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

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.

New Minority Tobacco Tax

April 1^st 2009 marks yet another example of blatant disregard for the rights of the average American. Just because something is unpopular does not give you the right to do something.  I hate how I have to give a prelude to give me creditability but I am NOT a smoker. I have not touched the stuff in almost a year and I feel great. I am never going back to smoking almost a pack a day (although the temptation is still there). Tomorrow, the Federal tax on a pack of cigarettes will increase from 35 cents to $1.01 a pack. Notwithstanding, in Colorado, the State/local tax adds an additional 89 cents to the cost totaling $1.90 per pack. Does that seem excessive to you?  When I bought my first pack of cigarettes, the total bill was a buck fifty and now the tax more?

            Word on the street seems to be against the average smoker, the tobacco companies and establishments who are sympathetic to the average smoker. In Colorado, a ban was enacted preventing anyone from smoking in public building, bars restaurants etc. Although now as a non smoker I love the NON smell, clean air etc, I still hold the idea that this decision should be left to the proprietor of the establishment. It is my decision to spend money and if I, the customer, decide that I do not want to tolerate the smoke; I will take my business elsewhere. Well anyway this decision was deemed not mine to make and the government made it for us.

            This new Federal tax is earmarked to provide all children in America with Health Care. A noble cause but with a price tag of over 35 Billion. That’s right, they expect to gain 35 Billion in tax revenue to fund children healthcare. Since most packs now in Colorado will be closer to $5.00 a pack, I expect the quantity of cigarettes to start residing. This will cause, in a few years, a strain on the system and spark another increase somewhere to make up the revenue. This is very familiar to Social Security where a separate bill has only one income measure to support it.

            Please think to yourself and eliminate your pre-conceived notions about tobacco. Should one small group of people pay in some cases 2500% (yes twenty five hundred) increase in a product to pay for something else? If so why not the following products: Scotch, thong underwear, Tampons, Fast Food etc. Arguments have been made that each of these cause either health problems, are only used by certain people and or is class warfare. It could be coming…don’t laugh!

Power revieled; Goodby Wagoner

Today the Government ousted Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors (GM) after a meeting of automakers in Washington over the weekend. I have mixed feelings about this as I am sure many Americans do. On one hand, we (taxpayers) have relinquished and are being asked to relinquish tens of billions of dollars to GM, Chrysler etc to keep them afloat. I think, in this instance, Wagoner has driven his company into the ground and needs to be held accountable for said action (reducing his salary to $1.00 was a start but not enough). The company requires a massive restructuring (including a complete cultural change with the labor Union) and my vote, if anyone would listen, would include the same action to introduce new leadership.
However; is this power we want to give government? Is this something we can sanction for our elected leaders to invest their will on the private sector? Can government change the boards and executives at any company that is unwilling or unable to do what they want in order to gain traction on some fabulous new “flavor of the month” program? We are treading murky water when we as a society allow a government to take control of who can and who cannot lead a private sector company.
I agree with the decision to push him out of office but who gets the right to select a new CEO? Will it be the shareholders of the company? No, it’s the government who, most likely, who will ensure Hybrid’s are the staple for the American consumer. You do not want a Hybrid…you will “buy” one anyway as we the taxpayer will subsidies this historical failing business model.