Bush-Era Leftist Protests vs. Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project in Photo's

First, we'll give credit where it's due. The pictures from the Glenn Beck 9/12 project are on this flickr page (did the founder just miss the "e" on the keyboard?... I did too). The pictures from the Bush-era Leftist protests are from the zombietime blog.

I scrolled through the photos to find good comparisons between the protesters. It's the reader's job to exercise judgment on which side is more defamatory.

Leftist Protest vs. 9/12 Project









Cars and death, two things that come together on tragic occasions. The anarchist mother playing "pin the Molotov on the cop car" is certainly more fun. Unfortunately, the cheating little girl isn't blindfolded! Isn't that the point of the game? I have to give the nod to the guy with the old hearse because he's old, the car is old and most people that oppose Obama-care are old.





Leftist Protest vs. 9/12 Project











Both involve devils and slogans, but I must admit much more effort went into the antisemitic poster. The colors are eye catching and bright. Plus, President Obama isn't the devil. Here's the logic... A good majority of these 9/12 protesters are birthers and if Obama was from Hell, how could he have been born in Indonesia?!?! See the 9/12 poster is self-defeating. One for the anti-Semites on this one.





Leftist Protest vs. 9/12 Project








I'm all for "diversity" and "fairness" on this one (two liberal keywords there ;). The guy on the right is at least a little more forthright than the two on the left. At least he included GWB (and Bernanke, a Bush appointee) on his poster with the good Democrats and Obama administration officials even though it's a silly concept. The Leftists on the right can't see past their own philosophical bias of hatred and nihilism. For this one, advantage 9/12 guy for his intellectual (or un-intellectual) honesty.





Leftist Protest vs. 9/12 Project













This last one is all about intent. Is the guy on the Left (figuratively and politically) saying that he loves NYC more because the towers are gone or that he has empathy with the people of NYC because the towers fell? I'll let the reader decide. The kid on the right is certainly trying to remind us of 9/11/01, but why? To stir the political straw of anger we had for those who killed nearly 3000 on that day toward Obama (who had nothing to do with the attacks, I'd hope) or simply to remind us of the dangers that still lurk? Again, it probably depends on your prospective.

They Took R' Medicare... the Fractuous Coalition Will Fold

After attending tea-party rallies in my home state and participating on a conference call with my Congressman, I’ve come to the conclusion that some of the anti-reform movement is only against continued socialized medicine because of their own participation in a government program called Medicare. Several questioners during the call were seniors or Boomers opposing the proposed health care legislation due to the probable cuts to the old-age health care program. In their pursuit to oppose the public option or expanded coverage, the concern among the most politically active group in America is only that their slice of the pie is shrinking. I’m supposed to be on their side?

Interestingly, the coalition of religious conservatives, libertarians, small business owners, seniors and individuals genuinely concerned about the growth of government has been quite effective at stalling Washington’s efforts to nationalize a significant portion of the economy. Where the people failed against bailouts and stimulus bills, this unlikely mixing bowl of angry individuals has forced the government’s hand and may have delivered to death-blow (a “Waterloo”, if I may) to President Obama. However, the fractured interests of opposition forces may be its undoing. If Washington guarantees no funding for abortions and illegal immigrants, will religious conservatives drop their sword? If the funding of the program moves away from cutting Medicare coverage in exchange for higher taxes on the Working Rich, will seniors finally endorse the plan? However strong we fight together, proponents of the bill can sever different interest groups apart.

In the end, individuals that believe in the rights of man and a proper nature of government will lose out no matter how furiously they fight. The proper argument against a national health care plan has not been articulated by most opposing forces except on few occasions. Instead, there have been fights over how the pie is distributed and what is best for a majority of the people without causing the most harm (government vs. co-ops is a good example). Unfortunately, a large majority of the political fire in the anti-reform debate is one of the largest groups on the tax-payer's dole. In the end, advocates of liberty will lose out anyways.

Mandatory PTO vs. Predictability and Flexibility

As firms and companies embrace mandatory PTO "paid time off" days to save money by cutting down on vacation accruals, one has to ask about the impact on flexibility and predictability when there are client obligations to fulfill. By mandating that employees take time off, there can only be a tendency to increase hours before and after the PTO day in order to complete necessary tasks for the client. Thus, while a scheduled firm PTO day may provide a road map for a particular day in the calender, it leaves the days surrounding the day to increased volatility and inflexibility when it comes to hours.

If the engagement team had a task to complete by a deadline, the removal of chargeable hours from a schedule will force the team to work extra that week. For example, if a report had to be issued on Monday, August 8, a team of 3 would have 120 hours to complete the review (3 people times 5 days at 8 hours a day). If there is a mandatory PTO day on Friday, this reduces the amount of available, working hours by 24. Just as matter cannot be created from thin air, the time budgeted toward a project usually does not decrease without efficiencies. Thus the engagement team will have to make up the 24 hours lost during the week by working longer days.

While this seems innocuous, the team still works the regular 40 chargeable hours (or maybe does not charge them and eats the extra time) and misses the benefit of a paid day off they must take. The work simply must be done and the client does not care about what days you work or don't work. The individuals on the team lose while the firm or company wins; there is a reduction in vacation accrual without a corresponding reduction in hours.

I don't think it's a scheme or plot to cheat anyone. The plan works for administrative employees without client obligations. It also benefits individuals without busy schedules for the week. But for the employees that are putting in the most time, the must-take PTO day hurts. While the engagement team can only work on the PTO day with upper management permission, this does not stop the manager in keeping staff at work later or perhaps taking work home for the weekend. Also, the worker loses flex time during the week for personal commitments like gym classes or professional appointments.

The PTO day system must be rethought, in my opinion. While must-take PTO days provide the employee with a well deserved rest, too many variables are entered into the equation when discussing client obligations. To afford protection for those with deadlines or pressing client matters, the employee should have the choice to use their personal time. Of course, this must be balanced to prevent managers from booking administrative tasks and other zealous senior staff who may bully less experienced employees into working, particularly when ratings are due.

Sorry Nancy, the Clintonistas Got You!

Is there any doubt that the Clinton machine is taking out Nancy Pelosi? As the most powerful woman in America, Pelosi stands in Hillary's way of becoming America's next emperor.

Leon Panetta was Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff in the mid-90s and is now the head of the CIA. What's to stop him from dragging Pelosi through the dirt? I don't know, but as this battle between the House Speaker and America's clanestine agency it smells more and more like a Clintonista hit.

Have a good weekend, or at least try to.

Craigslist and Market Forces

After reading that Craigslist will eliminate its erotic section, I could not but help feel a bit depressed. No, not because I frequent the section but because it represents the further death of the market in society. The beauty of Craigslist is that it brings buyers and sellers together without coercion in order to exchange goods and services. There are no taxes, fees or government agents breathing down your back. In a sense, it's a perfect capitalist, market structure.

This has all changed with law enforcement officials in several states lining up to shoot down the site and the services it offers. Whether this is grandstanding or due to genuine concern for women of the night, I do not know. However, on Cnet, a writer interviewed a "sex worker" that claims the crackdown will do nothing to stop prostitution. Pushing the sordid institution of payment for erotic services further into the darkness will not slow its demand.

Decriminalization and regulation would likely be a better path in order to create a safe environment for individuals to exchange money for sexual favors. By bringing the profession of prostitution in the legal light, you are saving hundreds, perhaps thousands of women from fear of "gatekeepers" and violent pimps. Using New Zealand or Nevada as an example, the decriminalization and regulation of the practice would mean lower STD rates, fewer incidents of assualt and fewer police harassing individuals making a conscious choice to exchange value. The moral path is not to lower the supply and availablity of prostitutes, but rather allow market forces to create a safer place for the women who choose the profession.

Nature vs. Extent of Government

The fundamental reason why socialism has permeated the American culture and libertarianism, for the most part, has failed is that libertarianism is a political ideology that fails to address the moral nature of government while socialism embraces it. Socialism, or the government ownership of the means of production for the egalitarian benefit of the public, has not yet been achieved in America, however the political philosophy continues to thread its way through the American public like heartstrings through a quilt. Libertarianism prides itself on being an amoral ideology based on scientific or rational truths linked to utilitarianism or economics with no link to ethics except for the Golden Rule. Furthermore, Libertarianism does not address the nature of government, but rather quivers in fear of any talk of morality. Until its advocates embrace such discussion, the socialists will win by default.
_____________________________________________________________________

So now, may we chat of the nature and extent of an object or being? To my understanding, something's nature is a reflection of the characteristics it enjoys. A wheel's nature is to roll, hence its flat shape and surface. It's size and extent is negligent, as there are tiny wheels such as on a Lego car, or large wheels such as a tire on an airliner. We don't look at a small wheel differently than a large one, other than what component it will move. What defines a wheel it not size or extent, but rather the nature of what it does.

For human, what makes us unique is our genetic code that provides for features and behaviors that are only possessed by one person. Man makes decisions based on the values he wishes to achieve and this is outwardly apparent through appearance and observation. The thief is distinguishable from the small-time business man in that both seek to obtain money or wealth, but we deliver a harsh punishment on the man who steals as a means of subsistence rather than the man who builds wealth through creation. It's the nature of the man that we address in moral or judgmental terms. This is necessary as reason stirs us from the rotten thief and to a deal with the honest businessman. It does not matter the height of the man, or his skin color or the brand of his favorite shirt. These characteristics do not define us as human, but rather it is our nature to think and be productive whether in business, art or science.

Now what of government? Its extent can easily by measured through statistical or monetary facts. "The government spends $500 billion on defense" or "there are 40,000 police officers in the state" are quantifiable, provable facts about government and its size. No one can dispute that the highest marginal tax rate is 36% or that entitlement spending dwarfs any other kind at the federal level. The extent of something is easily measured. From our example above, we can measure the size of the wheel but without knowing its nature, what good is size other than a number? There has to be more to government than size.

What about context? If I said that a state's budget for healthcare provided to children was $1 billion dollars, you'd think that was a lot of money. Would it matter if the state was Rhode Island or New York? Absolutely, because we measure facts and figures in relation to others. Discussing the extent of spending on child healthcare is even easier now that we've placed the figure in context. A billion dollars for the state of New York would be a drop in the bucket compared to a state such as Vermont, Rhode Island or Montana. Therefore, it is imporant think in context to other facts and relationships.

The nature of government is radically different than its extent. If extent measures size, nature illustrates the characteristics the government inhabits. The nature of government is its function guided by a set of adhered to principals. A more laissez-faire government would enforce laws against fraud and other initiated violence while arbitrating honest contracts. A more socialistic government would seek to promote an egalitarian society through the state ownership of production, therefore ensuring a level field for all. The nature of the two government's is radically different; one protects liberty and promotes freedom while the other demonstrates a drive for fairness and equality of results. The fundamental nature of the two systems differs on the philosophical ground they are based on.

There is no mention of extent in the paragraph above as measurement is not necessary in the discussion. The extent or size of government can be associated with its nature, but some individuals fail to segregate the two. How long one's chains are does not make him more or less free. A chained man is a slave notwithstanding the length of the links or the type of metal they are produced from. One cannot be half-dead or half-pregnant; what is A cannot be not-A in the same fashion. In the same way, the military of a nation can be judged both by its extent and nature. For a laissez-faire society, the military's role is to protect individuals from foreign aggression. It's size is not discussed nor is it necessary to address in such a light; who is to say that the military budget should be $1 million, $1 billion or $1 trillion? It's nature is the primary characteristic one should focus on, not its size.

The socialist measures the morality of welfare programs first by their intent and secondarily by its size. In today's liberal Democratic Party, the focus is on the homeowner, the uninsured, or the less fortunate. The nature of the program is outlined and then sold to the public with an appeal to altruistic morality. "We must help people stay in their homes", a senator might say without introducing the crass facts such as the extent or size of the program. That senator would never go on television and advocate taxpayers pony up an additional 10% for the poor or needy; the appeal is always made through ethics or morality which influences the nature of government. He would fail if he first presents the scope of the program, and then its intent.

The "fiscal conservative" will not attack the program on its immorality, but rather suggest to "scale it back" or restrict it to a certain class on practical ground. A libertarian fights the program saying that it creates a market inefficiency driving prices up for non-supported individuals in the market to buy, but fight government price inflation to keep equity afloat. Neither will fight the program; the conservative will defend the nature of the program, but fight its extent. The libertarian will ignore the extent of the program and ignore the nature. Morality, says this libertarian, has no place in the political sphere. Thus, the socialist has the advantage over both the conservative and the libertarian as he embraces morality and ignores extent. Extent is not an issue as the public will ignore the overruns and corruption because it is necessary to help those in need.

The socialist may be considered the most evil of the three, but I don't consider him to be. The socialist at least recognizes the moral necessary of politics, namely that statism is driven by the morality of altruism. He doesn't dismiss morality, but rather embraces it. The libertarian disregards morality all together and focuses on the extent of government. Simply by reducing or eliminating government all together, we can achieve liberty and freedom. Thus, the moral purpose of government is all but ignored by the libertarian and this is why the ideology has not gained traction in America.

Be it religion or mythology, Americans generally adhere to systematic belief systems that provide insight into reality, knowledge, ethics and politics. Christianity is the dominant system in the United States and its influence on the government is readily apparent on both sides of the aisle. Nature abhors a vacuum and the universe of thought is no exception. Thus, Americans are inclined to believe in something whether it is right or wrong and generally resist calls to believe in nothing. Socialism, and its watered down cousin modern-day liberalism, is inclined to attach itself on the public as religion and other mystical beliefs play a perfect host. By ignoring this, libertarianism is at a terrible disadvantage against its blood rival and it shows when examining recent events such as the bank bailouts, stimulus bills and the state's enhanced reach over private live.

Looks Beautiful From Here!

Have a good weekend!