Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

Posted by on May 8, 2012 No comments

Last week due to recently revealed comments that were made in May of 2010, EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz was forced to step down.  He had tried apologizing, and the White House spokesman said that it was not an indication of how the White House views regulation of the oil and gas industries.  Every outlet in the media is referring to the comments as harsh, over the top, and unacceptable.  What he said is not the most important issue, it is where and when he said it.  If these views are not the same as President Obama’s, why is he only now being forced to resign?

For those of you not familiar with this story, Al Armendariz was appointed by the President in 2009, after years of environmental activism, to serve as EPA administrator for the gulf region. This region contains the country’s primary production of oil and gas.  The video that was released shows Armendariz answering a question about the agency’s enforcement policies.  In Dish, TX in a public meeting Q&A he says…

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” Armendariz said. “It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them,” Armendariz said.  “And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there,” he added.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/25/epa-official-apologizes-for-crucify-the-oil-and-gas-producers-comments/

It is certainly terrible that a government official said this, and he has followed through with policies that have been antagonistic to the oil and gas producers.  It is interesting that his statement refers to the EPA as the Romans, and I guess any business is the conquered Turks.  You can marinate on the visual there, but the real issue is that this statement took place 2 years ago in public.  Even in his comments, he refers to a meeting with staff where he said it before.  This was probably a common analogy that he used on a regular basis. It is certain that this statement, and the views he expressed were known to the administration.  What was their reaction to it 2 years ago?  If the head of the EPA or the President disagreed with what was said would Armendariz have continued in his job?  It seems that the only difference between 2 years ago, 1 year ago, 6 months ago, and now…is that WE know.

Despite being in office for over 3 years there are regular questions about where President Obama stands on the issue of energy policy.  With the recent increase in oil prices, he started saying publicly that he is in favor of an ‘all of the above’ policy.  This was John McCain’s campaign statement in 2008, implying that we should exploit all energy options.  Does Mr. Obama’s action, or better yet inaction, in dealing with the case of Armendariz match his embrace of the oil industry implied in the ‘all of the above’ rhetoric?

There is certainly an argument to be made for America to use less fossil fuels.  Many believe that it is the right way to go from a pollution, global warming and perhaps self reliance standpoint.  Some of the arguments against that stand would be higher costs and disruptions in current businesses.  The President seems to have decided to not make that argument, however.  I believe that we have a case of saying one thing in public, while acting very differently when the cameras are not rolling.  He would not be the first politician to do such a thing, but he is the one that is on the ballot this fall.

Sticks and Stones…

Posted by on April 29, 2012 No comments

In an airing of the football movie All the Right Moves with Tom Cruise, the executives at the FX network made an editing decision which was not very surprising.  In the original R rated version of the film, football coach Craig T. Nelson makes a pre-game motivational speech to his team where he refers to himself and his players in saying, “We’re the Dagos, we’re the Polacks, we’re the Niggers.”  In the edited version it became, “We’re the Dagos, we’re the Polacks, we’re the beep.”  This omission of the n-word only, was sadly an editing decision which all too often reflects every day society.

It would be very easy to trumpet the double standard and hypocrisy in this example from the movie with regard to all the slurs in question being racial slurs.  That’s very tempting and the racists at the FX network should be especially ashamed in this case, but I find all naughty words and name calling to be just that; naughty words and name calling.

If you’re clever enough, there are a countless number of ways to degrade, insult or offend just about anyone.  Who is anyone to quantify the level of degradation from one insult or another?  Can we really decide on everyone else’s behalf how much hurt or insult or pain they are entitled  to claim when victimized by one naughty word as opposed to another?  Who’s to say the n-word is more universally hurtful than even fatso or baldy or dumb-dumb.  What if the person being called a dumb-dumb actually is a little slow.  Maybe they road the short bus to school and were in romper room classes with no more than five students.  As such, maybe they faced constant ridicule and bullying in the form of incessantly being called a dumb-dumb.   Does that person ever count as much as a black person?  Can their feelings ever be hurt as much as a black person’s feelings?  Are they forever denied the same level of sensitivity just because of their skin color?  That is point blank racist to every non-black person on the planet!

Every naughty name has a meaning.  Every naughty word has a reason why it’s mean.  Every naughty word has a semantic origin and a history of usage.  How are parents or grade school teachers supposed to sell the blatant double standard about the n-word to our impressionable young children?  If we’re going to quantify name calling for them they may have the insight to ask if ‘double jerk’ is twice as bad as just ‘jerk’ or if ‘silly willy’is worse than just ‘silly’?

I’m not seeking to use the n-word.  I’m not looking to encourage others to do so. In doing so, the response to that bit of name calling may very well be some form of physical, criminal, lawless violence.  I’m merely suggesting equal sensitivity to everyone no matter what that level of sensitivity may be.  Clearly we are a long way from that.  Even in this post I have perpetrated that which I am contesting by writing out words like ‘dumb-dumb’ yet oh so gingerly tiptoeing around the dreaded ‘n-word’.  I’m just a gutless chump for bending over and pretending that I too find that word to be more mean than other insults.  I guess that’s better than being one of the racist pigs who actually find that to be true.

 

Misunderstanding Free Speech

Posted by on April 19, 2012 No comments

Recently Ozzie Guillen, the manager of the Miami Marlins baseball team, said that he admired Fidel Castro.  It was ignorant and perhaps stupid, and has created a mini firestorm in southern Florida.  The comment has caused a fairly predictable reaction from many including the media, particularly in this case, the sports media.  The belief that we are constitutionally guaranteed the right to free speech, and with that freedom we can say whatever we want without consequence is false.

The first amendment is one of the most referenced and yet misunderstood parts of our constitution.  It reads as follows…Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  ’Congress shall make no law’ means that the government cannot prevent you from speaking.  They also can’t prosecute or punish you for what you say.  That’s it!

There is no right to make others listen to you. You have no right to a public forum, unless it is to petition the government.  When people say…”I have a right to be heard!”  No, actually, you don’t.  Not when it comes to me.  There is no right for you to inflict your views on the rest of us individuals.  The government may have to listen to you, but I don’t.

The right to free speech doesn’t guarantee any rights with respect to how others will react to what you say.  People can speak out against you, protest, tell you how stupid you are, not buy your product, and your boss can even fire you.  There are all kinds of consequences to speaking out.  Ask the Dixie Chicks, Don Imus, Michael Richards, Rush Limbaugh, John Rocker, Jimmy ‘The Greek’, or Ozzie Guillen who got suspended by his team for what he said because it was bad for business.

Next time you hear some media type tell you about someone’s freedom of speech, know that all this means is they can’t go to jail for the stupid thing they said.  All else is fair game.

Look Both Ways Before You Cross the Street

Posted by on April 11, 2012 No comments

Does that title ring any bells with anyone?  Weren’t we all taught that growing up?  Isn’t that the best way to teach it?  As early as you can talk to a child, don’t you say something to them like, “Now, pumpkin, watch out for 30 mile per hour, one and a half ton moving objects.   They make big boo-boo on you.  Ouchy-ouchy, Danger.”  It seems like more and more the safe and sensible mantra of  ‘Look both ways before you cross the street’ has given way entirely and dangerously to a state of ‘Pedestrians have the right of way’.

Pedestrians have the right of way is certainly the correct rule of thumb.  That should be understood through simple human nature.  Obviously.  A car versus a person is not a fair fight like a fender bender.  So if push comes to shove, no matter what, don’t run them over.  I get that.  But by pushing that rule of thumb we have enabled many an arrogant and selfish pedestrian to endanger everyone by walking out into the street when they shouldn’t.

Their body language says it all.  They should be crossing the street with a humble, mild sense of fear while constantly looking from side to side to ensure their safety.  Instead their cross is more of an arrogant strut, looking straight ahead with a conceited bobb of the head while bringing their elbows up high in motion with each step.  As if to say, “That’s right.  You have to stop…  I’m the pedestrian…I have the right of way… I’m on foot.  You and your nasty combustion engine will just have to sit there and wait.”  Sadly, that head bobb may end up receiving  a little boost of momentum by the windshield of an SUV.

The brainwashing has become some invasive that it’s effecting everyone’s driving.  More and more often drivers will come to a complete stop in the middle of the street, where there isn’t even an intersection, if they see any hint of someone looking to cross.  This is so dangerous!    You can’t stop in the roadway.  The roadway is where motor vehicles operate.  They should be ticketed for obstructing traffic. Instead of drivers making sure the noble pedestrian makes their way ever so safely to the curb, how about leaning on your horn for a good three seconds then yelling out your window, “You’re in the middle of the street, you dumbass!”  This may seem extreme, but it’s for good of the community.  If necessary we will educate them one dumbass at a time…

In the News…And this Guy Taught Constitutional Law?

Posted by on April 3, 2012 No comments

Sometimes I think that The President thinks we are stupid.  That is the kindest way that I characterize what he said in regards to the Supreme Court review of the “Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare).  Mr. Obama went to Harvard Law School, and was editor of the law review.  He then went on to be a Civil Rights lawyer, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.  Then on April 2, 2012 the President of the United States said this…

 ”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 said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-obama-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

Set aside the fact that the only unprecedented thing that is happening in regards to the review of this law is that the President is trying to influence the Supreme Court by speaking during their deliberative period.  Reviewing and determining whether a law is unconstitutional is just about all the Supreme Court does!  This is their job description.  Yes, the Chief Justice swears in the President, and they might attend the President’s State of the Union, but it’s not like the Supremes are booking singing performances at “The Apollo” on the weekend (trust me wrong Supremes).

Let’s break this down step by step.  Laws by definition are passed by a majority of legislators, so everything the Supreme Court reviews fits that description.  If overturning a law was unprecedented then that would mean they have never done it.  Obviously that is not true, and if it was, there would be no reason for the Supreme Court.

Trust is a big issue when it comes to electing a President, and if people can’t trust what he says, he is going to be heading back to Chicago the beginning of next year.

Tone Deaf Government Workers

Posted by on March 26, 2012 No comments

The downturn in the economy, and its effect on state budgets, has forced even Democratic leaders propose modest changes to government employee benefits. In order to deal with these issues, New York Governor Cuomo has proposed changing the pension benefits for some new state employees to be enrolled in a 401k style of retirement plan. It makes sense that workers (in this case NYC police) would resist any change in benefits. To respond to the new plan, the COBA (Correction Officers Benevolent Association) has been running radio ads in New York City. An excerpt from the ad…

“The city and the state legislators in Albany want to eliminate our pensions…They’re trying to force us to accept a 401(k) plan that failed on Wall Street not more than 2 years ago.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2012/03/ny-pension-reform-air-wars-chapter-ii

The basic thrust of the ad is to react to a proposed change in benefits, as if they are being forced into a retirement plan that no human should have to endure. What seems to be lost on these and other government union leaders is that nearly the entire country has been moved into 401k type retirement plans. A survey by Towers Watson, the global consulting firm, found that only 17% of Fortune 100 companies still offer a direct-benefit plan. I’m surprised they didn’t add a line about how they can’t believe they are being asked to learn how to use computers.

The fact that they would run an ad like this is very telling about the work we have ahead in reigning in the benefits of government employees. The radio audience is primarily made up of people who are in 401k plans. They are supposed to be convinced that their own plan is not good enough for the police. If that is not enough, the cherry on top is that the listener is also supposed to foot the bill for these expensive benefits.

They spent money for these radio spots thinking that all they had to do was present their case to the people, and it would create public outrage that would push back the reforms. They are so removed from the real world that this seemed like a good idea. We certainly have a mindset issue here that must be fought at every turn.

The radio ads predictably failed to raise a groundswell of support, and the modest changes to new employee retirement plans did pass in Albany. The proper outcome, and the fact that even Democrats understand we have overpromised benefits for government employees are the good in this story. The bad, of course, is that we have created an entitled group of workers who are not only cut off from reality, but are appalled if you treat them like the rest of us.

I Call Shotgun

Posted by on March 15, 2012 2 comments

We’ve all heard it.  We’ve all done it.  If there is more than one passenger entering a car to travel to a destination, only one of those passengers can sit in the front seat.  I get it.  What I don’t get is when the journey is a round trip destination and one of the passengers has the shameless gall to call shotgun both ways!

Let’s use the typical scenario of a round trip with a driver and two passengers. (Obviously, the more passengers there are, the more disgraceful it becomes for one passenger to call shotgun more than once.)  If there are two chances to sit in the front seat and there are two passengers doesn’t it stand to reason that each of those passengers should get their turn?  Is that really high-end arithmetic?  If there were two pork chops left on the serving plate and two guests just sat down to dinner, how might those two pork chops be allocated between those who are seated?  Wouldn’t you be insulted if someone actually asked you that?  Wouldn’t the average seven year old be insulted by that?  And yet we have full grown adults who call shotgun both ways all the time and do so with giddy, childlike excitement knowing they’re going to get their way.

Get their way.  I guess that’s what it’s all about.  I guess they’re the type of person who would prefer to be more comfortable rather than less comfortable.  That’s the distinction.  I see now.  They’re probably the same people who actually don’t like waiting in line or being stuck in traffic.  I guess the rest of us should be more sensitive to their needs…..UGH!!!  Of course the front seat is more comfortable.  That’s the entire reason the distinction has ever been made since the dawn of vehicular travel!

I understand this is kind of a childish social dynamic.  But that childish nature is precisely the point.  It is during childhood when every individual should fully understand everything there is to understand about this.  Share and share alike.  Doesn’t that ring any bells with these people?  Didn’t they ever have parents?

We must stand up to these ogres of civilization.  We must challenge their shameless, selfish, arrogant, inconsiderate, disrespectful, discourteous ways.  Be warned though.  In challenging them, you are almost certain to be immediately labeled ‘the bad guy’.  “Geez.  I didn’t realize it was such a big deal.”  Well then great!  If it’s not a big deal then they won’t mind if you get shotgun both ways.  There.  Now you get it your way. Shame on all of them.

 

Ant and the Grasshopper Revisited

Posted by on March 8, 2012 No comments

We found this email and other similar new versions flying around the internet with a new twist on an old story.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

Two Different Versions …

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and gathering up supplies for the winter.  The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:  Be responsible for yourself!

NEW VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and gathering up supplies for the winter.  The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press     conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.  America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?  Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green…’

Occupy the Anthill stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We shall overcome.  Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush 43, President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.  Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Piers Morgan that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to   make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.  The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is   confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.  The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends   finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the   government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who   terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous  and peaceful,   neighborhood.  The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free   world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY…?

With the ability to actually see where we are headed by simply looking across the Atlantic, the choice between 2 possible futures could not be clearer.  We at Free Markets Free People would simply ask, “What kind of country do we want?”

In the News…White House Birth Control Reversal

Posted by on February 27, 2012 No comments

Below is an excerpt of a story, typical of the reporting of the White House change in policy in terms of its birth control mandate for coverage under Obamacare.

WASHINGTON (AP) President Obama announced that religious employers will not have to cover birth control for their employees after all. He will demand instead that insurance companies will be the ones ultimately responsible for providing free contraception. The administration announced in January that religious-affiliated employers had to cover birth control as preventive care for women. Churches and houses of worship were exempt, but all other affiliated organizations were ordered to comply by August 2013. Obama’s abrupt retreat is an attempt to address concerns from Catholic leaders and end an election-year nightmare for the White House. Women will still get guaranteed access to birth control without co-pays or premiums no matter where they work. But religious organizations that see contraception as a violation of their faith can refuse to cover it, and insurance companies will then have to do so. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-02-10/obama-birth-control/53036006/1

It is our belief at FMFP that this change was not done due to protests from Bishops, and other religious leaders.  It also was not done to shore up his reelection chances.  We believe that the White House had already calculated the issue was a net winner for his reelection.  He made the change because he would have been overruled by the Supreme Court. 

There is no doubt that the constitution protects religious institutions from government interference.  Even the current partisan Supreme Court believes this, which is proven in a 9-0 ruling in January that was not widely reported.  The details are listed in the following link.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/11/supreme-court-sides-with-church-on-decision-to-fire-employee-on-religious/.  The ruling basically reaffirms that religious institutions are not subject to the same rules that regular employers must follow.  You would think that a unanimous decision which overturned a lower court ruling would be big news.

The change in the rule focuses solely on who the administration is forcing to cover these reproductive services.  We are sure that they received advice on the fact that the government cannot force religious institutions to cover these services, but they can force insurance companies to do anything they wish.  The change does not address the concerns voiced by many that say these religious institutions will obviously pay for the services in their insurance rates.  It also does not help those other business owners who will be forced to cover something that they would not want to cover.  The subtle change is simply to protect themselves against a legal challenge that they would have certainly lost. 

No matter how you feel on this issue, it should give one pause whenever the government is willing to force to implement policies on the citizens.

Advocacy Reporting

Posted by on November 16, 2011 No comments

Reporters are supposed to go to an event, and report on what occurs there. They can get quotes, do background, and remind us of history, but the concept is simple.  If done properly it would be as if the reporter doesn’t even exist and we consumers would feel as if we were there.  This would be without commentary, loaded questioning, unfair editing, and most importantly the reporter not becoming part of the story.

We had a couple of examples of not reporting, or biased reporting, over this past weekend.  The President had a news conference this weekend, and his 2nd question asked was by Dan Lothian from CNN. 

  • Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Last night at the Republican debate, some of the hopefuls — they hope to get your job — they defended the practice of waterboarding, which is a practice that you banned in 2009. Herman Cain said, “I don’t see that as torture.” Michelle Bachmann said that it’s “very effective.” So I’m wondering if you think that they’re uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible? (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/14/news-conference-president-obama)

Mr. Lothian must have been so concerned that the President couldn’t properly handle the question.  This could be the only explanation for the fact that he asked a multiple choice question that would properly make Mr. Lothian’s point no matter which one he chose.  In his estimation the matter is not open for discussion.  I wonder if he knows that our military has a history of waterboarding our soldiers for training purposes?  I wonder if we were torturing our own soldiers?  Even if you throw out the facts about the issue it is difficult to find a better example of advocacy in a reporter than Mr. Lothian.

Dan Lothian is a small fish and he’s not a big time reporter even though he got the 2nd question to the President in his news conference.  How big time, however, is a news anchor for a major network?  Theoretically Scott Pelly (said anchor) is one of the top 3 reporters in the country.  In this weekend’s Republican Presidential Debate Mr. Pelley expressed his concern for the killing of terrorist al-Awlaki a little over a month ago.  The back and forth was as follows…

  • Scott Pelley: Speaker Gingrich, if I could just ask you the same question, as President of the United States, would you sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas who you believe is a terrorist suspect?
  • Newt Gingrich: Well, he’s not a terrorist suspect. He’s a person who was found guilty under review of actively seeking the death of Americans.
  • Scott Pelley: Not– not found guilty by a court, sir.
  • Newt Gingrich: He was found guilty by a panel that looked at it and reported to the president.
  • Scott Pelley: Well, that’s ex-judicial. That’s– it’s not–
  • Newt Gingrich: Let me– let me– let me tell you a story– let me just tell you this.
  • Scott Pelley: –the rule of law.
  • Newt Gingrich: It is the rule of law. That is explicitly false. It is the rule of law.
  • Scott Pelley: No.
  • Newt Gingrich: If you engage in war against the United States, you are an enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United States. You cannot go to court. Let me be– let me be very clear about this. There are two levels. There’s a huge gap here that– that frankly far too many people get confused over. Civil defense, criminal defense, is a function of being within the American law. Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law. It is an act of war and should be dealt with as an act of war. And the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.
  • Male Voice: Well said. Well
    said.

For the video please go to
around the 42nd minute: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-full-cbs-newsnational-journal-gop-debate/2011/11/13/gIQAesw4HN_video.html

If you add to this question the smug look on the face of Mr. Pelley, as he was schooled on the law by the History PHD carrying former Speaker of the House, it is really remarkable that some think there is no bias at the highest levels of the media.  Just the lack of historical knowledge should be embarrassing enough to get rid of this knucklehead.  If you take the premise that Mr. Pelley posits, the US citizens who chose to fight against us in any war, did not receive their due process on the battlefield.  In fact, wasn’t the killing of Confederate soldiers by the Union without a trial an illegal act?

Journalists don’t have to be History PHD’s if they would just do their jobs. If the moderator of the debate is doing his job properly, we should not remember who the moderator was.  Scott Pelley should just blend into the background, instead he became part of the story.  Bias is not always this blatant, and we need to often seek out the stories not reported.  It would be refreshing if a reporter went to an event, and told us what happened there.

Hidden Secret Revealed A simple strategy to trade stocks is uncovered!