For example.  When is the last time you heard anyone suggest that women should be playing in the NBA?  Or the NFL.  Why not?  Well the truthful answer would be that they can’t compete against much larger and faster men.  Technically that would make them incompetent (not qualified or suited for a particular purpose).  Everyone knows it and everyone accepts it – in sports competition.  What do you suppose the comments would be toward someone who suggested that because certain West Africans were genetically better-suited to long distance running that they should be in a separate class of runners.  Don’t they have an unfair advantage contained in their genes?  An unfair advantage is the basis in forbidding performance-enhancing drug users isn’t it?

To me, the best system is one where the best person for the job gets it.  Race, gender, height, weight, sexual proclivities, religion and other such characteristics should not be considered.  Just give me the best person for the job.  How does being homosexual have any relevance to an accountant?  Yet if a homosexual were running for the office of State Controller it would almost certainly be a factor as far as the opposition was concerned.

Really, you shouldn’t have it both ways – if you want equality based upon equal representation then apply the standard everywhere – in sports, politics, religion, business, government, universities, etc.

In my view that would be as stupid as requiring MIT or Stanford to educate the mentally challenged and give up places in programs which could be occupied by those who could really put that learning to use for our nation.  Or requiring the NBA to have equal representation among all races and genders – that would lead to some pretty dull games I think.  Not to mention bringing down the high-standard for playing to a much lower standard.

How would you like to find out that your surgeon was graduated from med school because she matched a particular “equality” requirement and not necessarily because she met the same standards as all the other graduates?  Wouldn’t you rather have the person who was the best at their specialty regardless of race or gender?  If you were in a serious car wreck would you want to be attended to by the first EMS person who could get there?  Or would you rather wait for the one who matched your diversity criteria? It is interesting to me that those who demand equal representation in business, government and politics  based solely on race or gender don’t seem to have the same attitude when it comes to other areas.

The problem is that the accusers are generally hypocrites.  Does anyone know of a single African-American without a story about mistreatment of African-Americans at the hands of a white cop?  The race of cops arresting African-Americans is always an issue.  Isn’t that racial profiling?  The assumption of unfair treatment is immediately on the table if the arresting officer is white.  How is that not racial profiling?  Another prevalent assumption is that an African-American cannot get a fair trial from an all-white jury.  How is that not racial profiling?

Sure, there are an untold number of instances of racial discrimination of African-Americans by whites.  That’s the point.  The number of instances is so large it can’t help but lead to profiling.  As humans we are pre-disposed to “profiling” in order to survive as a species.  We sub-consciously categorize potential dangers in order to make them easier to spot so we can take defensive measures when needed.

Imagine that you are driving down the road when you are suddenly surrounded by what appears to be the Hell’s Angels.  Don’t waste your time trying to convince me that you are not on high alert for potential danger.  Although most tattooed, bandana-wearing, Harley Davidson-driving motorcyclists are, in real life, middle-aged accountants and bankers hoping to re-live a youth they never participated in, some are meth-dealing thugs.   If I had to guess, I’d guess less than one percent of Harley riders are criminals.  But we profile them all as a potential danger.  UNTIL we have had the opportunity to evaluate them more carefully, our first response is to profile them and be alert.  If it was a gaggle of nuns you were suddenly surrounded by I doubt you’d be wondering if you had remembered to pack your baseball bat.

Many people strive to fall into a certain profile.  Its their choice.  Their reasons are their reasons, but when they are “profiled” it is because they have chosen to be profiled.  Kids dressing up like thugs is an example.  The root of the hoodie-wearing, pants-around-the-ankles movement is thuggery.  Plain and simple.  Dress up to look like a thug and people will think you are dangerous.  Guess what?  They do think you’re dangerous.  They profile you, initially, exactly the way you intended.  Wear a priest’s collar and some people will think you are trustworthy.  Race is a factor in some profiling.  Male African-Americans wearing suits and bowties might be profiled, initially, as Farrakhan-followers.  Whites dressing in the same way would not initially be classified at Farrakhan-followers (they’d probably be classified as professors).  Whites who look like the stereotypical skinhead are likely to be initially profiled as neo-nazis. African-Americans who adopt the “look and feel” of skinheads would never be profiled as neo-nazis – their race precludes that classification.

My point is that profiling is perfectly normal and it’s a good thing.  Racial discrimination is a bad thing.  They are not the same thing and pretending that they are is hypocritical and divisive.

“For years, journalists participating in the lockups have shown up at DOL at the appointed time, then entered a limited-access area to receive the new data and prepare news stories for release as soon as official embargoes end.

The system insures that major news organizations get the data as soon as possible and allows journalists covering the release get a jump on providing analyses and opinion about the data.

But Carl Fillichio, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ top communications advisor, circulated a memo earlier this week to interested media informing them that everybody is being required to re-submit their credentials requests.

He also offered a one-sentence assurance that ‘the department will not consider editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.’“

Bullshit!  Don’t believe for a minute that a politically-appointed member of the Obama Administration won’t consider “editorial or political viewpoints in making credentialing decisions.” because that is precisely what they will do.  It is the entire purpose of the new plan.  The number of slots is limited.  They will use that to give an edge to those news organizations which favor them.  Granted, that is most news organizations already, but still…  They already do this with favorable treatment during press conferences.  If you don’t toe the line you’re out.

This is a Presidential election year.  Obama is desperate to keep his job.  One of his primary problems with re-election is the miserable state of employment.  Spinning employment statistics is critical and the first news releases are the ones remembered.  This sounds exactly like a scheme Rahm would come up with to make it sound like Obama is doing well, when in fact, the number of unemployed is disgraceful.  And the groups with the highest unemployment are Obama’s political base.  So basically the message he will send to his supporters through his favored news agencies is that everything is wonderful and if they don’t have jobs, its only a matter of a short time before they will.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,”  Obama April 2, 2012

According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database),  between 1789 and 2002 158 Acts of Congress were held as unconstitutional.

• “unprecedented”: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.
• “extraordinary”: beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established
• “strong majority”: the vote was 220-215

So, was he lying, ignorant of the Constitution or just stupid?

I understand Jeff’s frustration with having his ideas used without acknowledgement of them.

A few weeks ago I wrote an article critical of Jeff Bolton’s website blowoutcongress.com. The article appeared on a number of sites. I received quite a few comments. Not all were very well thought out, but they were all civil. Since I’m pretty sure those comments all came from Jeff’s fans I was favorably impressed with my little sample and believe it is a direct reflection of the way Jeff conducts himself on his show. He is a gentleman. I feel comfortable in stretching that a little farther to say that in my opinion, he is having a positive impact on polite debate in Dallas.

The first comment I received was from Cliff Sosamon. I am of the opinion that Cliff is an integral part of blowoutcongress.com. He didn’t say that in his repsonse to my post, but I think I recall Jeff mentioning a “Cliff” in relation to blowoutcongress. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve got a feeling… I once wrote to blowoutcongress.com with some suggestions regarding the site and the unsigned response (a tiny bit snotty) I got was quite similar in tone to the response Cliff sent to my article. It’s not important, its just a feeling. I’m always a little bothered when people are secretive.

I responded to all the comments. I was polite and took the effort to explain myself in the hope that those who wrote would clearly understand my position.

Lo and behold. For the last couple weeks Jeff has been talking about a new, related site – rebuildcongress.com. I recall Jeff saying something about the site which made me think it was more along the lines of keeping the good congresspeople and getting rid of the poor performers if the good ones would stipulate that they would support things like term limits. That’s much more in line with something I could support.

There’s this tiny, niggling thing though. The timing of my article, Cliff’s rebuttal and the announcement of rebuildcongress.com leads me to suspect that perhaps – just maybe – my article caused some rethinking, re-evaluation and re-focusing. If that’s true it would have been nice to get an acknowledgement of the value of considered criticism. Just a little “thank you” maybe…

Although they get many millions each year from the US Government, unions and charitable organizations, ACORN does everything it canl to avoid paying its own members the minimum wage required by law.  This, while those same employees agitate to extort minimum wages for others.

ACORN actually went to court to fight to pay wages below the legal minimum. ACORN made the same arguments its corporate victims make when arguing aginst higher minimum wages — namely, that paying higher wages would mean the organization would have to make do with fewer employees.

In its Resource Guide for activists, written by David Reynolds of the Wayne State University Labor Studies Center, ACORN casts aside concerns about minimum wage laws resulting in fewer jobs for low-wage workers, scolding

That’s low road thinking, the kind of philosophy that seeks short-term increases in the bottom-line by directly lowering costs and casts high wages, benefits, and other worker protections as obstacles to competition.

But in 1995, ACORN actually went to court in California in an attempt to exempt ACORN from that state’s minimum wage and overtime laws. Why? Well, according to ACORN’s brief in an appeal of the ruling against them…

…the more that ACORN must pay each individual outreach worker–either because of minimum wage or overtime requirements–the fewer outreach workers it will be able to hire.

ACORN also has a history of union-busting, ducking overtime requirements, late paychecks, and general anti-labor practices. In 2003, the National Labor Relations Board made the following findings about the organization:

• ACORN pays its field members $18,000 per year – about 6.65 per hour when you consider they average 54 hours per week.
• Field members are rarely given weekends off.
• Field members are expected to canvas neighborhoods alone, sometimes at night.  Even though many of the neighborhoods are dangerous.
• ACORN is frequently tardy with member paychecks.

The un-mitigated gall of ACORN is truly beyond comprehension and the cow-like stupidity of their followers is an embarrassment to the human race.

Obviously he ran to Minnesota because he is well-supported there by the obambots.

But what is there to gain in that?  He won’t get as much coverage as the protesters in DC will.  He won’t win any new converts in a hall full of people who already blindly support him and his vague, blown-to-pieces-by-facts  ”plan”.

The clear outcome is even more division than there already is.  He continues his screed about “lies” and “scare tactics” and brings no new or persuasive information.  I guess he thinks if he continues to pound the same tired crap enough someone will begin to believe it.

The irony is that as the changer-in-chief he completely misses the NLP adage ”If what you’re doing isn’t working, try something else!” because he just keeps repeating it over and over – like a robot.  To his obambots.  What he needs is a playbook different than Alinsky’s.  Try something new Mr. President.  Try winning over your detractors with honesty and clarity.  If that doesn’t work, maybe you should rethink the plan.  Now there’s a novel idea – re-think something with a view towards finding something palatable to the majority of Americans instead of a minority of mooches who want something for nothing.

“We will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history,” President Obama said on Friday.

“Americans have a right to know whose voices are being heard in the policymaking process,” he added.

Well, maybe not so much.  As a citizen your transparency will begin September 15.  White Houes visitors for the first eight months of Obama’s administration will remain secret.  And the transparency thing?  Well, the visitor logs will be made available 90-120 days after the visits.  Visits to President Obama or Vice-President Biden which are deemed “personal” won’t be released to the public.

You see when Bush wouldn’t release visitor logs Obama criticized him promising transparency but, like all things  Obama, the meaning of words is defined by him based on context.  You (and most other Americans) might think “transparency” means openess, communication and accountibility.  Well, you’d be wrong there bud..

Lets define what he actually said in the above quote and you’ll see where you went wrong.  In my mind, “transparency” and “pregnancy” are definite in the sense that the condition exists or it doesn’t.  Try imagining what “most pregnant” would mean. Then there’s the qualifier “policymaking process” when it comes to your “right to know whose voices are being heard”.

Oh yeah.  Lest you delude yourself into thinking that President Obama is just ticking another item off his list of campaign promisess:

The Administration has also agreed with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) to settle four pending cases requesting specific White House visitor access records, including those dating from the Bush administration (read the transmittal letter here). We have provided CREW with the records relating to their requests….

Morally, the self-serving factor should be considered when the decision affects only you.  In othe words, if you represent others (publically-held corporation, government entity, non-profit organization, etc.) the self-serving factor should not be allowed to come into play.

Why, in the face of continuing and mounting losses (offset to some degree by continuing and mounting price increases),  is the United States Post Office not offering email distribution for the various federal, state and local governments?  Logic tells me it is not better, cheaper and faster.  So why hassn’t government created their own service for email to replace the independent contractor they currently use?  Well, I suspect they think the timely and successful delivery of their email is too important to them to put it into the hands of a government bureaucracy.

Yet, they are anxious to run healthcare.  Yours, not theirs.  Can government-run healthcare be proven to be better, cheaper or faster?  Of course not.  The only way to do that would be to try it for a while and examine the results.  Given the historically poor track record of bureaucracy, self-serving politicians, special interest groups and lobbyists a national health care system is doomed to fail.

Asked about the importance of bipartisan support for a bill in which divisions between the parties are only growing deeper, Gibbs said:

“The president is going to evaluate ultimately any piece of legislation as to whether it meets his goals and principles for health-care reform… The president’s goal is not to print a banner and sign a bill just so somebody can say we’ve reformed health care.”

From the Chicago Tribune

Bullshit.  The banners, t-shirts and bumper stickers are probaly already at the printer.  This is exactly what he is going to do.  AND it is a classic example of doublespeak on the part of the administration.  Ironically it’s happening right in the middle of Obama’s emphasis and focus on “myth, lies and disinformation”.  Evidently his administration will stoop to any level to accomplish their goals.  Really, it’s shameful.

If a healthcare bill passes at all (which is increasingly unlikely) Obama will take credit for acting on a campaign promise while passing the buck to Congress for “watering it down”.

Talk about being “wee-weed up”.  Recently the bill was referred to as Obama’s Waterloo.  It just may be.

]]> http://chuck-thompson.com/2009/08/that-is-exactly-his-intention/feed/ 0