It seems as if any political discussion, between people from different political parties, quickly turns into an argument. If you happen to be neutral, then each side either assumes you agree with them, or labels you as one of the enemy. Since neither side has any interest in listening to the other side, maybe it would be simpler to just put everyone in boxing gloves and let them duke it out. Much more entertaining than listening to the same old, tired rhetoric.
Many of my friends and family have chosen to back the Republican Party and about an equal number has chosen the Democrats. My own political views tend to take some from each party, so in an ideal world, I should have a difficult time making a choice at election time. However, the Republican Party has made my choice very simple. Give me a few minutes of your time, and I'll explain.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan, chose to embrace religion in order to win the presidential election. The Moral Majority played a role in his campaign. Since that time, the Republican party has worked diligently to turn Fundamentalist Christian doctrine into law. Many schools shifted from fact based sexual education to an abstinence only curriculum, and the solution to drug abuse was "just say no". AIDS was ignored for years, because it was considered a "gay disease". More recently, laws have been proposed, and in some cases passed, to prohibit gay marriage. The Republicans have also dedicated themselves to a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion under any circumstance. There have also been pushes to prohibit the teaching of evolution in public schools. These are just a few examples that I see as steps in the wrong direction.
Sex. It's always been around, and will always be around. Somewhere in their very early teens, most kids suddenly start noticing others in a brand new way. Given the opportunity, regardless of any sex ed program, they are going to try and find ways to satisfy these new urges. Knowledge is the best tool you can give them. The more they understand about their bodies, the better able they will be to make intelligent decisions about sex. The same is true when it comes to educating children about drugs. As for evolution, the evidence has gone way beyond proof. Ignoring facts does not make them go away.
Contrary to the picture pro-life groups keep trying to paint, abortion is not something anyone wants. Planned Parenthood isn't out soliciting for people to get pregnant so they can perform more abortions. Just like nobody is out there saying "I hope I get cancer so I can go through chemotherapy". Outlawing abortion causes more problems than it solves. For the wealthy, it's easy to take a vacation to Europe to get a legal abortion, while the poor will end up resorting to some back alley clinic. With proper sex education and easy access to birth control, the number of abortions will decrease, because unplanned/unwanted pregnancies will decrease.
When it comes to gay rights, I believe that everyone should be treated equally by the law. A person's sexual preference should have nothing to do with how they are treated. If marriage grants rights to people with regards to property and taxation, then how can it be fair to limit it to only a portion of the population? I can not accept that my friends and family that are gay should have less rights than I have.
It seems to me that many within the Republican Party want to turn our democracy into a theocracy. In my opinion, that is one of the worst ideas of all time. God has never been much good at governing. He (she, whatever) made the universe, made a man and woman, gave them one rule and then left them to their own devices. When they broke the rule, he kicked them out and left them to their own devices. When his chosen people were slaves, he rained death and destruction on Egypt, busted them out and left them to their own devices. Finally, he gave them 10 laws, pointed them in the right direction, helped them wipe out everyone in their way, and left them to their own devices. Do you see a theme here? Making decisions for an entire nation based upon what someone thinks God wants, is a recipe for disaster.
Until the GOP abandons their religious stance for a political stance, I can not, at any time, in good conscience favor one of their candidates over any other candidate.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
All Men Are Not Created Equal
This morning's hangover cure is going to be a smoothie made with math, history and sociology, garnished with a twist of lemon. The need for this cure came about from a discussion with a bass player and a friend, after a few hops infused stress reducers. What gave me the hangover was the statement "Women are not equal to men."
Time to throw in the math ingredients. As everyone should know, if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. This works as long as A, B and C are all constants. People are not constants (or consistent), each is a conglomeration of constantly changing variables, and constants. To make the equation more confusing, what is a constant with one person may be a variable with another. A simple example is eye color. Mine are brown, always have been and probably always will be. Possibly because I'm full of ... What all of this means is that no person is equal to another person, not even identical twins. Obviously, women are not equal to men. Duh.
No sane person is insisting that we all become equal in the mathematical definition. Can you imagine 8 billion people that look like me and are always right? Personally, I can't even handle me looking like me and there's probably something wrong about that. What some people, myself included, want to see is a world (at least a country) where everyone is treated equally, by society, and by the law. No person should be forced into a situation because of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. This means some allowances need to be made. After all, men don't become pregnant and women don't worry about the size of their penises (shouldn't that be penii?).
Now it's time for a little history. Following the ♀ ╪ ♂ (women not equal to men) comment came the expression that women were much better off before they tried to be equal. Apparently, before they were placed on a pedestal, etc. There is a small amount of truth there, mixed in with a historical view severely distorted by Hollywood. Throughout history and around the world, the rights of women have been limited, restricted, and in many cases, non-existent. In ancient Rome, a woman's father was her absolute ruler, until she married, then her husband effectively became her father. Anything the husband/father did to the woman was within his rights, she had none. In Medieval Europe, women were mostly barred from owning property, and in the cases where they were allowed to own it, title passed to their husband. Later, some laws allowed the woman to retain ownership, but her husband was entitled to all income and allowed to manage the property as he saw fit. Not until the 1840's did some of the states here begin removing restrictions on property rights for women.
Less than 150 years ago, the concept of "voluntary motherhood" was introduced in this country. In other words, until that time, a woman had no say in whether or not she became pregnant. This isn't saying that a woman could decide whether or not she wanted her husband to use a condom. She was simply given the option of not having sex if she didn't want to get pregnant. So, any women out there, which would you prefer: Have men hold open doors for you, or be required, by law, to have sex with your husband, whenever he wishes (combined with a restriction that severely limits your ability to get a divorce)?
Within the confines of your own marriage, do what works for both of you. If you believe the man is master and the woman's job is to serve him, find a partner that feels the same way and may you live happily ever after. However, outside your home each person should be treated equally, regardless of their sex. I don't hold open doors for women, I hold open doors for people. Young or old, male or female, if the person is within a reasonable distance then I take a few seconds and hold the door. Sometimes people will do the same for me. Maybe we need to get beyond seeing each other as men and women and start treating everyone the same. Save the gender issues for when they are actually an issue, rather than using them as a restriction or qualification.
The good news is that we are slowly improving. In a 2011 survey by Newsweek magazine, the United States ranked 8th in the world for gender equality. Interesting to me is the fact that all the countries above us on the list are northern countries. Apparently, being in the doghouse is much worse in Finland.
Time to throw in the math ingredients. As everyone should know, if A = B, and B = C, then A = C. This works as long as A, B and C are all constants. People are not constants (or consistent), each is a conglomeration of constantly changing variables, and constants. To make the equation more confusing, what is a constant with one person may be a variable with another. A simple example is eye color. Mine are brown, always have been and probably always will be. Possibly because I'm full of ... What all of this means is that no person is equal to another person, not even identical twins. Obviously, women are not equal to men. Duh.
No sane person is insisting that we all become equal in the mathematical definition. Can you imagine 8 billion people that look like me and are always right? Personally, I can't even handle me looking like me and there's probably something wrong about that. What some people, myself included, want to see is a world (at least a country) where everyone is treated equally, by society, and by the law. No person should be forced into a situation because of their race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. This means some allowances need to be made. After all, men don't become pregnant and women don't worry about the size of their penises (shouldn't that be penii?).
Now it's time for a little history. Following the ♀ ╪ ♂ (women not equal to men) comment came the expression that women were much better off before they tried to be equal. Apparently, before they were placed on a pedestal, etc. There is a small amount of truth there, mixed in with a historical view severely distorted by Hollywood. Throughout history and around the world, the rights of women have been limited, restricted, and in many cases, non-existent. In ancient Rome, a woman's father was her absolute ruler, until she married, then her husband effectively became her father. Anything the husband/father did to the woman was within his rights, she had none. In Medieval Europe, women were mostly barred from owning property, and in the cases where they were allowed to own it, title passed to their husband. Later, some laws allowed the woman to retain ownership, but her husband was entitled to all income and allowed to manage the property as he saw fit. Not until the 1840's did some of the states here begin removing restrictions on property rights for women.
Less than 150 years ago, the concept of "voluntary motherhood" was introduced in this country. In other words, until that time, a woman had no say in whether or not she became pregnant. This isn't saying that a woman could decide whether or not she wanted her husband to use a condom. She was simply given the option of not having sex if she didn't want to get pregnant. So, any women out there, which would you prefer: Have men hold open doors for you, or be required, by law, to have sex with your husband, whenever he wishes (combined with a restriction that severely limits your ability to get a divorce)?
Within the confines of your own marriage, do what works for both of you. If you believe the man is master and the woman's job is to serve him, find a partner that feels the same way and may you live happily ever after. However, outside your home each person should be treated equally, regardless of their sex. I don't hold open doors for women, I hold open doors for people. Young or old, male or female, if the person is within a reasonable distance then I take a few seconds and hold the door. Sometimes people will do the same for me. Maybe we need to get beyond seeing each other as men and women and start treating everyone the same. Save the gender issues for when they are actually an issue, rather than using them as a restriction or qualification.
The good news is that we are slowly improving. In a 2011 survey by Newsweek magazine, the United States ranked 8th in the world for gender equality. Interesting to me is the fact that all the countries above us on the list are northern countries. Apparently, being in the doghouse is much worse in Finland.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Money... It's a Hit
Money. Add that to the list of things I don't understand. Give me a $20 bill and I know I can go buy dinner (if I don't leave a tip), take a date to a movie (no popcorn or sodas) or buy enough gas to get me to and from work for 3 days. That part isn't the problem. The confusion comes about when money enters the corporate equation.
From my viewpoint, if I have something I don't need and know someone that needs it, I'll either give or sell it to them for a fair price, with the price being inversely proportional to the need. This is apparently the wrong way to do things. It's certainly not the way to get rich. Price in the real world goes up with need. Watch gas prices before any holiday where people will be traveling to be with family and friends and you'll see what I mean. To make matters worse, advertising is thrown in to create or increase a perceived need. There is something to this madness, spending money creates jobs. If every adult in America bought a new car every year, unemployment would disappear. Unfortunately, the price of cars would increase significantly.
None of the above is relevant to what I want to write about today. If you're confused, don't worry, it will probably get worse.
The Leveraged Buyout (LBO) is today's topic. This type of financial transaction became popular about 30 years ago and had made many millionaires and billionaires. In simplest terms an LBO is a way for a group of investors to buy another company. Nothing ominous there. If someone owns a bar and you want to buy the bar, you find out the price, talk a bank into loaning you what you need and everything is settled. An LBO get's a little more complicated. With an LBO, the original bar owner might find out he still owns the bar, even though all the booze has been sold, all the customers have been driven away, and the bar now has a huge mortgage attached to it. Besides LBO, I'll be using another acronym for the Group of Buyers Seeking Leveraged buyouts, GBSL's (just think greedy, bloodsucking leeches).
The target of an LBO is usually a strong company that might have a weak spot. Perhaps they have some new competition, or have had some recent problems. After finding a target the GBSL's will put down about 5% of the money needed and get a bank to loan the other 95%. If the LBO is a friendly takeover, then the GBSL's will approach the board of directors, sell them on the plan (usually by buying them out with promises of bonuses). An offer is made, stock changes hands and the GBSL's now own the company. Seems a reasonable transaction so far. Now to get to the shady stuff.
If the company's stock is trading at $100/share and there are 1 million shares outstanding, it's going to cost about $50 million to get control. It is possible, through rumor and stock manipulation, to lower that share price, perhaps by as much as 30%. Which would mean the GBSL's can get a $100 milllion ($100m) company for $35m, of which only $1.75m is their own money. After the purchase, optimism (rumor and more stock manipulation) will probably result in an increase in share price. Already they are making money and the fun is just beginning. Since the GBSL's now own the company, the first thing to do is get money from the company to pay off the loan (plus interest) they used to buy the company, thus transferring their debt to the company. The next step is to "improve" the company. Improvements usually involve getting rid of things the GBSL's consider useless, like employees.
Less employees means lower costs, which makes the company look more profitable to investors, causing stock prices to increase again. I almost forgot, the GBSL's should get some compensation for the way they've "improved" the company, so they agree to pay themselves a consulting fee for thinking of using the company's money to buy the company. Brilliant. Let's see where the company and GBSL's are now financially. Company share price is now $120/share and the company is now carrying $35m of extra debt, but the savings from job cuts more than pays for the new debt. The company has paid a $1.75m consulting fee to the GBSL's who now own $60m worth of the company stock. Not a bad return on investment. If it stopped right there the company might very well go on to make more money, add more employees through expansion and everyone is happy. Wouldn't that be nice?
But, the GBSL's usually aren't satisfied with a 3500% return on their investment, and why should they be. With a more profitable company, and for all the shareholders hard work, everyone deserves a dividend. Now where will they find the money for that? I know, let's borrow $100m so that every share gets a $100 dividend this quarter. After all, the company has new owners (that just paid themselves $50m) and they are obviously destined for greatness. Good news, now the stock price is at $140/share, double what the GBSL's paid for it. Time to sell, get another $70m and take a well-deserved GBSL vacation.
In the end you have the GBSL's who have walked off with $120m, a company that suddenly finds itself buried in debt and will quite likely end up closing its doors. The banks involved may not get 100% of their money (plus interest) back, but its not their money, so everything is good. Unless you happened to be one of those employees. This is what happened to Federated Department Stores, Revco, Kaybee Toys and AmPad, among many others.
Somehow this just doesn't seem right to me. If I work for a company for 30 years and then find out that my job no longer exists and my pension has now been taken to pay off the bank, I probably am not going to be cheering for the GBSL's that just scored an incredible profit. I once worked for a company that did something similar to an LBO, but it was all internal. Within a few months they went from 600 employees to 12 employees. Meanwhile the owners (8 of the 12 employees left) were raking in millions.
Since this is an election year, maybe we should take a look at the business model of the man who probably best deserves the title "Father of Our Country", Benjamin Franklin. As a teenager, he ran away from his apprenticeship with his much older brother, left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where through hard work and a lot of smooth talking he became a very successful printer. As he became more successful, he helped skilled apprentices set up their own printing shops and newspapers, by loaning them the capitol needed. Many early American families owe their wealth at least in part, to Benjamin Franklin. He donated his time, money and influence to help improve the city of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania colony. In his spare time, he wrote and distributed pamphlets with the intent of improving the lives of everyone. He worked tirelessly to get the King of England to require the English nobility landowners to pay taxes on their huge estates in the new world. Even then, the wealthiest did not feel like they should pay their fair share.
If you have a few million lying around and don't know what to do with it, getting in the LBO game is a great way to turn a few million into a few hundred million. If, instead you're hoping that nothing goes wrong this month, so you can put a few dollars away, or can catch up on the bills you've had to let slide since the last setback, you might want to question whether you want a GBSL bringing an LBO to every American. If that happens, well, we're all probably SOL.
From my viewpoint, if I have something I don't need and know someone that needs it, I'll either give or sell it to them for a fair price, with the price being inversely proportional to the need. This is apparently the wrong way to do things. It's certainly not the way to get rich. Price in the real world goes up with need. Watch gas prices before any holiday where people will be traveling to be with family and friends and you'll see what I mean. To make matters worse, advertising is thrown in to create or increase a perceived need. There is something to this madness, spending money creates jobs. If every adult in America bought a new car every year, unemployment would disappear. Unfortunately, the price of cars would increase significantly.
None of the above is relevant to what I want to write about today. If you're confused, don't worry, it will probably get worse.
The Leveraged Buyout (LBO) is today's topic. This type of financial transaction became popular about 30 years ago and had made many millionaires and billionaires. In simplest terms an LBO is a way for a group of investors to buy another company. Nothing ominous there. If someone owns a bar and you want to buy the bar, you find out the price, talk a bank into loaning you what you need and everything is settled. An LBO get's a little more complicated. With an LBO, the original bar owner might find out he still owns the bar, even though all the booze has been sold, all the customers have been driven away, and the bar now has a huge mortgage attached to it. Besides LBO, I'll be using another acronym for the Group of Buyers Seeking Leveraged buyouts, GBSL's (just think greedy, bloodsucking leeches).
The target of an LBO is usually a strong company that might have a weak spot. Perhaps they have some new competition, or have had some recent problems. After finding a target the GBSL's will put down about 5% of the money needed and get a bank to loan the other 95%. If the LBO is a friendly takeover, then the GBSL's will approach the board of directors, sell them on the plan (usually by buying them out with promises of bonuses). An offer is made, stock changes hands and the GBSL's now own the company. Seems a reasonable transaction so far. Now to get to the shady stuff.
If the company's stock is trading at $100/share and there are 1 million shares outstanding, it's going to cost about $50 million to get control. It is possible, through rumor and stock manipulation, to lower that share price, perhaps by as much as 30%. Which would mean the GBSL's can get a $100 milllion ($100m) company for $35m, of which only $1.75m is their own money. After the purchase, optimism (rumor and more stock manipulation) will probably result in an increase in share price. Already they are making money and the fun is just beginning. Since the GBSL's now own the company, the first thing to do is get money from the company to pay off the loan (plus interest) they used to buy the company, thus transferring their debt to the company. The next step is to "improve" the company. Improvements usually involve getting rid of things the GBSL's consider useless, like employees.
Less employees means lower costs, which makes the company look more profitable to investors, causing stock prices to increase again. I almost forgot, the GBSL's should get some compensation for the way they've "improved" the company, so they agree to pay themselves a consulting fee for thinking of using the company's money to buy the company. Brilliant. Let's see where the company and GBSL's are now financially. Company share price is now $120/share and the company is now carrying $35m of extra debt, but the savings from job cuts more than pays for the new debt. The company has paid a $1.75m consulting fee to the GBSL's who now own $60m worth of the company stock. Not a bad return on investment. If it stopped right there the company might very well go on to make more money, add more employees through expansion and everyone is happy. Wouldn't that be nice?
But, the GBSL's usually aren't satisfied with a 3500% return on their investment, and why should they be. With a more profitable company, and for all the shareholders hard work, everyone deserves a dividend. Now where will they find the money for that? I know, let's borrow $100m so that every share gets a $100 dividend this quarter. After all, the company has new owners (that just paid themselves $50m) and they are obviously destined for greatness. Good news, now the stock price is at $140/share, double what the GBSL's paid for it. Time to sell, get another $70m and take a well-deserved GBSL vacation.
In the end you have the GBSL's who have walked off with $120m, a company that suddenly finds itself buried in debt and will quite likely end up closing its doors. The banks involved may not get 100% of their money (plus interest) back, but its not their money, so everything is good. Unless you happened to be one of those employees. This is what happened to Federated Department Stores, Revco, Kaybee Toys and AmPad, among many others.
Somehow this just doesn't seem right to me. If I work for a company for 30 years and then find out that my job no longer exists and my pension has now been taken to pay off the bank, I probably am not going to be cheering for the GBSL's that just scored an incredible profit. I once worked for a company that did something similar to an LBO, but it was all internal. Within a few months they went from 600 employees to 12 employees. Meanwhile the owners (8 of the 12 employees left) were raking in millions.
Since this is an election year, maybe we should take a look at the business model of the man who probably best deserves the title "Father of Our Country", Benjamin Franklin. As a teenager, he ran away from his apprenticeship with his much older brother, left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where through hard work and a lot of smooth talking he became a very successful printer. As he became more successful, he helped skilled apprentices set up their own printing shops and newspapers, by loaning them the capitol needed. Many early American families owe their wealth at least in part, to Benjamin Franklin. He donated his time, money and influence to help improve the city of Philadelphia and the Pennsylvania colony. In his spare time, he wrote and distributed pamphlets with the intent of improving the lives of everyone. He worked tirelessly to get the King of England to require the English nobility landowners to pay taxes on their huge estates in the new world. Even then, the wealthiest did not feel like they should pay their fair share.
If you have a few million lying around and don't know what to do with it, getting in the LBO game is a great way to turn a few million into a few hundred million. If, instead you're hoping that nothing goes wrong this month, so you can put a few dollars away, or can catch up on the bills you've had to let slide since the last setback, you might want to question whether you want a GBSL bringing an LBO to every American. If that happens, well, we're all probably SOL.
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Just the Facts Ma'am
Every time someone talks politics at me (rather than discuss with me) they feel the need to state that whatever they are saying is "a fact", "a known fact" or "a proven fact". At that point my mind shuts down, and rather than try to discuss the issues I instead see how high I can get their blood pressure. After all, if my time is going to be wasted, I might as well get something out of it. If they collapse, I can go through their pockets after calling 911 and before starting CPR.
Facts are. They are self-evident, and do not require anyone to point them out. Saying or writing something does not make it a fact, neither does hearing something, no matter the source. If the voice of God tells me the drinking water in Tijuana is safe to drink, I'm going to have doubts. Seven days of not being able to get more than 20 feet away from a toilet turned me into a skeptic. In short, a fact is something that every sane person will readily accept. Although it may not be a fact, I consider myself sane, so anytime you feel the need to call something a fact, please be prepared to state your sources, provide all validation data you have collected and explain step-by-step your methodology. Or just tell me who you heard it from. If you have a heart condition, please be carrying a reasonable amount of cash, I want to show a profit.
To date, nothing that I have been told is a "fact" has turned out to be one. The word is very useful in making a sales pitch, especially if the deal is a bit on the shady side. "It's a fact that this vehicle will go 4 times the distance of a Toyota Prius on a single tank of fuel." Read the fine print, the vehicle is a truck with 350 gallon fuel capacity and only gets 7.5 mpg. Whenever someone tells you something is "a fact" keep your hand on your wallet. They are selling something and are not interested in ethics.
Facts are often misleading. Fact: President Reagan declared war on the Soviet Union. True, but he was joking around before giving a speech. Fact: President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. True, but his definition of what is not sex will get you in trouble every time. The best advice I can give is to avoid "facts" as you would avoid an extended, face-to-face conversation with someone who has very bad breath.
Over the past four years, "facts" have been used extensively against President Obama. No actual proof has ever been presented, but a significant portion of the country has accepted these "facts" and are now using them as part of their election day decision-making. Throw out all the "facts", forget them and move on to reality. Look at the individual records of what each candidate has done. How did they vote on the issues at their previous elected position? What were the end results of the approved bills which they backed? Have their proposals been attempted in the past, either here or abroad, and what were the results? What types of business dealings have they engaged in in the past? Would you consider these to be good for America? And, lastly; What do you define as "good for America"?
Avoid other people's "facts" and find your own. Then vote according to your own answers and not those that have been forced down your throat by self-righteous commentators.
Facts are. They are self-evident, and do not require anyone to point them out. Saying or writing something does not make it a fact, neither does hearing something, no matter the source. If the voice of God tells me the drinking water in Tijuana is safe to drink, I'm going to have doubts. Seven days of not being able to get more than 20 feet away from a toilet turned me into a skeptic. In short, a fact is something that every sane person will readily accept. Although it may not be a fact, I consider myself sane, so anytime you feel the need to call something a fact, please be prepared to state your sources, provide all validation data you have collected and explain step-by-step your methodology. Or just tell me who you heard it from. If you have a heart condition, please be carrying a reasonable amount of cash, I want to show a profit.
To date, nothing that I have been told is a "fact" has turned out to be one. The word is very useful in making a sales pitch, especially if the deal is a bit on the shady side. "It's a fact that this vehicle will go 4 times the distance of a Toyota Prius on a single tank of fuel." Read the fine print, the vehicle is a truck with 350 gallon fuel capacity and only gets 7.5 mpg. Whenever someone tells you something is "a fact" keep your hand on your wallet. They are selling something and are not interested in ethics.
Facts are often misleading. Fact: President Reagan declared war on the Soviet Union. True, but he was joking around before giving a speech. Fact: President Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. True, but his definition of what is not sex will get you in trouble every time. The best advice I can give is to avoid "facts" as you would avoid an extended, face-to-face conversation with someone who has very bad breath.
Over the past four years, "facts" have been used extensively against President Obama. No actual proof has ever been presented, but a significant portion of the country has accepted these "facts" and are now using them as part of their election day decision-making. Throw out all the "facts", forget them and move on to reality. Look at the individual records of what each candidate has done. How did they vote on the issues at their previous elected position? What were the end results of the approved bills which they backed? Have their proposals been attempted in the past, either here or abroad, and what were the results? What types of business dealings have they engaged in in the past? Would you consider these to be good for America? And, lastly; What do you define as "good for America"?
Avoid other people's "facts" and find your own. Then vote according to your own answers and not those that have been forced down your throat by self-righteous commentators.
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Time for a History Lesson
I enjoy dabbling in history, not as a serious student, just for my own enjoyment. The philosopher, novelist, essayist and poet, George Santayana wrote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". History contains every mistake that has ever been made, so the more you know, the more prepared you are for life.
History isn't limited to the tedious memorization of dates, our education system seems obsessed with, in fact, the date is the least important part. History is my great Grandfather telling me that if I wanted to catch a rabbit, all I had to do was pour salt on its tail. Only took me about 3 hours running around the fields with a salt shaker to learn that lesson. History is my sister telling me about falling asleep and driving into the median in her truck, and what she did about it. Came in very handy when I was forced off the road, doing 75 mph, in New Mexico. The trick is to head to the middle of the median and stop. Don't try to pull back on the road, or you'll roll over. History is everywhere, all you have to do is recognize and learn from it when given the opportunity.
The upcoming election and last weeks Republican National Convention have convinced me that Mitt Romney and the GOP are not students of history. This could possibly pose some problems for the Romney-Ryan campaign. However, since most American voters seem to be clueless when it comes to history (and the economy, and foreign policy, and the constitution and how to use a turn signal), there is a good chance no one will notice.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was running for re-election and was somewhat vulnerable. The Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry for President. Sen. Kerry had been characterized as a Vietnam War veteran and hero, had significant advantages when it came to funding a campaign and should have had no trouble winning the election. Except, there were questions about his military service, doubts about the validity of some of his service awards and about his war hero stories existed. A simple solution was available, sign one piece of paper and authorize the release of his service records. He refused to do this and lost the election. After reading both the authorized and unauthorized biographies of Sen. Kerry, I'm convinced that a release of his service records would have destroyed his campaign. It probably would have saved many millions of dollars that were donated to his campaign, but it would have forever ended his political career.
In 2008, Senator John McCain won the GOP nomination to replace President Bush. After eight years of the Bush-Cheney regime, the Democrats should have been highly favored to win the election. All they needed was a decent candidate with no major skeletons in their closet. Instead, they selected a freshman Senator, that not only had an unusual name, but he was an African-American as well. Combining a lack of political experience with bigotry, took the Democrats from a sure thing to the underdog. Now all Sen. McCain needed was the right running-mate and he could move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Instead, he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
I know that Mrs. Palin has her fans, but there was no benefit to selecting her. Alaska's population is too small to have an impact and her far right-wing beliefs only appeal to the voters which are already solidly behind any non-Democratic candidate. This drove a significant number of moderate Republicans to vote for Sen. Obama and kept moderate Democrats from voting for Sen. McCain. The rest is history.
Another Sen. McCain blunder was when a reporter asked how many houses he owned and the Senator did not know the answer. Anyone else ever have that problem? This created a distance between Sen. McCain and the average voter. Now along comes Mitt Romney. Can you visualize him sitting in Hooters cheering for his team and sharing a few pitchers with the guys? How about changing a tire, or unclogging a toilet? Do you see him worrying about how he's going to pay the bills if something goes wrong? There is nothing wrong about being born into wealth, or with making millions. I'm all in favor of both. I just don't see Mitt Romney as someone that can understand the problems the average American faces.
There have been repeated calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns and in response he has released his return for 2010 and his estimated return for 2011. Most of us had to have our 2011 taxes completed by April 16, 2012, but then his returns are quite a bit more complicated than mine. I would be willing to bet that he spends more money having his taxes prepared each year than I've made over the last 10 years. Until he releases all of his returns for a significant number of years, The Democrats have a distinct advantage any time taxation is mentioned. Perhaps before the nomination, someone should have thought about how those records, unless they are squeaky clean, can cause problems.
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has been chosen to complete the GOP ticket. At 42, Rep. Ryan is, young, fit and attractive, an ideal poster child for the GOP. In a few more years he could be considered as a possible Presidential candidate. Remember your history lesson? Rep. Ryan's ideology doesn't appeal to moderate voters of either party. With the recent Todd Akin blunder still leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the last thing the Republicans need is another "No Abortion For Any Reason" mouthpiece on the national stage. Once again, the Republican Presidential candidate has felt the need to placate the minority in the party that will never vote outside the party.
During the Republican National Convention, Rep. Ryan's speech contained several misleading statements, misrepresentations and some outright lies. Check the news and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I try to limit my lies to ones that I can't be caught in or ones that don't make me look bad when I am caught. So, telling a girl, I was trying to pick up in a bar 30 years ago, that my sprained knee had happened trying out for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was okay with me. Not that it worked, but at least I didn't have to worry about being called out for it.
History, if you pay attention to it, there are a great number of lessons to be learned. If you ignore it, don't be surprised when you keep repeating past mistakes.
Here's a summation of my history lesson for the GOP:
1. Choose a candidate with a broad appeal, especially with moderate voters.
2. Choose a candidate that can bring personal transparency to the campaign.
Their life needs to be an open book for all to see.
3. Choose a candidate that the average American can relate to, someone who
has struggled to pay the rent, someone who understands our problems and concerns.
4. Choose a Vice-President candidate who broadens your Presidential candidates
appeal rather than limiting it.
5. When talking about the issues use facts. Save the stories for tucking your kids
in at night.
History isn't limited to the tedious memorization of dates, our education system seems obsessed with, in fact, the date is the least important part. History is my great Grandfather telling me that if I wanted to catch a rabbit, all I had to do was pour salt on its tail. Only took me about 3 hours running around the fields with a salt shaker to learn that lesson. History is my sister telling me about falling asleep and driving into the median in her truck, and what she did about it. Came in very handy when I was forced off the road, doing 75 mph, in New Mexico. The trick is to head to the middle of the median and stop. Don't try to pull back on the road, or you'll roll over. History is everywhere, all you have to do is recognize and learn from it when given the opportunity.
The upcoming election and last weeks Republican National Convention have convinced me that Mitt Romney and the GOP are not students of history. This could possibly pose some problems for the Romney-Ryan campaign. However, since most American voters seem to be clueless when it comes to history (and the economy, and foreign policy, and the constitution and how to use a turn signal), there is a good chance no one will notice.
In 2004, President George W. Bush was running for re-election and was somewhat vulnerable. The Democratic Party nominated Senator John Kerry for President. Sen. Kerry had been characterized as a Vietnam War veteran and hero, had significant advantages when it came to funding a campaign and should have had no trouble winning the election. Except, there were questions about his military service, doubts about the validity of some of his service awards and about his war hero stories existed. A simple solution was available, sign one piece of paper and authorize the release of his service records. He refused to do this and lost the election. After reading both the authorized and unauthorized biographies of Sen. Kerry, I'm convinced that a release of his service records would have destroyed his campaign. It probably would have saved many millions of dollars that were donated to his campaign, but it would have forever ended his political career.
In 2008, Senator John McCain won the GOP nomination to replace President Bush. After eight years of the Bush-Cheney regime, the Democrats should have been highly favored to win the election. All they needed was a decent candidate with no major skeletons in their closet. Instead, they selected a freshman Senator, that not only had an unusual name, but he was an African-American as well. Combining a lack of political experience with bigotry, took the Democrats from a sure thing to the underdog. Now all Sen. McCain needed was the right running-mate and he could move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Instead, he chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.
I know that Mrs. Palin has her fans, but there was no benefit to selecting her. Alaska's population is too small to have an impact and her far right-wing beliefs only appeal to the voters which are already solidly behind any non-Democratic candidate. This drove a significant number of moderate Republicans to vote for Sen. Obama and kept moderate Democrats from voting for Sen. McCain. The rest is history.
Another Sen. McCain blunder was when a reporter asked how many houses he owned and the Senator did not know the answer. Anyone else ever have that problem? This created a distance between Sen. McCain and the average voter. Now along comes Mitt Romney. Can you visualize him sitting in Hooters cheering for his team and sharing a few pitchers with the guys? How about changing a tire, or unclogging a toilet? Do you see him worrying about how he's going to pay the bills if something goes wrong? There is nothing wrong about being born into wealth, or with making millions. I'm all in favor of both. I just don't see Mitt Romney as someone that can understand the problems the average American faces.
There have been repeated calls for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns and in response he has released his return for 2010 and his estimated return for 2011. Most of us had to have our 2011 taxes completed by April 16, 2012, but then his returns are quite a bit more complicated than mine. I would be willing to bet that he spends more money having his taxes prepared each year than I've made over the last 10 years. Until he releases all of his returns for a significant number of years, The Democrats have a distinct advantage any time taxation is mentioned. Perhaps before the nomination, someone should have thought about how those records, unless they are squeaky clean, can cause problems.
Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan has been chosen to complete the GOP ticket. At 42, Rep. Ryan is, young, fit and attractive, an ideal poster child for the GOP. In a few more years he could be considered as a possible Presidential candidate. Remember your history lesson? Rep. Ryan's ideology doesn't appeal to moderate voters of either party. With the recent Todd Akin blunder still leaving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, the last thing the Republicans need is another "No Abortion For Any Reason" mouthpiece on the national stage. Once again, the Republican Presidential candidate has felt the need to placate the minority in the party that will never vote outside the party.
During the Republican National Convention, Rep. Ryan's speech contained several misleading statements, misrepresentations and some outright lies. Check the news and you'll see what I mean. Personally, I try to limit my lies to ones that I can't be caught in or ones that don't make me look bad when I am caught. So, telling a girl, I was trying to pick up in a bar 30 years ago, that my sprained knee had happened trying out for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was okay with me. Not that it worked, but at least I didn't have to worry about being called out for it.
History, if you pay attention to it, there are a great number of lessons to be learned. If you ignore it, don't be surprised when you keep repeating past mistakes.
Here's a summation of my history lesson for the GOP:
1. Choose a candidate with a broad appeal, especially with moderate voters.
2. Choose a candidate that can bring personal transparency to the campaign.
Their life needs to be an open book for all to see.
3. Choose a candidate that the average American can relate to, someone who
has struggled to pay the rent, someone who understands our problems and concerns.
4. Choose a Vice-President candidate who broadens your Presidential candidates
appeal rather than limiting it.
5. When talking about the issues use facts. Save the stories for tucking your kids
in at night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)