Saturday, July 25, 2015

The Louisiana Theater Shooter is NOT a Tea Partier

Oh, the gun control folk are wetting their pants! Finally, a Tea Partier has murdered some people and therefore since one out of the last 20 or 30 serial shooters was a "Tea Partier", that proves we need gun control to stop them. And they sing it in solidarity like a Hitler Youth chorus line!

Well, they're wrong. The Louisiana theater shooter was NOT a "tea partier". First off nobody parties over tea. It's a "party" in the political sense of that word and the informal sense for that matter since the Tea Party has only a loose organizational structure at best and exists in total disorganization at worst with any nut job, who wants to join, able to claim membership.  To be fair, there is a language barrier at play here. When Democrats use the word "party" they use it (incorrectly) as a verb, i.e. to engage in sex, drugs and rock n' roll in a group setting. Tea Party members don't "party" in that sense. We may host a "party" to talk bad about Democrats, but we don't party in the same sense that liberals do.

The man in question (and I will not use his name for reasons I've explained elsewhere) had once signed up for an online Tea Party website account.  He never used it. An article in RawStory says he hated Obama, but then quotes him as saying he supported Obama's re-election (check this article link to verify).

The man was bipolar (manic-depressive) and obviously mentally ill. Local talk radio hosts, in fact, used to bring him on opposite Democrats because he said such outlandish things that it made the phones light up. In other words these people brought in a mentally ill person and put him on the air lined him up opposite to a Democrat, knowing full well the Democrat would torment him and make him babble incoherently on television and radio and look foolish. They admitted that they did this in order to boost their ratings.

He could hardly be called a Tea Party member (we don't call ourselves Tea Partiers - like I said, that's the Democrat meaning of "party", We don't party. Party is a noun in my part of the country, something you host, not something you do.

Sounds to me like the man was a clinically deranged person that leftists were allowed to torment till he cracked. These people should be ashamed of themselves and recognize that someone should have got this guy into treatment instead of using him to boost ratings for their shows. Shame on them all. Perhaps they will learn not to torment mentally ill people. They are all to blame for his crack up and for the deaths that resulted.

The RawStory article also claimed the guy "loved" Hitler, then I'd say that made him a socialist - Hitler was, after all a socialist and not a Republican. That makes him sound like some variety of lib (Libertarian or Liberal - there's not that much difference between 'em). And, as it turned out, his family had him committed in 2008, but it's very hard to hold a mental patient against his will anymore thanks to a set of laws that Democrats passed back during the Carter administration to "protect" people in mental institutions. The new law was a scattergun attemp to correct abuses brought on by sweetheart deals between government and mental institutions under previous largely Democrat administrations that virtually imprisoned mental patients with no way to get out.  The law was inspired by a Mickey Rooney movie. The resultant government "solution" to the problem simply turned loose hundreds of thousands of severely disturbed individuals onto the streets. Homelessness shot through the roof and the new law made it danged near impossible to commit anyone into care against their will until they had actually shot, stabbed or beaten someone. So despite efforts by his family to intervene, our shooter was able to sign himself out of treatment, after which his mental illness ramped on up to his final act of violence.

Great system you came up with there, guys!  I'm being sarcastic for those of you in San Francisco who missed that.  I know the folk in Lafayette, Louisiana certainly "got" it.

Just sayin'

Tom King © 2015

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Lying For the Lord and Obama - Where's the Lightning?

I hate when someone catches me trusting them and I share a phony post, quote, video or news item. I always go back and take it down, but I do so hate being made a tool for liars. Sadly, the person I got it from may actually have been suckered himself. You really have to check everything you post these days, even if it comes from someone you trust.

Ironically, it is trustworthy people who tend to be fooled most easily by liars because trustworthy people tend to trust others and are therefore easier to fool than untrustworthy people who don't trust anyone. So, as cautious and skeptical as you want to be, my trustworthy friends, somebody's going to lie to you largely because you do trust them.

These people have somehow come to the ludicrous conclusion that they can serve the cause of truth by making stuff up. This kind of stuff happens all the time. It is particularly noxious when someone makes up something from whole cloth about God or religion - as though God needs some good PR and the only way He can get it is if you make up nice-sounding lies about things He's done. It's not any nicer when the lie is for a political cause as I view politics as something of an extension of religion anyway. People aren't quite as stupid as you think they are and if they figure out that you've lied to them, well...............

That's when the torches and pitchforks tend to come out.

So, cut it out guys okay? You aren't helping your cause!

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Retail Workers, Dishwashers and Ditch Diggers, Oh My!

I get stuff like this (right) all the time from, to borrow a phrase from Tom Paxton, the "smart alecs" out there who believe they are part of the hereditary ruling elite. As you know I blame Walt Disney for promoting the idea of hereditary nobility long after the idea wore out its usefulness. Too many impressionable kids grew up believing that they were, in fact, the long lost princess (even some of the boys). But really. That's a fairy tale (which also may further explain a few things).

Did you read what you just wrote people? You start out with the standard false assumption in order to make a point that has no real basis in logical thought. The false assumption - that retail workers, dishwashers, ditch diggers and laborers are pretty much too stupid to get training or, at least, shouldn't have to be bothered to make any effort to improve their job situation. They are saying that somehow, just because these jobs exist, we should subsidize them in order to insure they don't get all riotous and mess up the elistists' front lawns.

The assumption is that if you subsidize these positions at rates of pay considerably above what the market offers, that somehow everybody will be happy and peace and joy and choruses of Kumbayah will break out. This is based on Maslow's Heirarchy of Need and idea socialists have seized on to justify placing all governance in the hands of a few elite smart people. The theory goes that if you give people assurance of food, water, clothing, shelter, healthcare and some sort of busywork to do, they will spontaneously want to move up the heirarchy and want to be productive, creative and useful citizens to the collective that gives them the basics. The Russians discovered, for instance, that when you took the farms away from the farmers and paid them what farm hands get paid, they weren't interested in managing their farms and doing all the extra hard work that farm owners do. They wound up with everybody on the farm doing the minimum and everybody began to starve (except the farmers that were growing stuff for themselves off the books).

Unfortunately for Marxist theory, Maslow was wrong. People without adequate food, shelter, clothing and healthcare do self-actuated, highly productive and creative things all the time - whether because they just are that sort of people or because they are hoping for a reward or payoff as a result of what they are doing. The theory is balderdash. If you pay people a lot of money who have no skills, then they have no motivation to learn any new skills or even the bare bones requirements of their jobs. They just sit around drawing a paycheck and doing as little as possible.

I have been an employer. I took over one small company that was losing $5000 a quarter. The staff was demoralized. Nobody had had a raise in ages because there was no money to give them raises. I came in and worked for six weeks without pay, Found a grant to cover my paycheck and began overhauling the organization. Instead of raises being given by time served, I looked around, found a couple of people who werer still working hard and trying to do a good job and gave each a small raise (remember we were still losing money). I visited my people and asked for their input as to how we could improve things and make their lives easier on the job. I acted promptly to get them what I could and gave them timelines for when we would get the rest. I stayed there late at night painting and fixing things up working hours I was not paid for. I got us some nice carpet for the rooms they worked in. We organized their equipment and made it easier for them to get to without having to run begging to the bosses for what they needed. Even got them some equipment they needed. 

In the first quarter we broke even and had a 20% growth in customers. By the end of the year we had cleared $19,000 above operating expenses and had a cash reserve. I gave more raises and worker performance improved except in two or three cases where the employees continued to do the minimum possible and grumbled because they weren't getting raises. As they began to get the idea, they began to do extra and to put more energy into their work. As they did so, we made more money and I was able to give more raises.

Most employers do that kind of thing. If they don't, you shouldn't work for them. If people didn't tolerate bad employers, they would have to pay far more than the good employers for help. Then bad employees could take the jobs with the bad employers, make more money for putting up with lousy working conditions and everybody would be happy. Right?

No, of course, not. If people stopped working for a bad employer who didn't give them a fair wage, the employer would have to improve working conditions and give a fair wage in order to have an adequate number of employees to conduct business. Bad employees, no matter how well paid, drive away customers, so the owner, in order to make more profits would have to pay an increased market price in order to get good employees.

That's how free market capitalism works. Artificially bumping up wages of entry level workers does nothing to improve their working conditions, their performance on the job or the way they take care of a business's customers. Mostly it just gets minimum effort employees replaced by higher paid people who can do the slacker's job and their own or the operation gets roboticized.

Now stick out your tongue and say "nyuh-uh!" That always works. Maybe call me, what was it? Oh, yeah, "mean-spirited and ignorant." Well I turned a losing business into a profitable one with a healthy cash reserve, 30% customer increase, improved facilities, better program and better-paid employees in 9 months. And I raised my entire first year's salary from outside sources. Years later after we ended the project, I still have former employees on my Friends List on Facebook.

So tell me, what have you done, oh great expert on how business should run, that gives you expertise in this matter?

© 2015 by Tom King