Why do people hate Walmart so much. I can't understand it. It's like Bush derangement syndrome, but with an inanimate object. I've been reading in the Boston Herald that Mayor Menino isn't sure if he wants to allow Walmart to open stores in Boston. I don't understand it at all. It makes me think of Robin Williams old stand-up routine, you know, before he started making movies and stopped being insane. He used to say about cocaine and it's addictiveness, "Hey, it costs a ton of money, but it makes you paranoid and impotent, so give me more of that."
With Walmart, it seems to work in reverse. "Hey, they provide tens of thousands of jobs, give great deals to consumers, and make a ton of money for everyone associated with them, let's get rid of those guys."
I'm not surprised that Menino has a problem with Walmart coming to Boston. Trying to be nice here, but he's definitely not the brightest bulb in the chandellier. What I have a hard time getting is the intellectuals that demonize the chain. I know they don't shop there, they don't need to. They have a ton of money. It never ceases to amaze me to see that the more money one has, the more noble one can afford to be.
They don't need the great deals, or the jobs, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of them own stocks, so they're making money off it too. But they all harp about how Walmart abuses it's employees, and destroys the small town, Main Street type stores while they cash their dividend checks.
First of all, if you've ever been inside a Walmart, you've seen the people that work there. Most of the employees are High School or college kids just getting started in the work force. They are getting valuable experience that will help them a great deal in the future. they are learning things like responsibility, showing up at work every day, working with others, and getting a resume started at the same time. They don't earn much money, because they are not worth much money right now, but with the experience they gain, they will be worth much more in the future.
I also see a lot of middle-aged women working there. They are, I can only assume, just getting back into the workforce after raising some kids. Either that or they are trying to help supplement their household income with a little part-time work. Again, they are not being paid any less than they are worth in that context.
The other main component of Walmart employees seems to be senior citizens. They are obviously trying to make some extra money in addition to their social security check, or just trying to get out of the house. Either way, I don't see any other companies busting down the door to hire them.
What do all three of these groups have in common? They all are low-skilled, or no-skilled labor. They are, for the most part, looking for part-time employment. And they all seem to be pretty happy with their situation. They'd probably rather be working at Walmart than not working at all.
No, Walmart does not offer most of their employees health benefits. Hardly any company does for part-time workers? Why should they? They get people lining up at the door to apply without offering them. Should they do it to be "socially responsible"? Let me break some news to you, corporations are in business to do one thing, make money. The more the better. They do this by creating a product that people want, and seling it at a price that people can afford and are willing to pay. Walmart makes money because it offers quality stuff at low prices. They can afford to do this because they keep their costs low. Part of their cost control is hiring people from the 3 groups mentioned above. If they are taking advantage of their employees, I'd guess there are about 33 million Americans that would love to be taken like that. That's how many people in this country that are unemployed. And that's probably on the low side. Many economists argue that the true number is closer to 66 million. Some of those people may even live in Boston. But thanks to Mumbles Menino, who is, after all, only looking out for the little guy, they will all be protected from that evil job that Walmart wants to give them. Thanks mayor.

Alinsky, Step Brothers, and sleep-deprivation

I want to talk about life. I know, it's a big subject, so I'll just focus on a small part of it. You know, the meaning part. I've been thinking a lot about this lately. No, I'm not dying, at least no more than anyone else is. I realize I am not an authority on life, especially considering mine has not been very successful thus far. At least not in the generally accepted sense of successful, i.e. I don't make $400,000 a year and own a million dollar home, but I think I'm doing okay.
I don't know where this is coming from. I can only surmise that it's a combination of working crazy, weird hours, reading Saul Alinsky, and watching "Step Brothers" again. Trust me, it will all make sense eventually... or it won't, and that's kind of the point.
Let's start with an old bromide, "Life is a journey". Well of course it is. It's also a battle, a bitch, a struggle, a joy, a highway, and a bowl of cherries, among many other things. It is what it is, or it is what you make it. I tend to fall on the side of the latter. I don't see life as a series of events unfolding around me. I am an active participant in my life. Everything that happens to me is a direct or indirect result of decisions and choices that I make. So why do bad things happen to good people? That question becomes irrelevant when you realize that things don't "happen" to you. If a nun is hit by a car, it's probably because she made the decision to cross the road at that particular time without looking both ways. The priest that hit her may have made the choice not to watch where he was going. In both cases, good people made bad choices, and the result was a tragedy, but nothing "happened" to either of them.
Once you accept the fact that you are the driving force behind the direction your life takes, entire layers of bitterness and anger simply melt away. If you didn't get the promotion you thought you deserved, it's not because your boss hates you, it's because you didn't do enough to earn it. You're not stuck in a bad relationship, you stay there because you don't leave. If you fail at something, it's not because you weren't good enough to succeed, it's because you gave up trying. To me, life is not a succession of trials and battles, but an endless stream of opportunities to grow, to learn, and to achieve. I realize there are flaws in my argument. For instance, no child chooses to be born to abusive parents. No person stricken by some genetic disease decides to contract those particular genes. You really can't choose your family. But that is the only caveat I will allow for now. In the end, the only absolute truth is, as my parents used to say "You have noone to blame but yourself".
So, about sleep-deprivation. Anyone that works for a living understands that there is work, and there is work. When the boss calls, you go. This happens to be the time of year when I make the most money, as well as work the craziest hours. I think, perhaps, there is a correlation between the two. There is a premium to be paid for entirely disrupting a persons life. I just wonder sometimes if the price is worth the remuneration. Then I remember that the price isn't really paid by me, and the remuneration isn't really enjoyed by me, and that makes it okay by me. My wife and children pay the real price. They are the ones that have to put up with my moodiness and lack of help around the house. They also get the benefits of the extra cash. So it seems like a fair trade. I get to act like a bastard with none of the usual guilt that goes with it. All it costs me is a little bit of my sanity, which I never had in great amounts to begin with. But it gets me to thinking about the choices I have made in my life. The jobs I have had, and have refused. The friends I have let go of, and held on to. The chances I have taken, and the chances I have not taken. Many people have told me that I have potential. For what, I don't know. Potential to me is nothing but unfulfilled promise, and apparently, I have that in abundance. Life is a journey, and I am nearly halfway through mine, with little materially to show for it, but when my sons tell me they love me, all my choices seem right.
Now to Alinsky. His contention, or one of them, for he was a very contentious man, is that life is a Sisyphean struggle. Sisyphis was the figure in Greek mythology condemned to push a boulder up the same mountain for eternity. Each day he would reach the top, only to have the boulder roll back down, forcing him to start over. I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but Alinsky claimed that, like Sisyphus, we are all destined to push a boulder up a mountain. the difference is that we are not doomed to start over every day. Sometimes, yes, we lose a battle. The stone rolls down and we are forced to start from scratch. But other times we reach the peak, only to find the mists above us recede, revealing yet another summit to reach. Another battle to be waged, another foe to vanquish. (a quick sidenote, for a self-professed pacifist, Alinsky used a lot of martial language in his writings. Adapting to the tactics of his enemies, I guess.) I think this is a perfect metaphor for life. There is always something else to do, some other battle to be fought, some other question to answer. The pursuit of happiness is a falsehood, true happiness is in the pursuit. Once we stop moving forward, we stop living.
So now we have the question, what is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Alinsky, who I will admit is far smarter than I am, has said that the meaning of life is in it's lack of meaning. Bringing chaos into some semblance of order is the true expression of humanity. Righting all wrongs, establishing social justice, and progressing to an everchanging ideal of utopia is man's fate. Never to be achieved, but never to be given up on. In my opinion, life is all about the small things. the little victories and defeats. Each event is a milestone, a bridge to the next occurence. Every situation is an opportunity to grow and to learn. If nothing presents itself, go out and look for it. Happiness is out there, either as an end, or as a part of the journey to an end. It's up to us to seek it out, and to recognize it as it's happening.
Where do we go for the answer? Well, we go to "Step Brothers" of course. For those of you who have not seen the movie, it's almost as entertaining as "Hot Rod", but with a little more social relevance. Basically, it's the story of two overgrown adolescents, 40-year-olds still living with their parents. When their parents get married, they become, at first, mortal enemies, and then, fast friends. Towards the end, Mr. Dobak, Dale's father, gives a speech about his childhood. He laments the fact that Dale and Brennan (AKA Dragon and Nighthawk) have been forced to give up their essential beings in order to be considered "Grown-up" even though he was the catalyst for it. He tells the story of his childhood. He had always wanted to be a T-rex. He made his arms short. He frightened all the kids in the neighborhood. He was a T-rex. Then one day, his father told him it was time to put away all his childish fantasies and become a man. He relented, with the promise that one day he would return. He would go back to trying to be a dinosaur. But over time, he forgot how to do it. He had lost the ability to be a dinosaur. He couldn't get it back, and he hated the thought of Dale and Brennan losing their inner dinosaur, their inner child.
So, what is the meaning of life? What is the answer? I don't know. I only have questions. I told you I wasn't an authority on the subject. For those of you who sat through this inane rambling, I apologize, but it was your decision. I would also like to offer this. "From the mouths of babes comes the wisdom of the ages". I don't know if that's a quote from anything, but the quotation marks give the statement a certain gravitas, don't you think? All I know is, I am not finished yet, but this post is. I would like to end it with something profound, but all I keep thinking is what my 4-year-old keeps asking.
"Why Daddy, Why?" And the answer is...

Many people have weighed in on the tragedy in Tucson. Pundits on the left have assigned blame to the inflammatory rhetoric of the right, specifically Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle. Pundits on the right have stepped in to defend the free speech rights of their own, and as a consequence, attempt to curtail the right of the left to excercise their right to free speech.
So the left blames the right, the right blames the left, and the beat goes on in Washington. But I haven't heard many people blame the guy with the gun.
Look, I realize that our political discourse has become somewhat uncivil in recent years, recent years meaning 230-something years. We have always had people pushing the envelope of good taste and decorum in order to get their point across, and I suspect we always will.
There is a market, albeit a small one, for the likes of Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow, just as there is a market for the Rush Limbaughs and the Ann Coulters of the world. Bill O'Reilly calls them bomb-throwers, and there is no shortage of them on either side of any issue. The reason for this is simple, we want this. If people stopped paying attention to WWE style political punditry, it would simply go away. Like a sit-com noone watches gets cancelled mid-season, the shows that traffic in this sort of rhetoric would disapear if people stopped watching or listening. The problem is that we love this stuff, so it's not going to go away.
The idea that talking heads blame a tragedy of this sort on other talking heads speaks only to the insane arrogance of talking heads. Do they really believe that normal people take them so seriously as to go on a shooting rampage because they use words that can be construed as violent or uncivil? Do they really believe they have that kind of power to incite? Who do they think they are?
Or even more to the point, who do they think we are as Americans? Are we just sheep, unthinking morons that can be swayed to violence by the mere suggestion of it on television or the radio?
Elites wonder why regular citizens don't seem to like them all that much. It makes me wonder how they can consider themselves intellectuals in the first place, when they don't realize that people don't like to be treated like idiots and mindless automatons.
Should we have more civility in our political discourse? I don't think so, most people don't, at least not according to the ratings for cable news.
Should we blame the tragedy on rhetoric from the right? I don't think so, but some would disagree. I just think it's a little disingenuous to say that Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle are resposible for the dead and wounded, when there's a nut-job with a gun standing in the middle of the street.

I remember watching the Brady Bunch as a kid. It was on for an hour every night between 5 and 6 or 6 and 7. Something like that. 2 Episodes back to back. I must have seen every episode at least a million times. I was thinking recently about a particular episode, it may have even been a 2-parter. It was the one where Greg met a girl who thought he was a great singer. She introduced him to a record producer and they were going to make an album. The catch was, they wanted him as a solo artist. Greg was already in a band with his brothers and sisters. What would he do? Should he turn his back on his family for what may be his only shot at stardom? It turns out that he did. He was going to be the next Johnny Bravo. But when he heard the record, it didn't sound anything like him at all. The girl and the producer only wanted him because he fit the suit. When he started making noises about his own songs and his own talent and artistic integrity, they told him to get with the program or get out.
What does this have to do with Barack Obama? I'm glad you asked. Obama was plucked from obscurity, an unknown community organizer from Illinois, and thrust into the vanguard of the Democratic party for a reason. He was a liberal from a liberal state, but he was palatable to the mainstream of America. A smooth talking, articulate, attractive man with the right pedigree and the right connections, he was the perfect choice to lead the left-wing of the party into the future. He was introduced to all the right people and said all the right things. He managed to beat back Hillary Clinton in the primary and routed McCain in the general election. Along with growing majorities in the house and the senate, this was proof to the moonbats that they finally had a mandate from the American people to institute the kind of policies they had been dreaming about for a century, and they had just the guy to lead them.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialist utopia. The American people woke up. They began to see through the fancy rhetoric and telegenic looks. They started to look at what was being shoved through congress and decided that this was not what they voted for. We wanted change, but not like this. The Tea Party became a bonified movement, and many independents saw in it an alternative answer to the problems we are facing as a nation. They began to abandon the Good Ship Obamapop in droves. Young people followed quickly behind, not necessarily to the Tea Party, but away from the Democrats. The election in November was as much a referendum on America's youth as the incumbents who were voted out. Young people were either disillusioned, disenfranchised, or had simply moved on to the next cool thing. Obama and his party were a passing fad, like the hula hoop or the pet rock. When the bloom came off the rose, most of them buried their faces back into their Iphones or Ipads or whatever other gadgets they all have to have. The true believers felt like they had been lied to. When you tell someone in their early 20's that they are the ones they've been waiting for, and that your election will signal the oceans to recede and the earth to begin to heal, they tend to believe you. When you don't deliver, they tend to get upset.
So now Obama no longer holds the majority in both houses to push through his far-left agenda. The clearest demonstration of this was his inability to pass a compromise bill to extend the Bush tax cuts to all but the wealthiest Americans in the senate, even in a lame-duck session. It looks like the tax rates will stay the same for the foreseeable future. But now Obama is in a tight spot. The far left is unhappy with him. They are the true idealogues. They are starting to realize that Obama is really a politician first, and a moonbat second. The only idealogy that matters to politicians is their own self-preservation. If Obama wants to be re-elected, he'll have to pull a Clinton and move toward the center, but if he does that, the kooks will lose their minds. They are already making noises about a challenge in the primary in 2012 from the left. He keeps pleading for patience. They seem to be saying that if Obama can't do what needs to be done, they'll find someone who can. After all, the only reason they chose him is because he fit the suit.

Call me crazy, but I think I finally understand Joe Biden. Not entirely, but at least his economic beliefs. I heard him say not too long ago, that we had to keep spending money to keep from going bankrupt. I thought to myself, "Huh?" It didn't make any sense to me at all. You can't keep spending money if you are out of money, can you? Well, no. You can't, and I can't, but that's because, unlike the federal government, we can't just print more money when we run out. They can. Whether or not they should is another question entirely.
I understand the theory though. It's basically a dumbed-down version of Keynesian economics. The theory goes that, in tough economic times people are not spending the money that they have. This lack of monetary circulation creates a drag on the economy. With little money being invested by private interests, there is little growth, which leads to stagnation and a deepening of the recession, depression, whatever you want to call it. Biden and his ilk believe that it is the government's responsibility to stimulate the economy by infusing it with cash. With more money circulating, more people will be led to invest and spend their own money. This will jumpstart the economy. When the crisis is over, the government can then suck the excess money back out of circulation by raising interest rates, leaving behind a much stronger and growing economic situation.
It makes sense on paper. But just like most things on paper, including the money we are printing, it doesn't pass the smell test. The problem is that, and I may be wrong on this, the government doesn't create or produce anything by itself, that means that the money has to come from somewhere. If they continue to monetize their own debt - quantitative easing as they call it, lending themselves money to pay themselves back as I call it - the value of the dollar will necessarily decline. Basically, your money will buy you less stuff. This is called inflation. Inflation is not always a bad thing, but when the dollar is overcirculated to the point that it is literally not worth the paper it's printed on, that may be bad. So the money to pay for all this will have to come from taxes. Since only the wealthiest people in America actually pay taxes now, and no politician is going to propose making the rest of the country pay more, we will go after the rich. They can afford it, so let's soak them.
That's where Biden and his buddies have it wrong. The whole point of stimulating the economy is to convince people to invest their own money so the government can get theirs back. No one invests money to lose money, you invest to make more money than you started with. The more, the better. But if, in order to pay for all this, the government has to take more of the money we earn, what incentive is there to try to earn more money? Don't kid yourself, the wealthy are not stupid. They got rich for a reason. They aren't going to risk taking a loss if they aren't sure how much of their gain they'll actually be able to keep. And so they will continue to sit on their money.
FDR tried to go after the rich during the great depression, because they were greedily hanging on to the money that they earned, instead of trying to increase their wealth so he could take it from them. This class warfare, in addition to the onerous tariff laws passed in the late 20's, actually put the "Great" in the great depression. Let's not make the same mistake again. If we go after the wealth-creators, they will stop creating wealth, and then we all lose.

I've been doing some thinking lately about little-known Austrian economist Joseph Stumperer. I know, most people thinking of Austrian economists think of Ludwig Von Mises or Frederic Hayek. Most people don't think of Austrian economists at all, and the only Hayek they think of is Selma, but I do, and that is my cross to bear. At any rate, Stumperer opined that the logical result of capitalism was socialism, not through revolution but through evolution. He, unlike Marx, felt that over time, capitalism would in effect, peter out, leaving in it's wake some form of socialistic, bureaucratic takeover of the economy. Through it's own success, capitalism would, in effect, kill itself. The entrepeneurs, who are the lifeblood of any free enterprise system, would finally morph into, basically, clerks. After all the good ideas are used up, and there are no more avenues to 'Industrial empires',we will all end up working for the man. He is one of the only economists that I have read who expound on the virtues of socialism that even take human nature into account. He seems to feel that, in the absence of untold riches and wealth, capable people will opt for the security of a steady job. If you can't beat em...join em.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and I look forward to reading more of his work, but in the meantime I wonder. If the logical result of capitalism is socialism, and the result of socialism is, if history has shown us anything, poverty, chaos, and misery. What does that mean for us? Or more importantly, what does that mean for me? No offense, but I don't care much about anything but myself and my family right now. We are, as I'm sure you are, struggling just to make ends meet. But it's a hard, hard world out there, and our problems don't amount to a hill of beans blah blah blah. So where do we go from here?
I know it sounds crazy, but maybe we follow Europe. If you pay attention to the news, you know there is chaos in western europe right now. Riots in the streets, blood on the tracks, and anarchy at the doorstep. This is happening in France because the government is suggesting raising the retirement age from 60 to 62. Really? 2 years is worth burning the nation to the ground? This from a people that couldn't surrender fast enough to the Germans. They gave it up faster than Snooki gave up Jwoww on Jersey Shores, and yet, try to take away their free stuff, and all of a sudden, the French grow a spine. The Greeks are taking to the streets like, well, Greeks take to sheep, all because their government is realizing that there is no pot of gold at the end of the socialist rainbow. The only thing left the morning after this one-night stand is regret, a hangover, and a huge bar tab at the China Lotus.
So several European nations are saying no more. Albeit in quiet, almost apologetic tones. No more can we afford to postpone the bill. The tab needs to be payed. No more rounds for the house. The sad part is, America has been footing the bill for their outrageous entitlement spending since the advent of the cold war, and they're still out of money. We have been protecting them for 60 years, to the point where they can no longer protect themselves. What happens to them if we can no longer afford to be the policeman to the world? Who cares? We all should. If capitalism logically morphs into socialism, and socialism leads to misery, than the only hope for mankind is a third way. What is that way? I don't know, but if it ends in ism, I'm against it. Call it principle, call it stupid, stubborn, or simple-mindedness, but I'm sick and tired of isms, unless it's Anti-ism-ism. Then I'm all for it. When someone comes up with that platform, call me. Until then, I'm out.

This could be the greatest year in the history of this nation. Greater than 1776, or 1787. It could have more impact on our future than 1860 or 1929. It could be the beginning of the new beginning of the United States of America. But it will only be the beginning. November 2nd, 2010 may be remembered by future generations as the day we got our groove back. The day the American people demanded that their country got back to the principles upon which it was founded. But it will only be the beginning.
Why, in the midst of the worst economic situation since the great depression, with federal deficits through the roof and unfunded liabilities at mindboggling levels, is there any reason for optimism? Look at the political scene unfolding around us. Look at the politicians, and I use that term very loosely, that stand to take advantage of the current dissaffection with Washington. Do any of them look like politicians? Miller, O'Donnell, Angle, Whitman, Palladino? Do any of them look familiar? To me, they look like a changing of the guard, a new breed of citizen-statesman. The kind that the founding fathers first envisioned when they launched this noble experiment.
I don't know much about any of these candidates, but I don't need to, I'm not in their districts. What I do know is that they all have a chance to win. And I hope that they all do. But that will be just the beginning. Eternal vigilance by a well-informed populace is the only thing that can keep democracy from the inexorable slide into tyranny. We need to watch these people as if they were paroled convicts hired to manage our bank accounts. They don't look like normal politicians, and it's up to us to ensure that they don't act like them. Looks can be deceiving but not always.
For example, let's look at Chris Christie and Scott Brown. I like Christie. I'll admit, I don't know much about him, but everything I've seen is good. He doesn't pull punches, he doesn't back down, and he never passes up an opportunity to speak his mind. He doesn't strike me as the type of person that tests the direction of the populist winds before he gives his opinion on any subject. I like that. I like honest, straightforward people that don't worry too much about what other people think. If something is right to you, do it and let the chips fall where they may. If I'm going to make a mistake, I'll err on the side of my own principles, not on the latest Rasmussen polls. Keep an eye on Christie.
Now let's look at Brown. He is the anti-Christie. He looks like he just stepped out of a men's fashion magazine where Christie looks like he just stepped out of a Dunkin Donuts on his way to a Honeydew with a pit stop at Mcdonalds in between. Christie is trying to balance the budget of New Jersey, while Brown looks like he spent the budget of New Jersey on his haircut. But Brown is a republican just like Christie. Really? Brown is a Massachusetts republican, which is a little like being the least racist guy at a Klan rally, or to keep the focus on Christie, the thinnest guy at fat camp. Brown is a politician first, a conservative second. Christie is Christie first, Christie second, and thirds on the chocolate cake please. But that is what I like about him. He is unapologetic, brash, and loud. He is a Jersey Guy, governing the state of New Jersey. Brown is a Massachusetts guy, deciding the fate of people in North Dakota, Iowa, and South Carolina.
The federal government is too far removed from, and has too much power over the entire country. There is no reason why a governor in New Jersey, duly elected by the citizens of his state, should have to defer to the wishes of a senator from Massachusetts in any matter pertaining to the well-being of the state of New Jersey. That is not how this government was designed, but that is what it has become. This year could be the beginning of the end of that. Let's all hope that the unconventional "Politicians" that are preparing to move into power are exactly what they seem. Let's hope that they return to the doctrine of self-determination that made this nation great in the first place. The idea that the unwashed masses, in all their ignorance, knew their own interests more than the elites in Washington. That is was up to the people to decide, for good or ill, the direction of their lives. Let's hope, for all our sakes, that the era of big government is over for real this time, and we can all get back to the business of our own lives.