Despite what some laissez-faire types think, problems in the economy are tied to jobs.
The Washington Post offers up dismal information related to the economic downturn.
Consumption drives a significant portion of our economy. Available credit greases the wheels of consumption allowing us to acquire the things we need and want. As long as credit is available and we have income to pay the debt, things work fine.
Jobs are essential to consumption. When jobs are scarce, credit becomes scarce since creditors have a duty to ensure repayment of any credit they extend. Simply, No job, no credit?
Wages have remained stagnant in the face of every-increasing productivity gains for some time now. Plain English: People are working harder and more for less money; this includes benefits that have the power of money too, like health insurance and so on.
The productivity push has been driven in part by policies and an atmosphere encouraging off-shoring and workforce flexibility. Workers responded rationally to this environment of instability by increasing productivity (making them more valuable) and accepting less money (making them cost-effective to retain). Workers accept more work for less money because its economically rational to have some work rather than no work.
Wage stagnation occurs when inflation outpaces wage growth. When adjusted for inflation, wages are lower now than they've been in years. The net result: Workers are making themselves poor by working hard just to keep a job and to stay in place.
Inflation reduces the dollar's purchasing power. I remember when sodas cost $0.20. What do they cost now? $1.00 - $2.00. That's inflation.
To make up for inflationary wage losses and wage stagnation, many workers relied on credit to fill in the gap. Now, credit is drying up leaving those who were on the edge falling off the precipice.
As a nation we cannot borrow our way out of this. Consumption is out of the question because we have no means to consume when wages are falling and credit is non-existent.
What about growing our way out of this? Can't happen. Why? No credit and no money equals no tools to pump the economy and thus no growth.
Taking a page from history, our government must begin a jobs program much like the public works projects from the New Deal.
Only by infusing the country with cash via workers will the economy start working.
Friday, November 14, 2008
New technology may be missing its true calling.
I've wanted an e-reader for a time. However, the thought of getting always nagged me and I couldn't figure out why until now.
This article from dvice.com hits the nail squarely on the head.
I love books. Most of what I read is non-fiction, so the pressure to get rid of them once used is less than for fiction.
The e-readers don't really allow me to keep a bookshelf of non-fiction. The e-readers are designed mostly for readers of topical fiction.
The author of the article makes the point that e-readers should focus on periodicals that have a limited shelf life.
I couldn't agree more.
This article from dvice.com hits the nail squarely on the head.
I love books. Most of what I read is non-fiction, so the pressure to get rid of them once used is less than for fiction.
The e-readers don't really allow me to keep a bookshelf of non-fiction. The e-readers are designed mostly for readers of topical fiction.
The author of the article makes the point that e-readers should focus on periodicals that have a limited shelf life.
I couldn't agree more.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Libertarian hypocrites. Libertarians should be for personal freedom.
Here's what I don't get.
Libertarians are worried that Obama's election spells the end of libertarian ideals.
Many libertarians have bought into the notion that only Republicans and by extension, conservative ideals represent the last best hope for freedom.
What I want to know is why do libertarians drink the kool aid from the Right?
Where were libertarians when a Republican and self-described conservative took complete advantage of a crisis to push through one of the most invasive restrictions on our privacy rights? (Patriot Act)
Where were libertarians when this same politician sought to restrict a woman's right to control the use of her own uterus?
When Republican supporting libertarians talk freedom, they should choke on their words.
Neither party has the market cornered on freedom.
I, myself, have rather libertarian views. I've even voted libertarian in the past.
What I won't abide is a hypocrite. And for libertarians to suck it up and vote for a party that seeks restriction of personal rights, then I call them for what they are: Liars.
Libertarians are worried that Obama's election spells the end of libertarian ideals.
Many libertarians have bought into the notion that only Republicans and by extension, conservative ideals represent the last best hope for freedom.
What I want to know is why do libertarians drink the kool aid from the Right?
Where were libertarians when a Republican and self-described conservative took complete advantage of a crisis to push through one of the most invasive restrictions on our privacy rights? (Patriot Act)
Where were libertarians when this same politician sought to restrict a woman's right to control the use of her own uterus?
When Republican supporting libertarians talk freedom, they should choke on their words.
Neither party has the market cornered on freedom.
I, myself, have rather libertarian views. I've even voted libertarian in the past.
What I won't abide is a hypocrite. And for libertarians to suck it up and vote for a party that seeks restriction of personal rights, then I call them for what they are: Liars.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Conservatives are lying to themselves and trying to get us to believe it too.
Here's what I don't get about the "conservative" movement.
Those who call themselves such were more than happy to support George Bush, not once, but twice for the presidency.
Now, when his malfeasance has come back to tarnish the Republican brand and along with it, conservativism's bona fides, those same conservatives claim that Bush "wasn't a true conservative."
This is nothing but post hoc definitional hedging. In other words, it's bullshit.
Conservatives may need to lie to themselves about the state of their ideology and the status of the party who carried their banner (Republicans), but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to buy into their lame excuses and justifications.
I get so tired of conservatives who, when times were great for their agenda, were content to ignore the obvious signs of idiocy in their chosen candidate. But now, when time and reality smack them in the faces, they are wont to cut loose the very same people and party they hooked their wagon to.
The pretzel-like machinations they go through in order to maintain some semblance of cohesiveness in their ideological world is astounding.
Those who call themselves such were more than happy to support George Bush, not once, but twice for the presidency.
Now, when his malfeasance has come back to tarnish the Republican brand and along with it, conservativism's bona fides, those same conservatives claim that Bush "wasn't a true conservative."
This is nothing but post hoc definitional hedging. In other words, it's bullshit.
Conservatives may need to lie to themselves about the state of their ideology and the status of the party who carried their banner (Republicans), but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to buy into their lame excuses and justifications.
I get so tired of conservatives who, when times were great for their agenda, were content to ignore the obvious signs of idiocy in their chosen candidate. But now, when time and reality smack them in the faces, they are wont to cut loose the very same people and party they hooked their wagon to.
The pretzel-like machinations they go through in order to maintain some semblance of cohesiveness in their ideological world is astounding.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
AIG screws up again. It's this kind of decision-making that got them into this mess in the first place
Let's see if I get another comment from AIG after posting this one.
AIG, you know the big insurer who begged for taxpayer money because they were on their last leg, has managed to blow a bunch of money at another resort.
Of course AIG has the money to pay someone to cruise the internet looking for bad press and respond, so they have the money to send their executives to a resort.
AIG's response? Well, they said someone else paid the majority of the expense. Fair enough
BUT, here's the issue: AIG should be conscious of what we in the legal profession call the appearance of impropriety.
Even if what they say is true and they are not technically exploiting taxpayers for lavish events, they are still under the microscope and should be cognizant of the effect such extravaganzas would have on those lending them a whole bunch of cash. A technicality is not going to fly in the political world of taxpayer bailouts.
When you live in the rarefied world of corporate compensation, creature comforts like resorts, spas, and golf are just every day things to help a beleaguered executive out.
Back on planet earth with the rest of us, we see this as a con job.
AIG, you know the big insurer who begged for taxpayer money because they were on their last leg, has managed to blow a bunch of money at another resort.
Of course AIG has the money to pay someone to cruise the internet looking for bad press and respond, so they have the money to send their executives to a resort.
AIG's response? Well, they said someone else paid the majority of the expense. Fair enough
BUT, here's the issue: AIG should be conscious of what we in the legal profession call the appearance of impropriety.
Even if what they say is true and they are not technically exploiting taxpayers for lavish events, they are still under the microscope and should be cognizant of the effect such extravaganzas would have on those lending them a whole bunch of cash. A technicality is not going to fly in the political world of taxpayer bailouts.
When you live in the rarefied world of corporate compensation, creature comforts like resorts, spas, and golf are just every day things to help a beleaguered executive out.
Back on planet earth with the rest of us, we see this as a con job.
Sowell's an idiot trying to paint liberals with an excessively broad brush--He must listen to Limbaugh
I find this diatribe from Thomas Sowell on RealClearPolitics to be absolutely hilarious.
The humor comes from his ending the article with an accusation that PhDs are ignorant. The larger theme is that intellectuals are really idiots.
Sowell goes on to talk about the mistakes intellectuals have made in the past. All good points.
Unfortunately, Sowell's attempt to lump all intellectuals together is bull. It's a logical fallacy called an Inductive Fallacy. Rush Limbaugh uses the same moronic crap to keep his sycophants hating reason and education.
Of course, individual intellectuals make mistakes, but that doesn't mean all intellectuals are guilty of those mistakes or share some complicity. Sowell implies as much by his indictment of intellectualism.
Using the same argument, I could just as easily indict the whole of conservativism and republicanism by the mistakes of the last eight years.
That would be bull also, but I have a whole truckload of evidence buttressing my argument, instead of just a few cherry-picked incidents like Sowell.
Give it up Sowell. Grow a cerebrum and learn how to use it. If can be fun riding with the big boys with big brains.
The humor comes from his ending the article with an accusation that PhDs are ignorant. The larger theme is that intellectuals are really idiots.
Sowell goes on to talk about the mistakes intellectuals have made in the past. All good points.
Unfortunately, Sowell's attempt to lump all intellectuals together is bull. It's a logical fallacy called an Inductive Fallacy. Rush Limbaugh uses the same moronic crap to keep his sycophants hating reason and education.
Of course, individual intellectuals make mistakes, but that doesn't mean all intellectuals are guilty of those mistakes or share some complicity. Sowell implies as much by his indictment of intellectualism.
Using the same argument, I could just as easily indict the whole of conservativism and republicanism by the mistakes of the last eight years.
That would be bull also, but I have a whole truckload of evidence buttressing my argument, instead of just a few cherry-picked incidents like Sowell.
Give it up Sowell. Grow a cerebrum and learn how to use it. If can be fun riding with the big boys with big brains.
Automakers are short-sighted crybabies who deserve a spanking
I don't get it.
Automakers are staunch Republican allies. They advocate the free market so they can clean up and fight the unions.
When times get tough they turn into the biggest bunch of cry babies.
The free market is fine when money's rolling in, but when the losses start mounting over the bad management decisions, then what do they do? They turn into a big group of pussies.
Of course they'll hide behind that tired old chestnut: It'll hurt the economy and hurt working families.
I got news for you: Of course it will hurt the economy and hurt families, but the responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of management.
Everyone would like the power to make decisions affecting the economy. With that comes the responsibility to man up and bear the burden of those decisions for good or ill.
I have no sympathy.
The hypocrisy is astounding. Free marketers when profit is involved, but panty wastes when their short-sightedness leads to economic ruin for the rest of us.
I repeat: No bailout.
We can't keep bailing out industries for their bad choices. That removes any incentive for them to behave in the future.
Automakers are staunch Republican allies. They advocate the free market so they can clean up and fight the unions.
When times get tough they turn into the biggest bunch of cry babies.
The free market is fine when money's rolling in, but when the losses start mounting over the bad management decisions, then what do they do? They turn into a big group of pussies.
Of course they'll hide behind that tired old chestnut: It'll hurt the economy and hurt working families.
I got news for you: Of course it will hurt the economy and hurt families, but the responsibility for that falls squarely on the shoulders of management.
Everyone would like the power to make decisions affecting the economy. With that comes the responsibility to man up and bear the burden of those decisions for good or ill.
I have no sympathy.
The hypocrisy is astounding. Free marketers when profit is involved, but panty wastes when their short-sightedness leads to economic ruin for the rest of us.
I repeat: No bailout.
We can't keep bailing out industries for their bad choices. That removes any incentive for them to behave in the future.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Atheists suffer at the hands of the religious
This article suggests that prejudice against atheism is why many American atheists are less happy than their religious brethren.
Prejudice of any sort makes the victims of it suffer, so this stands to reason.
Interesting.
Prejudice of any sort makes the victims of it suffer, so this stands to reason.
Interesting.
Friday, November 7, 2008
GM asks taxpayers for some of what the banks got. HELL NO!
Holy crap! I'm getting a sense of deja vu from General Motors' cries for taxpayer help in the form of a government bailout.
U.S. car companies have had decades to change to leaner companies with better and more fuel efficient cars that consumers would buy, but did they do the smart thing?
Hell no.
Instead they hitched their wagon to bigger cars and refused to look around the corner at the coming oil shortage and the alternative energy push.
Should we bail them out? Hell No!
Of course the economy will take a hit. Of course workers will suffer.
Those are the consequences of poor management decisions over decades and consumers who've bought into the whole Hummer/SUV/Land Rover phenomenon.
Whose fault is it that U.S. auto manufacturing has shed jobs affecting the whole economy? It's management's fault. They could have made better, more forward-looking cars that people wanted, but they chose to maximize present profit at the expense of future viability. That's poor management and the cost of these bad practices should not be externalized to the rest of us. The free market should deal with this, not the U.S. taxpayer.
Let them fail. Maybe the actual threat of failure will provide the necessary impetus for them to do what they should've done all along...being a real American company. Americans are in front of the market instead of being behind the curve and getting hammered by excess and inertia.
GM's timing is highly suspicious. They stood back and watched what happened with the bank bailout. Now, their hands' are out. They're hoping a lame duck Bush will help before Obama takes office.
U.S. car companies have had decades to change to leaner companies with better and more fuel efficient cars that consumers would buy, but did they do the smart thing?
Hell no.
Instead they hitched their wagon to bigger cars and refused to look around the corner at the coming oil shortage and the alternative energy push.
Should we bail them out? Hell No!
Of course the economy will take a hit. Of course workers will suffer.
Those are the consequences of poor management decisions over decades and consumers who've bought into the whole Hummer/SUV/Land Rover phenomenon.
Whose fault is it that U.S. auto manufacturing has shed jobs affecting the whole economy? It's management's fault. They could have made better, more forward-looking cars that people wanted, but they chose to maximize present profit at the expense of future viability. That's poor management and the cost of these bad practices should not be externalized to the rest of us. The free market should deal with this, not the U.S. taxpayer.
Let them fail. Maybe the actual threat of failure will provide the necessary impetus for them to do what they should've done all along...being a real American company. Americans are in front of the market instead of being behind the curve and getting hammered by excess and inertia.
GM's timing is highly suspicious. They stood back and watched what happened with the bank bailout. Now, their hands' are out. They're hoping a lame duck Bush will help before Obama takes office.
Republican message is to blame for their losses, not people
Republicans are quick to try to blame a person for their stunning loss on November 4.
Campbell Brown calls them to task for blaming Sarah Palin. Rightly so.
Blaming a person for the loss is bullshit, even if that person wasn't qualified for the job. Perhaps it was the Republican message that was at fault?
If the republican message is to blame shouldn't that be re-tooled?
That's a hard pill to swallow for the Republican faithful. Like religious fanatics, they'll scapegoat people without the power to damage a whole movement rather than look to their own beliefs as the source of their failings.
Until the Republicans look at their message, the real cause of their failure, they'll be stuck in limbo.
Campbell Brown calls them to task for blaming Sarah Palin. Rightly so.
Blaming a person for the loss is bullshit, even if that person wasn't qualified for the job. Perhaps it was the Republican message that was at fault?
If the republican message is to blame shouldn't that be re-tooled?
That's a hard pill to swallow for the Republican faithful. Like religious fanatics, they'll scapegoat people without the power to damage a whole movement rather than look to their own beliefs as the source of their failings.
Until the Republicans look at their message, the real cause of their failure, they'll be stuck in limbo.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Conclusive proof that human activity the cause of global warming
Rush Limbaugh actually is a big fat idiot after all.
Rush is a strong opponent of human-induced climate change.
Well, there is now conclusive proof that climate variability has exceeded natural variations.
Of course, like holocaust deniers, Rush will point to the scientists as being some liberal cabal of pointy-headed intellectuals and are therefore not to be believed.
Here's what I say to that: If you're standing on a train track with lights approaching and horns blowing, you can deny the fact that a train is coming up until you get run down.
Or, you can take the evidence and take action.
Rush is a strong opponent of human-induced climate change.
Well, there is now conclusive proof that climate variability has exceeded natural variations.
Of course, like holocaust deniers, Rush will point to the scientists as being some liberal cabal of pointy-headed intellectuals and are therefore not to be believed.
Here's what I say to that: If you're standing on a train track with lights approaching and horns blowing, you can deny the fact that a train is coming up until you get run down.
Or, you can take the evidence and take action.
GOP should move toward fiscal responsibility and away from conservative orthodoxy
The GOP has some tough times ahead.
Although I don't consider myself a Republican, due in large part to the overly religious nature of the party, I share some common values with the Republicans on the fiscal front.
The Republicans need to attract more moderates if they wish to regain some measure of power in the future. The conservative wing will fight this, but the party cannot afford the orthodoxy of the extreme right if it wishes to return from the wilderness.
I suspect that the Republicans will come out of this newly chastened. I also suspect that they will adopt many of the attitudes and practices of the New England Republicans. Specifically, Mitt Romney.
Those values are less wingnut and more economics driven.
Although I don't consider myself a Republican, due in large part to the overly religious nature of the party, I share some common values with the Republicans on the fiscal front.
The Republicans need to attract more moderates if they wish to regain some measure of power in the future. The conservative wing will fight this, but the party cannot afford the orthodoxy of the extreme right if it wishes to return from the wilderness.
I suspect that the Republicans will come out of this newly chastened. I also suspect that they will adopt many of the attitudes and practices of the New England Republicans. Specifically, Mitt Romney.
Those values are less wingnut and more economics driven.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Rush Limbaugh gives Republicans some stunningly stupid advice for winning the next election.
Here's some advice to Republicans from everybody's favorite stink-wind, Rush Limbaugh.
Rush advises Republicans to run to the Right even more if they want to win.
All I can say is this: I hope the Republicans take the supreme bloviator's advice. If they do, that will ensure continued Democrat dominance.
Rush is known for ignoring reality in the service of his religion--Right-Wing Ideology.
Must be nice to get paid so much to live in a fantasy world and spew idiocy to like-minded sycophants.
Go Rush!
Rush advises Republicans to run to the Right even more if they want to win.
All I can say is this: I hope the Republicans take the supreme bloviator's advice. If they do, that will ensure continued Democrat dominance.
Rush is known for ignoring reality in the service of his religion--Right-Wing Ideology.
Must be nice to get paid so much to live in a fantasy world and spew idiocy to like-minded sycophants.
Go Rush!
Lessons of this election for Republicans
It's over. Now comes the gnashing of teeth and the rending of clothes by the Republicans.
What has this election determined:
1. John McCain was better than his campaign. He allowed Lee Atwater -type operatives to hijack his genuine nature and run the campaign into the ditch of defeat.
2. Tough economic times moves the electorate toward a we're in this together philosophy and away from the individualist attitude of every man for himself.
3. Fear no longer drives votes enough to win. Hope is better in the end. This fits with American optimism anyway.
4. Exploiting factions for electoral gain has limited efficacy. Finding common ground and looking for compromise ultimately wins the day.
5. America is not a conservative nation. America is a moderate nation that flirts with conservativism and liberalism.
6. Race remains an issue. I spoke with a number of people who voted for McCain, but none could give a cogent reason for their vote, except that Obama was an other and their fear wouldn't allow them to vote otherwise. A nice-sounding pretext doesn't excuse a racist rationale. Maybe the wish to move beyond race is ahead of the reality on the ground.
7. The Republican party faces a choice. If they continue like they have for the past 20 odd years, their only pockets of support will be in the deep South amongst white rural voters. Most Americans live in urban areas or close to them, so that dog won't hunt for too much longer.
8. Latino voters opted for the Democrat ticket. This bodes ill for today's Republicans, since Latinos are set to become the largest minority group in the U.S. Combine Latinos with African-Americans and you have a very large Democrat voting bloc.
9. Due to number 8 above, the Republicans are paying the price for their reliance on pretext racism to drive uneducated whites to the polls. Uneducated rural whites are an endangered breed. The Bubba vote, although staunch, is diminishing in value as the population shifts toward cities.
Republicans have their work cut out for them. If they manage to re-invent themselves, they won't look like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh--they will look like Bill Richardson and Colin Powell. Republicans will need to cut loose constituencies that depend on subtle, code-word driven bigotry if the party hopes to capture those targeted by such petty prejudice.
It's a hard choice.
What has this election determined:
1. John McCain was better than his campaign. He allowed Lee Atwater -type operatives to hijack his genuine nature and run the campaign into the ditch of defeat.
2. Tough economic times moves the electorate toward a we're in this together philosophy and away from the individualist attitude of every man for himself.
3. Fear no longer drives votes enough to win. Hope is better in the end. This fits with American optimism anyway.
4. Exploiting factions for electoral gain has limited efficacy. Finding common ground and looking for compromise ultimately wins the day.
5. America is not a conservative nation. America is a moderate nation that flirts with conservativism and liberalism.
6. Race remains an issue. I spoke with a number of people who voted for McCain, but none could give a cogent reason for their vote, except that Obama was an other and their fear wouldn't allow them to vote otherwise. A nice-sounding pretext doesn't excuse a racist rationale. Maybe the wish to move beyond race is ahead of the reality on the ground.
7. The Republican party faces a choice. If they continue like they have for the past 20 odd years, their only pockets of support will be in the deep South amongst white rural voters. Most Americans live in urban areas or close to them, so that dog won't hunt for too much longer.
8. Latino voters opted for the Democrat ticket. This bodes ill for today's Republicans, since Latinos are set to become the largest minority group in the U.S. Combine Latinos with African-Americans and you have a very large Democrat voting bloc.
9. Due to number 8 above, the Republicans are paying the price for their reliance on pretext racism to drive uneducated whites to the polls. Uneducated rural whites are an endangered breed. The Bubba vote, although staunch, is diminishing in value as the population shifts toward cities.
Republicans have their work cut out for them. If they manage to re-invent themselves, they won't look like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh--they will look like Bill Richardson and Colin Powell. Republicans will need to cut loose constituencies that depend on subtle, code-word driven bigotry if the party hopes to capture those targeted by such petty prejudice.
It's a hard choice.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
West Wing laid the groundwork for the Obama campaign
Here's a reason why I like the West Wing. In a dramatic display of art imitating life, I give you the following.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Old Wive's Tale is shot down by science
As a child, my mother always told me that boys were made of "Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails" whereas girls were made of "Sugar and spice and everything nice."
The clear implication of that early training was that boys are dirtier than girls.
Girls readily buy into this and regularly call boys dirty.
Science has shot that notion all to hell in this study.
Apparently, women are the nastier of the two sexes if bacteria are the criteria used to judge nasty-ness.
Well, at least now I can begin the healing process.
The clear implication of that early training was that boys are dirtier than girls.
Girls readily buy into this and regularly call boys dirty.
Science has shot that notion all to hell in this study.
Apparently, women are the nastier of the two sexes if bacteria are the criteria used to judge nasty-ness.
Well, at least now I can begin the healing process.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Old story from the Onion nailed the last 8 years -- before Bush took office!
I love The Onion. Probably the only good source for satire.
Here's a story produced by The Onion in January 2001.
I defy anyone to read this and not choke on the creepy similarities to the story and the results of the last 8 years.
The Onion is spot on with its prediction, even though it was intended as humor.
Read it and laugh, cry, or pound your fist on the desk.
Scary how life imitates art.
Here's a story produced by The Onion in January 2001.
I defy anyone to read this and not choke on the creepy similarities to the story and the results of the last 8 years.
The Onion is spot on with its prediction, even though it was intended as humor.
Read it and laugh, cry, or pound your fist on the desk.
Scary how life imitates art.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Hedge Fund manager spills the beans on the wealthy, connected, and privileged...oh, and marijuana
I came across this letter from a Hedge Fund Manager. He's 37 and he decided to quit the business after amassing scads of cash for his clients.
Here's his letter .
It's nice to see someone with a chip on their shoulder against the rich take aim at them and point out what everyone knows, but is afraid to admit.
It should be noted that he advocated the legalization of marijuana in his letter.
Here's his letter .
It's nice to see someone with a chip on their shoulder against the rich take aim at them and point out what everyone knows, but is afraid to admit.
It should be noted that he advocated the legalization of marijuana in his letter.
Friday, October 31, 2008
NRA has managed to flex its Republican muscle against a gun company apostate
I refer you to the most previous post for background when looking at this stunning display of ideological stupidity.
Cooper Firearms has fired its eponymously named founder Dan Cooper for supporting Obama for President.
I see this as a tacit, if not blatant, acknowledgment by the firearm manufacturer that a significant portion of their customers are wingnuts.
Unfortunately, the gun lobby, and by this I mean the NRA, has bought into the notion that only Republicans support the 2nd Amendment. In defiance of reason and with the result of alienating a significant portion of the electorate. The Republican Party doesn't have the market cornered on support for 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA and the Republican party would like everyone to think that's the case, but that isn't true. You can favor the 2nd Amendment AND also favor a Woman's Right to Choose. It's all about freedom of choice.
Now, before all you gun nuts or NRA whackjobs get your panties in a wad and accuse me of wanting to take away your guns, let me disabuse you of that notion right here.
I hate the NRA, but I love the 2nd Amendment. Supporting one doesn't require that I support the other. Don't fall for the simple-minded absolutism marketed by the Right that only Conservatives and Republicans favor and will protect Gun Rights. That's complete bull.
I got flack for supporting the 2nd Amendment rights of if the DC security guard who successfully won the right to possess a gun in DC in the Heller case.
The NRA gives real gun owners a bad name. The NRA is nothing but a Republican lobby masquerading as a Rights Group.
I don't like the NRA and I don't agree with their political positions. Yet, I think the Constitution gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I own guns. Mere gun ownership doesn't turn anyone into a bad person.
In fact, I think the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own pretty much any gun I want, including Assault Rifles. Extreme? Maybe, but the 2nd Amendment says what it says and the U.S. has historically viewed gun ownership rather liberally.
So, where do I fit?
I don't fit with the NRA because they are idiots with an ideological zeal that undermines all rationality; I cannot align myself with idiocy over a single issue.
If the NRA would open their minds (won't happen because that requires actual thinking...), those of us with a more expansive view of individual rights wouldn't feel so alienated by the moronic rank and file catered to by such small-mindedness.
Cooper Firearms sold their soul to a Right Wing idiocy group. Terminating their CEO for the reasons they cite is un-American. I won't buy any of their guns now that I know how un-American their board is.
Buy true American...Support ALL the Contitution.
Cooper Firearms has fired its eponymously named founder Dan Cooper for supporting Obama for President.
I see this as a tacit, if not blatant, acknowledgment by the firearm manufacturer that a significant portion of their customers are wingnuts.
Unfortunately, the gun lobby, and by this I mean the NRA, has bought into the notion that only Republicans support the 2nd Amendment. In defiance of reason and with the result of alienating a significant portion of the electorate. The Republican Party doesn't have the market cornered on support for 2nd Amendment rights. The NRA and the Republican party would like everyone to think that's the case, but that isn't true. You can favor the 2nd Amendment AND also favor a Woman's Right to Choose. It's all about freedom of choice.
Now, before all you gun nuts or NRA whackjobs get your panties in a wad and accuse me of wanting to take away your guns, let me disabuse you of that notion right here.
I hate the NRA, but I love the 2nd Amendment. Supporting one doesn't require that I support the other. Don't fall for the simple-minded absolutism marketed by the Right that only Conservatives and Republicans favor and will protect Gun Rights. That's complete bull.
I got flack for supporting the 2nd Amendment rights of if the DC security guard who successfully won the right to possess a gun in DC in the Heller case.
The NRA gives real gun owners a bad name. The NRA is nothing but a Republican lobby masquerading as a Rights Group.
I don't like the NRA and I don't agree with their political positions. Yet, I think the Constitution gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. I own guns. Mere gun ownership doesn't turn anyone into a bad person.
In fact, I think the 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own pretty much any gun I want, including Assault Rifles. Extreme? Maybe, but the 2nd Amendment says what it says and the U.S. has historically viewed gun ownership rather liberally.
So, where do I fit?
I don't fit with the NRA because they are idiots with an ideological zeal that undermines all rationality; I cannot align myself with idiocy over a single issue.
If the NRA would open their minds (won't happen because that requires actual thinking...), those of us with a more expansive view of individual rights wouldn't feel so alienated by the moronic rank and file catered to by such small-mindedness.
Cooper Firearms sold their soul to a Right Wing idiocy group. Terminating their CEO for the reasons they cite is un-American. I won't buy any of their guns now that I know how un-American their board is.
Buy true American...Support ALL the Contitution.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Corporate executives possibly liable for breaching fiduciary duty by causing corporations to support political candidates
Here's a story showing that some corporate executives of large retailers are actually subordinating their fiduciary duty to their shareholder to their own personal political interests.
In the legal industry, we call this a breach of fiduciary duty Such a breach is grounds for immediate termination. On top of that, they can be held personally liable to the shareholders in a shareholder derivative lawsuit for such bad decisions. The boards of these companies have a duty to investigate and immediately terminate those executives found guilty of a breach. That's the law.
Why is this important?
A personal political decision is fully protected by the 1st Amendment. When personal political choices become the basis of an executive decision, IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THAT PARTICULAR DECISION, then said choice becomes a form of defalcation.
Defalcation occurs where a fiduciary takes advantage of their executive position for personal gain at the expense of shareholders, the corporation and ultimately the market.
I note this so corporate shareholders will exercise their power to hold executives and corporate boards accountable for their corporate decisions...especially when those corporate decisions are made for the personal gain of the corporate executive at the expense of the shareholders.
Get the facts, learn the truth, and remove your heads from your backsides.
In the legal industry, we call this a breach of fiduciary duty Such a breach is grounds for immediate termination. On top of that, they can be held personally liable to the shareholders in a shareholder derivative lawsuit for such bad decisions. The boards of these companies have a duty to investigate and immediately terminate those executives found guilty of a breach. That's the law.
Why is this important?
A personal political decision is fully protected by the 1st Amendment. When personal political choices become the basis of an executive decision, IN SPITE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THAT PARTICULAR DECISION, then said choice becomes a form of defalcation.
Defalcation occurs where a fiduciary takes advantage of their executive position for personal gain at the expense of shareholders, the corporation and ultimately the market.
I note this so corporate shareholders will exercise their power to hold executives and corporate boards accountable for their corporate decisions...especially when those corporate decisions are made for the personal gain of the corporate executive at the expense of the shareholders.
Get the facts, learn the truth, and remove your heads from your backsides.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)