He Missed That One

Christopher Ruddy from Newsmax discussed a few the "unfair" criticisms of Obama in his "Obama's Real Problem" editorial on the twentieth.

He mentions accusations of Obama being a "secret Muslim" and not putting his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. 

I agree with Ruddy in that they draw attention away from the "real" reasons not to vote for Obama.  However, I will not fault anyone for voting against him for those reasons.  (Any vote against Obama or Hillary or pretty-much-any-democrat-running-for-any-office seems to be a good thing this election season.)

Ruddy completely missed the National Anthem where Obama did not put his hand over his heart.  Unlike the pledge or Muslim "controversies," that was indisputable.

Obama gave a brief explanation of this in an interview after the event.  He said that his grandfather taught him to put his hand on his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.  Apparently, he was taught that during the National Anthem, you are supposed to cup your hands under your testicles as though they were about to fall off.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

With Temperate Prejudice

I am going against a personal policy of mine and writing about my actual work.  I am taking care to not name the companies or the people involved.  Doing otherwise would be a disservice to all involved.

A man that I am replacing within my company was recently fired for cause.  In the State of Texas, a right-to-work state, employees have the right to quit at any time without notice, regardless of any notification requirements in their contracts (this does not apply to independent contractors though - just "regular," W-2 employees).  Additionally, an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all.

I do not know all of the particulars related to the case but I do know that the man I am replacing really upset several employees of my company's client.  In the consulting profession, this is a Cardinal Sin.

This is not to say that a consultant should be unreasonable in accommodating an client or even tell them things they want to hear instead of what they need to hear.

From what I have been able to ascertain, the client has several key employees who are upset with specific actions of his.  He was not faulted for his performance.

Once the complaints against him were made, problems that were tolerated when the client was pleased with him were no longer accepted.

He was terminated with cause but I was not privy to the reason given for his termination.

Late last week, I was shown two pieces of information that I found disquieting.  One was something that had I seen, without any point of reference,  compel me to fire someone.  The other was a filing against my company and our client with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charing both with racism.

I cannot definitively say that racism was not a factor with the client.  I have not been on site with them nor have I talked with any of them in great detail.  I can say with near certainty that race was never even discussed by employer in any conversations involving me or that I had overheard.

I am a big believer in the right to association in personal and business matters.  I believe that employers have the right to hire and fire whomever they can attract or disregard.  I believe if race had been an issue, he would not have been hired in the first place.

* Side note:  I understand that some people believe that race transcends the color of skin and that "they didn't know what they were getting but didn't like it once they found out."  This really does not apply here.  I actually disregard that view entirely.

Cream will rise to the top.  Artificial barriers have been destroyed.  Pretending that they exist not only wastes time and money, it deafens the ears against legitimate complaints.

I may have to write more on this later.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Well What If...

The last few weeks for me have involved my professional life becoming a bit surreal, a lot of walking, a lot of talking, and dangling 866 feet above the ground.  And what is with teenage boys wearing capris, tight fitting shirts, and having perfectly coiffed hair made to look uncoiffed?  It is like Dr Frankenfurter meets Audrey Hepburn.  Perhaps I do not go to shopping malls often enough (or at all) to maintain any modern fashion sense.

Androgynous adolescents aside, I have a few more questions for current presidential wannabes:

Would you support water boarding and similar techniques if they alone were able to coerce terrorists into divulging their plans?

We do not even have to use a hypothetical situation.  Instead, I offer the example of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a known terrorist.

Is hurting him acceptable in order to save lives?  If not, how many people would have to die before changing your mind?  What if his having knowledge is uncertain?  Would it be acceptable as a matter of course or would we have to wait until we were hit before hurting him?

For now, I am not even talking about the gray areas like the "when does it end" scenario such as jack booted thugs applying thumb screws to jaywalkers.  Instead, I am only referring to the most extreme examples.

Even then, the current crop of candidates cannot say that they would make that difficult decision to do so.  It seems that they will do anything to avoid the question being asked of them.

What if getting KSM to "talk" meant hurting his pre-adolescent progeny?  Forget that question.  I would like to hear them even answer the first.

It seems that before they even avoid the question, they start talking about the justifications for not doing so.  Sometimes this involves, "Well we are better than..." or "It really messes up the interrogators..." or "It will alienate allies x, y, and z."

They still do not answer the question.

I wonder if they would object to holding them over the side of a building.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Like Father, Like Son

I often hear people referring to how America's Founding Fathers did not intend for x-y-or-z.  Many people, myself included, respect that.  I believe the Federalist Papers should be required reading and be understood to get a college degree.

On occasion, I hear people say that what the Country's Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant.  They say that we should judge the circumstances of today and structure our laws and governance according to what we believe is best for today.  These people often think of the Constitution as a living document with little need to rewrite any of it.

For those that do respect the Constitution, they believe that we should make amendments "correcting" much of it.

Since the start of this election season, I have been reflecting on much of this.  While there are the presidential candidates' views on our Constitution to consider, even local and state

 representatives and politicians of every stripe have  left me wanting.

A local politician, Angie Chen Button, has a radio ad stating that she is a "true conservative."  They then mention how her opponent wanted to close public schools and that he carried a gun to work.

I think of myself as a true conservative and believe that there are many public schools that should be closed.  There are many public education programs that need to be dismantled.  I believe that there are problems with public education that have resulted from it being over-funded.

I carry a gun.  I carry at work when it does not contradict my employers wishes.  (While I believe the right to self defense, I also believe in private property rights and the respect of them.)

According to Mrs Button, that is "strange behavior."  I cannot be certain but I would be willing to guess she has never been at work when someone has opened fire.  I would also wager a bet that she has never had to pull her child from a good private school because she had to pay public school taxes instead.  (As a side note, I have no problem saying that public schools are not good enough for my children.)

John McCain supports a line item veto.  I actually agree with him on this matter.  Where I disagree is the implementation of it.  He would be perfectly fine with Congress passing a law allowing the line item veto.  I believe that it can only legitimately come by Constitutional Amendment.

I fear that there are few "main stream" politicians with any regard for the Constitution.  Even those that usually adhere to conservative principles will disregard the Constitution when it suits them.

I have considered today's circumstances.  Even though cell phones, ICBM's, the internet, and carrier groups were likely never conceived by the Founding Fathers, their principles hold just as true today as they did 200 years ago.  They are just as relevant today as they ever were and perhaps even more so.

Better Men

Who is the better man?

Is the man who freely gives to the poor a better man than the one who was taxed and had his money given to the poor?

Is the man who gives his time to charity a better man than the one who takes a second job to feed his family?

Is the man who is taxed and still gives to charity but lets his family go hungry better than the man who feeds his family but spends his extra time with his children?

My taxes increased a lot this last year.  My net gain barely increased at all.  I am now considering the prospect of traveling for business in order to better support my family.  I would not even have to think of it if the IRS were not sending me love letters because I "underpaid" my taxes.

Now the Democrat presidential candidates are telling me that they are going to take more.  They are going to take more "for the greater good." 

Should they win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they are going to take more and then, instead of telling people they can feel good about all of there property that is being given to charity, they are going to try to shame the "richest Americans" (which I certainly am not).

They are going to take from them with their hands and vilify them with their mouths.

Because they do not like having their property taken from them, Democrats will consider them bad men.

Difficult Question Time IV

What conditions would persuade you to vote for Obama for President in November?
What conditions would persuade you to vote for Hillary for President in November?

If you are a liberal or a Democrat, what conditions would persuade you to vote for McCain in November?

Initially, I thought to myself, "Self... It is going to be hard enough voting for McCain. You (i.e. me) just can't do it."

Then I thought that there has to be something that would ultimately persuade me.

My main thought on McCain is that if the issues were not weighted, i.e. if every issue meant the same to me as every other issue, McCain would be hitting around eighty percent with me. He would hit higher than George W. Bush did when he was running. However, there are too many issues that are dear to me to hold McCain in any great esteem.

Yet, all it takes for me to vote for him is to have either Hillary or Obama run against him. The oceans could rise twenty feet around the world and we would still be better situated than if Obama won.

Putting aside any suicidal tendancies with the Democrats - such as "I'd vote for Hillary if she'd kill herself!" - what would it take for me to vote for either of them.

With little variation, the answer is the same for both: They would have to go to every gun owner and apologize for their "gun-grabbing" legislation. They would have to go to every diplomat at the United Nations and tell them that the United States will no longer support them and they must leave New York. They would have to go to every business, large and small and otherwise, and swear upon pain of death they would lower corporate taxes. They would have to go to every tax payer and insist that they would not raise taxes and would reduce government programs. (If any of the previous sounds like William Wallace ala "Braveheart" please bear with me.)

Of course, I think it is more likely that they would kill themselves before doing any of the aforementioned acts. I state that they would "say anything" to get elected but I seriously doubt they would do any of that.

And What about His on Them?

Conservatives are asking questions about Obama's pastor's influence on him. They are also asking questions about his wife who was apparently shamed - or at least ambivalent - of her country until her husband's candidacy.

Many are wondering how this has shaped Obama's opinions and attitudes.

I would like to know if he is a reflection of them. Or rather, are they a reflection of him?