Tiger

Every time I want to write on the recent events surrounding Tiger Woods, I remember the Britney Spears supporter on YouTube “LEAVE BRITTNEY ALONE” sobbing and really acting like an idiot. However, I heard on the national news this morning Today Show the question “should Elin Nordegren [Tiger Woods spouse] leave him”? Really, this is the national news outlet asking this question in prime time AM. This is not “E” or Access Hollywood, this is NBC.

What is wrong with us? Yes I lump everyone into this category as we accept it. We cling on the masochist behaviors of the news outlets and must have more. I am not supporting anything Tiger has done nor validating his actions. I will also go as far as saying the initial story may bear some merit to broadcast but when a national news chain is asking its audience to ponder a question such as this….I am appalled!

Discrimination-Straightforward

If ever lived a term that upsets me to my foundation, it’s the implication that discrimination is not a be all when applied to the populous. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. This would imply that the people you are discriminating against are returning the favor. This would first imply that you are a bigot and actively discriminating against a group of people and then are upset when this minority group of people have the opportunity to discriminate. Really; and this is a commonly used term. It’s obvious that what is truly implied is simply discrimination but the populous has had affirmative action pushed down their throat for so many years that they are seeing this as a way to compensate to faults of a society.

I submit that even in 2009, we are still seeing discrimination but no where near the levels Jesse Jackson would imply. I also submit that anyone can be discriminated against if they are using Race, Color, Creed, Gender (Federal protected classes) in their decision making process. This would include white, heterosexual, middle-aged, men who have college degrees and are working in a traditional white collar industry.

This is why I strongly support the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the lower courts decision and rule that discrimination was evident in the New Haven Firefighter case. Essentially, the City of New Haven administered a test that was required in order to be promoted within the Fire Dept. Several White and Hispanic men and woman passed the test but no black candidates passed. The city wanted to review test to see if a disparate impact was prevalent and told the Firefighters who passed, they would have to retake a new test once developed. The Supreme Court found that although disparate impact may have been employed, it does not allow for the discrimination of those who passed the test and followed the appropriate process. You cannot discrimination one group of people to avoid the discrimination of another.

Decesion Summary

Full Supreme Court Decision Syllabus

Cap in Trade; Climate Tax Bill; Waxman-Markey Climate Change Bill

You may have heard these terms being tossed around, liberals claiming we need this to control energy utilization and conservatives rejecting it on merit as a simple veiled attempt to increase taxes. In essence, you really need to look at the bill, state of the economy and political arena to identify what is truly at stake here.

            Its no secrete that Obama is an environmentalist or at least buys into the theory that businesses and the American economy have an obligation to the “green” movement. He is willing to seek alternative approaches to restrict technological advancement and progression of fossil energy resources. Whether of not you believe in the theory of “global warming” you can see that this Waxman-Markey climate bill is intended to be a revenue stream for this administration. Essentially, the bill would introduce a revenue model into the Federal Government capacity (Air) and allows them to tax it. Simply said, that is the intent of the bill. Now the government would use this authority to cap carbon emissions an individual or company could exude in a given year and anyone who exceeded this set limit could either pay a tax/fine or buy caps from other companies. Simply, this creates a market out of thin air for something we all are using today.

            But there are environmental benefits right? The bill aims to cap greenhouse gas emissions at 17% of 2005 levels which climatologists calculate a 5 one hundredths of a degree change by the year 2050. To get this 5/100^th (.005) of a degree change over the next 40 YEARS, we as energy users will need to submit:

• Raise electricity rates 90%
• Raise Gas prices 58%
• Raise Natural Gas Prices 55%
• Raise Avg family energy bill 1,241

*Just the cost to consumers** Additional costs on business who will filter their increased costs onto the products/services we purchase***Adjusted for inflation

 So is this an environmental bill or a tax bill? With the socialized medicine debate just around the corner, and less then 1/5^th of the money allocated to pay for it, I submit that this is a revenue model aimed to filter money to that effort while satisfying the environmentalists with a veiled form of diplomacy.  

 David Kreuitzer @ Heritage Foundation submits:

• Bill will raise energy prices over $1,900 per household for a family of four.
• Generates 5.7 Trillion in tax revenue through 2035

 Since we are in new politics, and special interest cannot be in the White House (in Obama’s own words), this bill marks 85% of the revenue received from this bill will go directly to special interest and not going into treasury. This is called the value of special allowances and accounts for “placing manufacturing” at a disadvantage.

This 1800 Bill with a 300 page amendment will be briefly debated and in a few months when people start complaining about their high energy prices you will hear our Reps say “I did not have time to read the bill”. Well I reject that statement. I elected you to represent me and my family. If it’s so important (just like in TARP) you need to read and understand everything you are asking me to pay for!

Social Security and Ponzi Schemes

I have not met anyone who has not heard of Bernie Madoff who as we recall “made off” with millions of dollars in the highly publicized ponzi scheme. My rhetorical question to you is, was this a bad thing? If his investors were making double digit gains in a market where people were sending their money out with the bath water, is he really the devil? I hate to say it but all of us, the American workers will all be involved in a legalized version of what Madoff just did. How you ask? Your ethics would never allow you to participate in such a travesty? That is what I said until I started researching the American Social Security Program. Now before you dis-engage, take a look at some facts.

• Those paying into the program today and supporting those who are subsequent [The young (new working Americans) pay into the program and the old (retired American) receive money from the program]

• No guarantee of future performance or return

• Returns are paid based on workers payments and not by profit return or investments

A ponzi scheme pays those who began the scheme with the money from new investors. Although this argument has been made time and time again, It’s requires attention in every medium it can. I am not calling for the end of Social Security, just an appreciation to the rhetoric that apposing side may have. Why is it legal for the government and bad for the Private sector? Don’t answer with emotion, try logic.

First 100 Days…

I am sure almost everyone in America, and for that the World has an opinion on how President Obama is doing in his first 100 days in office. Yes I do have an opinion as well but I am not sure that its as important as another question. What is the evaluation criteria? If it’s are we better off now then we were 102 days ago, then this leaves us to debate the question as its way to broad. I think anytime you inject almost $2 trillion ($2,000,000,000,000.00) into the economy (and that’s about $20 billion a day), we almost certainly will make some people a little better off now (or at least give them the impression) but what does this do to future generations when they have to pay for it? If the criteria is to stabilize the economy, what method do we use? Unemployment continues to rise but GDP seems to be stable.

The point I am trying to make is that in business, we all know the important of establishing performance criteria ahead of time in order to measure success. Without clear measures, this cannot be accomplished and is left to interpretation.