Pro Choice - what's that?

Over the years, the media has come up with many monikers for different issues. Some are catchy, while others have been duds. But none is as controversial as Pro Choice.

Pro-Choice: a woman's right to choose. Not just anything, only her right to choose an abortion.

So, what's the other side of this debate portrayed as: Pro-Life.

In the realm of opposites, some one who is opposed to Pro-Life is anti-life, right!? I can't imagine anyone admitting to that. But in the fiercest of debates, many pro-choice supporters have expressed anti-life views. This is tragic.

The central issue is abortion. It is neither pro-choice or pro-life. It is not one's opinion or faith, it simply is a medical necessity. Like all medical procedures, it should only be performed when absolutely necessary and no other options exist.

Left media's arch enemy, Former President George W. Bush had put it elegantly - Abortion should be safe, legal & rare. Can any rational person argue with that?

Apparently, they can. And they have - through many law suits to such basic requirements as parental consent for under-aged minors, guidance counseling, etc. This is quite a travesty.

So, if a woman wants to say since it is my choice, I want to abort any pregnancy any time I want, I think we have a larger social dysfunction in place.

Pro-Choice is probably the worst moniker there is.

Big Bird

It has become a campaign issue. We are all supposed to be outraged by Romney's position on funding for public broadcasting. Really?

As we all know, commercial media reacts to financial incentives. Viewer preferences are conveyed through two means - ad revenues and Nielsen media survey. Discounting the small sampling of the survey compared to the ad revenues, we can be pretty sure that media execs know which shows are selling and which are not. We see this in action all the time as many shows fall bathe way side - if something is not watched, so are the ads not generating the revenue.

PBS has many quality shows. I watch them all the time. But we all are paying for it in entirely different fashion - forced through our tax dollars. Some are implying that that is the only way to have quality shows. That tells us something else about the society at large - that our priorities are misplaced.

And that is also the crux of this election year - our core values. This is about 2 very different paths we could choose. If we are too dumb to pick quality TV shows for our kids, are we smart enough to vote?

Energy Independence: Why should I care?

It is a hobby horse of both political parties and media of both persuasions. But why should I as a customer really care?

Globalization and free trade, the defining traits of American capitalism - why do these not apply to oil?

What ever the product, it is best to produce where ever it is cheapest to produce. Consumers benefit from it and the source countries benefit from an overall uplift. Yes, there are too many barbarians as rulers out there, but even there, rising tide lifts all boats - not as fast, but certainly does.

When it comes to oil, US imports majority from its North American neighbors - Canada and Mexico, followed by Saudi Arabia, not the most despicable of all the rulers. So, why does this topic poll well? Ignorance has got to be the first order. The concern is that in the event of a war with the oil producing nations,  we will have a shortage. We use international markets and international pricing, and our oil companies are privately owned and operated with global operations, not government entities.

National security experts have argued over the years that our fight with Islamists is due to our dependence on Mideast oil. Boy, if that were true, it shouldn't be too hard to find another source that can source the 18% that we currently import from Saudi Arabia. What they argue about is world energy security? That has nothing to do with energy independence.

The thought that one of our adversaries would cut off our oil supply during the time of war - either a direct conflict or due to an alignment of forces. Once again, unlike many other nations, we get our supplies from a fairly wide number of nations. Besides, this is perceived risk than a real possibility.

The left berates us on our dependency on oil, foreign or domestic. And the right belly aches about oil imports. Neither concern is about the consumer. So, why do consumers care? And why does this poll so well?

Senile of Omaha

He was once known as 'The Oracle of Omaha'. His reputation as the best stock picker is still very much intact and almost legendary. And yet I am not sure if the rest of his thinking is still as sharp as it used to be. Has senility kicked in?

He claims his 'class' is not taxed enough. I do not quite think there is a cohesive 'class' that can be identified. He and a few other mega rich are very philanthropic. So, by his own admission, he would rather give to private charity than to public spending. If he ever wanted, he had every opportunity to write a check to pay down the debt. And yet he has not chosen to do so - that would have been quite a drummed up event, if he did.

He didn't object to low taxes when he was building out his Berkshire empire. Now that his empire is high flying, he is proposing this taxation. Doesn't it look like he does not want others to catch up to his empire? It seems obvious to me.

There are really only a handful of people in his league. So, when he is proposing this taxation, he is obviously proposing it for a whole lot of people that make a lot less than him. Taxation that he is proposing is not significant to him, but everyone else it affects.

Now, on cue, the President wants to implement the 'Buffet Rule'. And by and large it is going to impact everyone - not just the mega rich. And here is why.

First of all, there aren't enough of them to generate $1.5 trillion. So, this billionaire rule is going to hit everyone who makes more than $200,000.

Next, they claim that the dividend tax rate is not high enough. We have 2 classes of dividends and it is really the 'qualified dividends' that get the lower rate. And the qualified dividends are issued primarily by stable, domestic companies - that either manufacture domestically or in the services sector state side. By increasing the tax rate, you are encouraging investors to find instruments that are either in the speculative growth sector or foreign companies. Smart move, Mr. President.

And then the capital gains tax rate. Short term capital gains is taxed as regular income - so, it gets progressively worse. Long term capital gains get the lower tax rate. These are the gains that I reap from investing in our economy to grow with an upfront investment - with my disposable income that has already been taxed to the hilt. Sounds like yet another smart move, Mr. President.

Mr. Warren Buffet has essentially turned into 'Senile of Omaha' and a mouth piece for Obama Socialism.

9/11/11

I watched the 10 year anniversary at Ground Zero on TV. Quite a dignified and somber service dedicating the memorial. Wish they did not squabble in the early years and completed the construction of all the towers. That would have shown the real resolve of American psyche.

It was good to see George W and Laura Bush along with the President and the First Lady. For the Bushes, it was quite an emotional stage fighting back the tears.

None of my family was lost in that tragedy 10 years ago. And yet I feel violated for so many of my country men died that day. As I watched the reading of the names and listened to the memories of loved ones lost that day, I did not hold back the tears. In the confines of my living room, I let my tears run down.

It was cathartic.

'Faceless' Corporations

Naderites are convinced that all corporations are faceless - that they are run by heartless boards and chief executives driven by profits and personal greed. And this narrative is regurgitated by our willful Left media ad-naseum. And I know that a vast swaths of the population believes that.

The current administration loves this. From the day of the inauguration, the administration has mounted a massive offensive against the 'faceless' corporations. They want to replace these with the friendly faces of your government. Well, if you want to believe that, I have a unicorn that I want to sell to you.

A majority of Americans work for a corporation. And a majority of the decisions within these corporations are made by fairly low level staff. Yes, major decisions that affect fundamental operations and growth of these companies are done at very high levels. This happens to be the case even at our homes. Do you always get your way at home? Of course, not. If you do, either you are single or a tyrant household.

So, first let us look at profits and greed. Are we all so altruistic that we are not driven by greed? Greed is what has led to man's progress. Why do each of us want to be paid more than our needs? Isn't that a 'profit'? Whether it is a corporation or a person, a profit and a little greed is what is essential to do better. When people refer to excessive profits and excessive greed, they are being very subjective. It is all very relative. However, if the profit and greed leads to illegal activities, that is when our laws should be enforced. But merely engaging in a 'profitable' activity and satisfying one's greed is not criminal or detrimental to the society.

Let's illustrate a few examples from my 'faceless' corporation.

I have a colleague who supervises a team. Over the years, her team's responsibilities have shrunk. Naturally, the management expects her group to shrink. Her choice for the reduction was not her, but rather a grumpy, nasty old fellow. And being of a liberal persuasion, she is convinced it is the 'faceless' corporation that made her do it. Not seeing that she had a choice - she could have been the one to go. Yes, she has responsibilities for herself and her family. She also has responsibilities towards her 'staff' - which has performed admirably over the years, but still could not improve this fellow's disposition (well, the guy was a good worker despite a nasty attitude). She also failed to grasp the need for the 'faceless' corporation's well being of within the expense limits afforded by its profits.

Next example illustrates the emotional issues: One department served its purpose admirably over the years when we were a large company requiring centralized training. However, as the company divested and became a more nimble and smaller company, it was becoming a luxury. At this point, the company decided to eliminate this department. There were only a supervisor and a staff. At crunch time, the supervisor switched to another team and saved her job. So, the company had to eliminate the other person's position. Interestingly enough this supervisor went around telling anyone who would listen what a heartless the corporation was to let go of that staff member as his spouse was battling a terminal illness and needed a job and healthcare to support it. It feels wrong. But the supervisor could have saved that job instead of hers - if she were that compassionate. I do not know her own circumstances. However, it is wrong of this person to paint the company as heartless. Doesn't the company have to live within its limits as to what we can afford and not maintain a department it no longer needs?

And last, this is pure self-centered thinking. We had a system that evolved over the last 40-years, still runs on the good old IBM mainframe. And many of its features still remind you of the old punch card days. Supporting this system is a group of 6 people (much reduced from its glory days) and 5 of those would retire in the next 5 years, have been around for 30+ years. Over the last 7+ years we have sought to replace this system with a more modern fit for our company. Almost every single attempt has come up empty. And finally this year, we found a system that would work. And seeking cooperation from this group to get the new system up and running has been extremely difficult. As to how stupid we were to attempt to replace such a complex system. And what would happen to them. Never did it occur to this group as to what would happen to the company if they retire and we do not have competent staff to support the old system. But they all want to ensure they have a comfortable retirement, I fully understand that. What about the company's interests? Don't they count?

I am not a key decision maker, but I am a key 'influencer'. I do take my job seriously and deliberately. I also take my individual responsibility seriously towards my coworkers, myself and the company. If the company lives beyond its means, unlike the Federal government, the company cannot raise its debt ceiling - which means an ultimate end of the company as we know it. In whose larger interest is to see the company progress in the most optimal fashion. It belongs to each and every one of us the employees. Even the senior executive team is an 'employee' and ultimately answerable to the share holders. Without proper stewardship at every level, the companies do not last for long.

I believe we are the faces of these 'faceless' corporations. We must show individual responsibility towards every single one of our decisions - however small and insignificant we might think they are.

I must agree with Mitt Romney - Corporations are people. Do not demonize them. For a large number of us, these corporations pay our bills.

Lobbyists

"Can you explain to me why we need lobbyists?" said a co-worker the other day over lunch.

I have been constructing further thoughts around my response that day "Go read your constitution".

So, what exactly did I mean by that. Looking up the 1st Amendment, here is the relevant passage:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Many would take umbrage to this expansive use of 1st Amendment in support of lobbyists. No, I don't either.

How exactly do you petition your Government? It is not what it used to be. Back at the creation, the Federal government only had enumerated powers. All others were vested in the various State governments and further delegated to your local government at the town and county level. It is a whole lot easier to petition your local government.

Today, how exactly do you petition your Federal government?

Well, we elect them don't we? Yes, we do. Electing our House of Representatives is still the closest to our 'will'. And recent election cycles have confirmed that - it is still dynamic. As geographically diverse as our nation is, each of our reps is able to tackle a few issues of local interest into the deliberations of the federal government. As they deliberate more, they have far less chance of meeting with their constituents. Technology may yet change this dynamic. Not sure Twitter alone can solve this problem.

And now let's focus on ourselves. In our lives, we have competing priorities. And most of us struggle to balance those. There are priorities of the heart and the priorities of reality. Which ones do you want your representative attend to. Do we always know what is good for us? (Few amongst us care about and active about only the priorities of the heart. Most of us cannot afford to do that.)

Even if we want to lobby for our causes or priorities, we have limited opportunities to do that. Ultimately, we have to get on with our lives. The act of lobbying in itself is not our daily life. it is someone else's.

"Lobbyist"

ORIGIN mid-16th century

The verb sense derives from the practice of frequenting the lobby of a house of legislature to influence its members into supporting a cause.

 The best interest is self-interest. There is no altruistic motive in our existence. We express our self-interest when we vote; only that our choice is limited to available candidates representing a basket of those interests. To influence your 'best possible candidate' to weigh-in a legislation of your interest, you have to lobby. I bet there were lobbyists even in the days of the Caesars.

Now a days, every cause has a lobbyist. (Media tells us and) most of us think lobbying is done by big corporations. Biggest, monolithic lobbyist is in fact the AARP. Followed by the AFP and other trade unions. In fact, all corporations face expense pressure to reduce all expenses, including their lobbying expenses.

What is that corporations need to lobby? Well, tax laws, environment laws, etc. Every single one of these laws have a direct impact on a company's profitability. And by extension its ability to hire or keep its employees. Yes, ultimately it affects us.

More often than not, majority tend to display an animosity towards their employer. When media tells us that the big, faceless corporation is lobbying, we agree - they must be working against us.

It is funny, that majority don't object if United Auto Workers lobby or if the Spotted Owl Society lobbies. It is just the big corporations that we loath. And the last time I checked, an awful lot of people work for these big corporations. (Our hatred towards the employer we so depend on to make ends meet - that's just another topic for a different day).

I don't think a common man has any net gain from the lobbying activities. Since every one gains something, it costs us the tax payers an awful lot of money to satisfy all these lobbyist and the interests they support. And that is a net negative.

Lobbying excesses have to be punished by law. We have seen great example of that - Jack Abramoff. And many others.

However, we have to be cautious about restrictions on lobbying. It is about really the only way you can lobby your government for redress of your grievances. Eliminate that, we would loose a great deal.

Most of us don't know what it is to not have the freedom of speech. Most of the world is only now getting its liberties.

You have to zealously protect freedom of speech even if it requires us to tolerate lobbying.