), Bill Clinton, John Edwards, or JFK.  Even less understandable is the absence of recognition of racial overtones by such stalwart defenders as the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, who otherwise are ready to splatter the “racist” label about the landscape at will.  As usual, there is in evidence a different set of requirements for Republican challengers, even if they are black.

 2.  Also notably missing is media recognition of the superlative job that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has done since his election as head executive of a state that has featured only four Republican governors in 125 years.  Gov. Jindal has transformed the state’s reputation on ethics and corruption, bringing new businesses into a state previously described by Michael Barone as ”America’s banana republic … with an economy increasingly dependent on businesses typical of picturesque Third World countries”.  Jindal has also enacted dramatic cuts in spending without provoking much public outcry while implementing careful reforms to Louisiana’s rather unique methods of providing health care, has created jobs, overhauled the state’s schools and decreasing the state payroll while managing to deal with crises in a manner that makes federal efforts look wan and ineffective.  There are those who see Gov. Jindal in a far more responsible role in government, but at 36 the youthful governor has plainly stated his intent to do his best to deal with the problems facing Louisiana for the forseeable future.

3.  Updates from the various “Occupy —— (your choice)” locations feature increasing squalor and accumulating filth, serious reductions in the incomes of local businesses, rising crime rates to include rape and assault, and destruction of private and municipal property,  Any determinable policy demands from the assembled crowd have included total forgiveness of all debt (which would result in destruction of the country’s credit market), “economic justice” (nonspecific), and a (videotaped)tirade from a self-professed Communist who insists that the only salvation for the world is the destruction of America.  Admittedly, the protestors have a few points that resonate such as the fact that the banks are not lending despite the huge amounts of taxpayer cash that they have been awarded through government largesse, but these potential positives are obscured by the rantings of “trustafarians, Black Panthers, Gray Panther, 9/11 truthers, U.S.S. Liberty truthers, a variety of Leninists-Marxists, Ron Paulistas, students of all ages and anarchists of all stripes.  The ongoing circus continues while Rome begins to crumble.

4.  The Durbin amendment, a section of the nefarious Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, is now in effect thanks to the devoted efforts of Senator Dick Durbin, (D) Illinois who, as a called-in favor for one of the nation’s biggest retailers, Walgreens, which is based in his home state pushed through the new regulations that will limit the amount that banks charge to merchants for enabling them to accept debit card payments, cutting those fees by some 80 percent.  The costs will now be bourne mostly by consumers along with other increases in fees now regulated through the provisions of Dodd-Frank.  Far from being the “consumer protection” touted by the bill’s sponsors, this sordid piece of legislation was slated from the beginning to benefit the politically connected – not the general public.

5.  And now we discover that the executives who have overseen the destructive policies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – institutions who have benefited from more than $130 billion dollars of taxpayer bailout money – will reap over $13 million in bonuses for their efforts.  I can’t help but wonder if Barney Frank’s ex-lover and boyfriend, who obtained a cushy job with Fannie Mae through the efforts of Rep. Frank, is in line for a share of the windfall.

“The most ethical administration in history” – Then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi

“The Machine” in Action

Life can be filled with coincidences, particularly if you are a frontrunner in the race to determine who will challenge Barack Obama in the upcoming presidential election.

Take Herman Cain, for instance.

Suddenly, from out of nowhere, alleged incidences of sexual harassment (that reportedly occurred in the late 1990′s while Mr. Cain headed up the National Restaurant Association) have become front page news.  Interestingly enough, accusations resulted in “settlements” provided to the accusers on condition that confidentiality would be maintained.  This “confidentiality” has conveniently evaporated due to the efforts of unidentified individuals who have outed the scandalous behavior of the leading Republican challenge to the Anointed One who seeks to prolong the misery of America by insisting upon another term to continue the failed policies of an administration that has done nothing to alleviate our nation’s problems and arguably has contributed significantly to their perpetuation.

With all of the instantly generated storm and fury that only the media can invoke, it appears that little attention is being paid to the sources of this newly unearthed information bonanza.  One of my first questions would be, “How did these situations come to light?” considering that the principles involved are required by the terms of the settlement to remain silent about details.

Who dispersed this information to the media?  Who would benefit from these aspersions on Mr. Cain’s character?

Let’s be realistic.  Do Cain’s alleged cases of sexual harassment (which have not been verified) seriously impact the electability of a presidential candidate or his retention in office?  Certainly not in the case of the renowned sexual predator and confirmed felon (convicted for perjury and stripped of his license to practice law) Bill Clinton.  Nor in the instance of the serial philanderer and promiscuous JFK who was given a free pass by the press.

So why the mounting media hysteria over a couple of relatively minor and unproven allegations?

Could it be that a non-politician whose voter appeal and common sense approaches to solving America’s current problems has become a serious threat to the establishment elites who are responsible for the mess that we find ourselves in?  If that were the case, both sides of the political aisle - and some perceptive commentators are questioning whether such a division actually exists – would benefit if Herman Cain were to suddenly disappear from contention.

Just for example, if a person who was provided say, $35,000 or so within the terms of a settlement, were to be approached and informed that bringing such charges public (Anita Hill, anyone?) would bring fame and fortune, books and tours, might that convince someone who had previously honored the requirement for silence that the questionable details should receive public disclosure?

To be fair, Mr. Cain’s campaign has not dealt well with this tempest in a teapot.  They reacted slowly to the threat and have been generally less than efficient in their reactions.  The candidate himself initially seemed to suffer from memory failure when it came down to the details of the accusations (although perhaps he felt bound to honor the requirements of the settlement agreement).  Still, if Mr. Cain and his team cannot deal appropriately with this campaign bump in the road, does that not activate doubts about their competence when faced with the far more important problems facing a newly-elected President? 

My immediate and most pressing concern is that we are now witnessing an important and revealing example of how quickly the party politicians and the lap-dog media who support them will rally ’round in an attempt to neutralize a perceived threat to the stranglehold on our political process that they have engineered over the last few decades.

Seems to me that the “Occupy Whatever” crowd is neglecting a far more appropriate target for their protests.

Back to the Future

An excellent article by Ronald Radosh and Allis Radosh that appears in the October 24, 2008 edition of The Weekly Standard presents yet another example of how we can learn from the past, if only we are willing to expend the time and effort in searching for answers to the problems that our nation currently faces.

Warren G. Harding took office in 1921 at a time when America faced a bleak future.  His predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, had come to be viewed by many as a “rigid, unapproachable ideologue” – sound familiar?.  Because of Wilson’s lack of planning for demobilization after World War I, four million soldiers returned home with little money and few benefits, facing an economy that featured a money supply that had been inflated by the Federal Reserve, a national debt that had skyrocketed from $1 billion in 1914 to $24 billion in 1920, and a bloated federal government.  A falling demand for goods and services resulted in business closures, bankruptcies and rising unemployment with many industries cutting back on production and many of them running half-time.  All of these factors contributed to the depression of 1920 to 1921.

Harding promised to “heal the nation” by lowering taxes from their wartime highs (he felt that they had become so high that they were counterproductive), reducing the national debt, balancing the budget, and making the government smaller and more efficient.  The new President believed that America was an exceptional country, “whose citizens enjoyed equal opportunity to develop their abilities and whose success ultimately depended upon a dynamic free market”.  Since the Bolshevik revolution had gained prominence only three years previously, Harding’s principles stood in stark contrast to the mounting wave of infatuation with the Communist manifesto that was seducing many of the European elite.

In 1920, in a speech delivered to a crowd of over 600,000 people gathered in Marion, Ohio to hear him speak from his front porch, Harding told the gathering:

“Abroad, particularly in Russia, there has grown up the idea that by some impossible magic a government can give out a bounty by the mere fact that of having liberty and equality written over its door, and that citizenship need make no deposit in the bank of the common weal in order to write checks upon the bank.  Here at home we have had too much encouragement given to the idea that a government is a something for nothing institution ….  It is only in a country where the merit, capacity and worth of men and women are recognized and rewarded that merit, capacity and worth are developed.

You and I, and good Americans of whatever color, blood or creed, know that the aspiration of all men is equal opportunity, and that no injustice known to man can be greater than that of the tyranny and autocracy that … enslaves all men and all their ambitions and all their freedom”. 

President Harding died of a heart attack on August 2, 1923, but not before he had managed, with the help of a stellar cabinet including Andrew Mellon as Secretary of the Treasury, Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, Charles Evan Hughes as Secretary of State and Henry C. Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture, to return the nation to prosperity.  Harding had stated that during the war, “our expenditures were so little questioned , the emergency was so impelling, appropriation was so unimpeded that we little noted millions and counted the Treasury inexhaustible …  A continuation of such a course means inevitable disaster … a way must be found to restrict our national expenditures within the limits of our national income , and at the same time … lift the burdens of war taxation from the shoulders of the American people”.

One of the major accomplishments of the Harding Administration was engineered by Charles G. Dawes, a banker and successful businessman who had refused Harding’s offer of the Secretary of the Treasury post in favor of an appointment to head the Budget Bureau (predecessor to today’s Office of Management and Budget).  Following his inauguration, President Harding told a meeting of his cabinet and 1,200 bureau and division chiefs that “There is not a menace in the world today like that of public indebtedness and mounting public expenditure”.  During his campaign, Harding had promised to balance the federal budget.  After one year following Charles Dawes’ appointment, the federal budget had been balanced, revenues exceeded expenditures, and the public debt had been reduced.

The successful policies of Harding and his successor Calvin Coolidge went for naught after the election of Herbert Hoover who returned to statist measures.  He was followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt who created a new version of the welfare state that allowed progressivism to not only return to prominence but to flourish.

In 1940 after an economic downturn that turned into the “new Roosevelt Depression”, Charles Dawes provided a glimpse of a future that we can certainly recognize in today’s economic woes:

“Some day, a President, if he is to save the country from bankruptcy and its people from ruin, must make the old fight over again,and this time the battle will be waged against desperate disadvantages.  Against him will be arrayed the largest, strongest, and most formidably entrenched army of interested government spenders, wasters, and patronage-dispensing politicians the world has ever known”.

That bell of warning should be tolling incessantly in the ears of America’s public as we near one of the most vital elections in our nation’s history.