tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62968049934736223782024-03-08T14:55:07.056-08:00David's VRWCDavid Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.comBlogger24125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-29109232082949021852013-10-18T09:49:00.001-07:002013-10-18T09:49:17.837-07:00If Redskins is bad Vikings is far worseThere has been much to do about the nickname of the Washington football team - the Redskins. Some think it is a slur. If calling someone a Redskin is bad then calling them a Viking should be regarded as far worse. We might have different impressions of what being a Redskin was all about, but there is no doubt about the dreaded Vikings. Raping, pillaging and burning churches was their stock in trade. How is it then that a professional football team in an area with a significant population of Scandinavian descent could be proud of a team called the Vikings? I suspect that the passage of time has healed some wounds and that there is a nostalgia for the glamorous image of bold seafarers and adventurers with little regard for the horrors of the reality. Could not the same be true of the Redskins. When we think of Redskins today the image that comes to mind is of a proud warrior or perhaps a skilled hunter. If, in fact, the term Redskins brought to mind a negative image of native Americans no sports team in its right mind would want it as a nickname. David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-49150263066775237972012-07-05T13:45:00.000-07:002012-07-05T13:45:15.057-07:00Labor Is A Commodity - Get Over It!Once when I was being interviewed on a very liberal radio talk show I said, what seemed very obvious to me, that labor was a commodity. Much to my surprise the host went absolutely berserk. How dare I talk about the labor of human beings as if it were an inanimate object like corn or steel. The liberal view seemed to be that there was something so special about labor that it defied the laws of economics.
Our nation is faced with a severe problem of unemployment. There is good reason to believe that, no matter what is done in the short term, in the long term it is going to become increasingly worse.
Some of this stems from the fact that we ignore some very basic economic laws.
The more something costs the less people buy. Isn't this rather obvious? When the price of gas goes up we drive less or trade in the gas guzzler for a hybrid. When the price of beef goes up we switch from steak to hamburger or buy chicken. When the price of labor goes up we don't employ as many people or substitute other factors of production.
Any government policy that increases the cost of hiring an employee increases unemployment.
This was brought into sharp focus recently when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. A little noticed until now provision of the bill is that employers who don't provide health care insurance to full-time employees will be fined. There is no fine applied to part-time employees. This is not a small thing. The fine would be at least $2,000 a year per employee. If the employer provides access to insurance but the insurance is unaffordable the fine goes up to $3,500 a year.
A recent survey found that the cost of health insurance averaged more than $11,000 a year and that the employee share of that cost was about $2,700.
Let's consider the plight of a minimum wage worker. At $7.25 an hour, earnings for a full-time job are $14,500 a year. How many employers can afford to tack on another several thousand dollars to that amount? How many employers would find it much more economical to hire several part-time employees rather than one full-time employee?
Not having health insurance sucks. Not having health insurance or a jobs sucks even more.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-33955706086546247942011-05-25T14:03:00.000-07:002011-05-26T09:51:24.041-07:00Restored FaithSometimes in this fast paced world it is easy to become a bit cynical about the nature of business. Too often it seems as if you are a pawn in a big game you are destined to lose. A recent experience helped to restore my faith in the system.<br />
<br />
One of my hobbies is wire wrapping. I make pretty things - rings, bracelets, necklaces, earrings, etc. - by wrapping wire. If you want to take a quick look at the possibilities look at the cover of something like "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Wire-Bead-Celtic-Jewelry-Projects/dp/1904991564?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Wire and Bead Celtic Jewelry</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1904991564" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />" or "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Bead-Wire-Art-Jewelry-ebook/dp/B005064LI6?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Bead & Wire Art Jewelry</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B005064LI6" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />"<br />
<br />
Anyway, to make a long story a bit shorter, if you are going to really get into wire wrapping you will end up needing a jig. That's a board covered with little holes and pegs of various size that you use as a pattern for wrapping the wire into different shapes. To broaden my horizons in wire wrapping I bought a BeadSmith <a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Thing-A-Ma-Jig-Deluxe/dp/B0032CBNFE?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Deluxe Thing-A-Ma-Jig</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0032CBNFE" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />. This is a marvelous tool for bending and twisting wire into different shapes, particularly when for the success of your project each piece needs to be as much like the others as possible.<br />
<br />
The Thing-A-Ma-Jig rests on the workbench on short metal legs with a plastic foot at the bottom of each. My Thing-A-Ma-Jig was missing one of the little plastic feet. Seeing little prospect for getting one from people I got the jig from, I sent an e-mail to BeadSmith to see if they would send me one. I even offered to pay for it.<br />
<br />
Therein lies the restoration of my faith. They actually took a strong interest and sent me an entire new Deluxe Thing-A-Ma-Jig. Wow! Just when you think that nobody really gives a darn and you are all alone in an unforgiving world, something like this comes along.<br />
<br />
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that everyone is like BeadSmith. It's just that when someone takes a personal interest and goes out of their way to help, it does tend to restore faith. Thank you BeadSmith and all the other companies that go the extra mile on customer service.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-11886736513249552332011-04-15T11:11:00.000-07:002011-09-20T12:28:47.616-07:00Reduce My Social Security Benefits - PleaseIt may seem a bit strange, but I wrote to my Congressman recently telling him to reduce my Social Security benefits. There's a catch to it, of course. I wanted the benefits reduced by the same percent that the federal budget was reduced. I would gladly get by on 10 percent less in Social Security benefits, if the federal government's budget was reduced by 10 percent.<br />
<br />
This isn't really out of character for me. Back in the 1960's, I went to college after I got out of the Navy. I lived at home and worked part-time as a security guard. Legislation was being considered by Congress called the Vietnam Era GI Bill. It would have put about $100 a month in my pocket as an education benefit. I wrote to my Congressman, Charles Gubser, telling him that as much as I would appreciate the money he should vote against it if it would help balance the federal budget. Gubser wrote back saying that if voting against it would balance the budget he would consider it, but that the cost of the bill wasn't enough to make much of a dent in the budget deficit.<br />
<br />
I wonder whether there is a lesson in this. How many little things add up to something big? How motivated are people who benefit from one of those little things to raise the roof if it might be eliminated compared to how interested those who don't benefit from it are in eliminating it.<br />
<br />
I hear radio advertisements from a committee opposed to cutting Social Security. I almost have to laugh at the line about how Social Security didn't cause the problem. For decades Social Security taxes have produced a surplus and Congress promptly spent that surplus while giving Social Security an I.O.U. That, by any definition is deficit spending. The money was spent on all those neat things that now need to be cut, but Congress doesn't have the will power and/or the guts to make the cuts. Too many highly motivated small special interest groups are clamoring (and paying lobbyists) to protect them.<br />
<br />
Perhaps that's what's new and different about the Tea Party movement and why it poses such a threat to the establishment. The Tea Party is demanding spending cuts without regard to whether the cuts hurt.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that we can't go on this way much longer. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the national debt are becoming such a huge proportion of the budget that they must be reduced to avoid financial Armageddon.<br />
<br />
It would be better to make reasonable, well thought out reductions now than to wait until it is too late and draconian cuts must be made in a panic.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-78299682420844460692011-02-18T14:15:00.000-08:002011-02-18T14:26:57.579-08:00No "Right" to Collective BargainingThe protesters in Wisconsin and Ohio are crying alligator tears about the loss of collective bargaining rights. Let's be clear on this. There is no right to collective bargaining. All the laws that have required collective bargaining between employers, be they public or private, with certified labor unions as the exclusive representative of employees in a bargaining unit have extended privileges, not rights, to labor unions, often at the expense of the rights of individual employees.<br />
<br />
There are several federal court decision in cases where government employee unions have claimed the right to collective bargaining and in every instance the courts have ruled that there is no right to collective bargaining.<br />
<br />
In the private sector the federal government gave unions monopoly bargaining powers through the National Labor Relations Act, which doesn't cover public employees. Many states have enacted similar laws covering public employment.<br />
<br />
On several occasions public sector unions have gone to court demanding the right to collective bargaining and in every case the courts have said that there is no such right, it is a legislated privilege.<br />
<br />
This is a topic of great interest to me. I am the author of "<a href="http://www.psrf.org/gur/caps.jsp">The Case Against Public Sector Unionism and Collective Bargaining</a>" and a coauthor of "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa645.pdf">Vallejo Con Dios: Why Public Sector Unionism is a Bad Deal for Taxpayers and Representative Government</a>."<br />
<br />
I commend them to your attention.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-82117032317792382002010-11-17T12:53:00.000-08:002010-11-17T14:20:45.873-08:00I Was WrongI was wrong. In my <a href="http://davidsvrwc.blogspot.com/2010/10/elections-2010-fearless-forecast.html">Fearless Forecast of October 30</a> I predicted that the polls were underestimating the enthusiasm of the Tea Party movement. The November 2 elections included some truly historic wins for the Tea Party movement, but the public opinion polling overestimated rather than underestimated the enthusiasm.<br />
<br />
The best and most telling example of this was Sharon Angle's loss to Harry Reid in Nevada. The polls right up until election day had Angle ahead by several points, but when all the votes were counted Reid won by 50.6 to 44.2. The same sort of thing happened in Pennsylvania where the last polls showed Pat Toomey ahead by five points and he only won by two.<br />
<br />
Just like they say about real estate where the three most important things are location, location, location, in politics the three most important things are turnout, turnout, turnout.<br />
<br />
I fear that I got so caught up in my enthusiasm for the Tea Party movement that I let it cloud my judgment. I suspect that the idea that my favorite candidates would do even better than the polls predicted was a bad case of wishful thinking.<br />
<br />
This isn't the first time I've been wrong. I recall once back in 1957..., but then that's another story.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-68638668831828022962010-10-30T17:10:00.000-07:002010-10-30T17:13:50.675-07:00Elections 2010 - A Fearless ForecastHere it is just three days before the 2010 general elections and I feel as if I have some sort of insight into the results. If I wait until after the election to write about this, it might seem like 20-20 hindsight, so I'll put it out there now.<br />
<br />
I believe that there are going to be some big surprises in the November 2, elections. I say that because I don't believe that the polling companies are capable of dealing with the intensity of mood. When I studied this years ago we referred to it as "salience." The idea at the time was that some people would agree or disagree on an issue or candidate, but the strength of their conviction was what really mattered.<br />
<br />
It is my sense of things that the uprising Tea Party rebellion has a great deal more intensity than is being measured in the polls so that if a Tea Party candidate is behind by five, or even slightly more than five, percent in the polls going into election day they have an excellent chance of winning. By the same token, Tea Party candidates that are running even will win by about five percent and those that are in the lead will win by even greater numbers.<br />
<br />
I plan to look carefully at this after election day and will report the success or failure of this analysis.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-61522380122928510652010-08-20T09:25:00.000-07:002010-08-30T12:54:10.112-07:00A Tougher Row to HoeI have always thought that it was important to contribute to campaigns of candidates for public office I support. I'm not wealthy. My contributions are relatively small.<br />
<br />
I believe that conservatives should make a special effort to support minority candidates who strongly uphold conservative values. For a variety of reasons, these candidates have a tougher row to hoe.<br />
<br />
I have listed below the names and web pages of candidates in this category I have supported this year. I do this not to boast but to urge you to join me in providing this sort of support.<br />
<br />
Ryan Frazier (Ryan is a Tea Party member.)<br />
Congress from Colorado's 7th District<br />
<a href="http://www.frazierforcolorado.com/">http://www.frazierforcolorado.com/</a><br />
<br />
Michel Faulkner<br />
Congress New York's 15th District (This is the seat presently held by Charles Rangel.)<br />
<a href="http://www.faulknerforcongress.com/">http://www.faulknerforcongress.com/</a><br />
<br />
Charles Lollar<br />
Congress Maryland's 5th District<br />
<a href="http://www.lollarforcongress.com/index.php/home">http://www.lollarforcongress.com/index.php/home</a><br />
<br />
Eric Cary (Eric has been a speaker at several of our Tea Party meetings.)<br />
Maryland State Senate<br />
<a href="http://www.ericcary.com">http://www.ericcary.com</a><br />
<br />
On August 23 I am adding two more entries suggested by friends<br />
<br />
Allen West<br />
Congress Florida's 22nd District<br />
<a href="http://allenwestforcongress.com/">http://allenwestforcongress.com/</a><br />
<br />
Stephen Broden<br />
Congress Texas' 30th District<br />
<a href="http://www.brodenforcongress.com/">http://www.brodenforcongress.com/</a><br />
<br />
If you are aware of other black conservative candidates please let me know about them. Also, please consider adding their names and web sites to this list and passing it on to others you think might be interested.<br />
<br />
Added August 30.<br />
<br />
At the Restoring Honor rally on the Capital Mall on Saturday, I saw an African-American participant wearing a t-shirt with a Gadsden flag and Broadus for Congress printed on it. I did a little research and found that Robert Broadus is another candidate that belongs on this list.<br />
<br />
Robert Broadus<br />
Congress Maryland's 4th District<br />
<a href="http://www.justiceandliberty.us/home.html">http://www.justiceandliberty.us/home.html</a>David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-25034752108193732042010-07-16T11:24:00.000-07:002010-07-16T11:27:20.257-07:00America's Ruling ClassThe August/September 2010 edition of The American Spectator magazine contains a very important article by Angelo M. Codevilla titled "<a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the">America's Ruling Class -- and the Perils of Revolution</a>."<br />
<br />
This article should be must reading for everyone who cares about America.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-45176147856306662442010-04-29T08:46:00.000-07:002011-09-23T13:09:38.674-07:00Alinsky on Why Tea Party Scares Elitist Liberal EstablishmentIn my previous blog I said that in "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Rules for Radicals</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0679721134" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />" Saul Alinsky explains why the Tea Party movement makes the elitist liberal establishment so paranoid. That generated quite a bit of interest so here it is.<br />
<br />
In this case I'm using the "extreme fear" definition of paranoid rather than the "irrational fear" one. The fear is quite rational.<br />
<br />
This is how I explain it in the talks I've been giving to Tea Party meetings.<br />
<blockquote><br />
Did you ever wonder why the Tea Party movement scares the liberal establishment so?<br />
<br />
Why they accuse you of being “Astroturf.”<br />
<br />
Why they hysterically accuse Tea Partiers of being racist, sexist and homophobic?<br />
<br />
The answer is in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” <br />
<br />
Alinsky says that “Power has always derived from two main sources, money and people. Lacking money, the have-nots must build power from their own flesh and blood.”<br />
<br />
So when the liberal establishment looks at the Tea Party what do they see? They see real people, lots and lots of real people, a diverse group of real people building power with their own flesh and blood.<br />
<br />
That’s got to scare them to death.</blockquote><br />
By the way, this fits neatly into Brother Saul's rules for power tactics. The first rule of power tactics is, "Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have."<br />
<br />
It doesn't hurt a bit that a mid April AP-GfK poll found that 31% of the public identify themselves as Tea Party supporters and that 33% agree with its positions compared to 26% who disagree.<br />
<br />
Watching the liberal establishment squirm is great fun. Maybe that's why the call it a "party."<br />
<br />
Here's a link to a complete list of Alinsky's "<a href="http://www.unionfreeamerica.com/alinsky.htm">Rules</a>."David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-364350931825623572010-04-27T14:28:00.000-07:002010-06-17T08:01:39.024-07:00Tactics & Strategy - Alinsky & Cloward-PivenIn late March I received an invitation to speak to a meeting of the Burke Society at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. My first instinct was to tell them about labor unions, since that is my area of expertise. I soon realized that I could be of much more value to them if I were to tell them about Saul Alinsky and the "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Rules for Radicals</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0679721134" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />." After all, labor unions are on the way out and Alinsky's influence endures through modern day disciples like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.<br />
<br />
In preparing my remarks I realized that the information would be of a great deal of interest to those involved in what it loosely referred to as the "Tea Party." I say "loosely referred to" because unlike a party in the traditional sense, the Tea Party is a wide array of groups that have little or nothing in the way of central leadership or direction. Therein lays one of its greatest strengths.<br />
<br />
At any rate, I mentioned this to a few contacts that are Tea Party activists and the idea was very warmly received. So much so that in the last couple weeks I've made presentation to three Tea Party groups in my immediate vicinity and have invitations for several more.<br />
<br />
At the second of those meetings I was asked about the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" and I confess had never heard of it before so I did a little research. On May 2, 1966 <a href="http://www.thenation.com/">The Nation</a> magazine published an article by two wacko leftist Columbia University Sociology Professors named Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. The name of the article was "<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/print/54198">The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty</a>." Cloward and Piven, who were by the way husband and wife, proposed that if every person eligible for any form of welfare could be recruited to apply for all the benefits for which they were qualified, it would break the back of the government system and that a socialist regime would result from the ensuing crisis.<br />
<br />
In the article Cloward and Piven pay homage to organizations spawned by Saul Alinsky and his Industrial Areas Foundation as the type of organization needed to mobilize the poor for this task.<br />
<br />
There is now speculation that the recently enacted health care insurance reform monstrosity is the keystone of a Cloward-Piven strategy to bankrupt America and forge a socialist nation from the resulting chaos. There is no doubt that several actions of the Obama Administration fit this pattern. But then so does George Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug giveaway and many of the actions of the Republican majority in Congress when they became addicted to the narcotic of earmarks and big government spending as a pain killer for the fear of losing elections.<br />
<br />
Bankrupting the nation as a prelude to socialism is a strategy. Saul Alinsky's "Rules" are for "power tactics." They can cut both ways. When I make presentations about them to Tea Party meetings I am training a new generation of radical conservatives, or is it conservative radicals.<br />
<br />
In his book Alinsky also explains why the elitist liberal establishment is so paranoid about the Tea Party. I'll save that for another blog.<br />
<br />
By the way, here's a link to a complete list of Alinsky's "<a href="http://www.unionfreeamerica.com/alinsky.htm">Rules</a>."David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-60441326493966641322010-04-02T10:00:00.000-07:002010-04-21T09:24:26.910-07:00I'm going to hurt myself. Does anyone want to watch?Once when spending a leisurely afternoon on the waterfront in Savannah, Georgia - a wonderful place, by the way, to spend a leisurely afternoon - I saw a street entertainer, a guy who rode a very tall unicycle and juggled, start his efforts to draw a crowd by yelling, "I'm going to hurt myself. Does anyone want to watch?"<br />
<br />
I feel very much the same way about the way labor unions are determined to punish Democratic Members of Congress, even their most loyal friends, if they voted against Obama's health care reform monstrosity. The case in point is the decision of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO to withhold its endorsement of Representative Tim Holden in Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional District.<br />
<br />
I have a strong feeling that Holden will win the Democratic Primary rather handily. He is, after all, up against a little known and poorly funded opponent who the unions didn't endorse either. After that he has an altogether different election race. The 17th is a majority Republican district. Holden captured the seat and has held on to it as a "conservative" Blue Dog Democrat.<br />
<br />
Considering poll results showing increasing public discontent with incumbents and the recent <a href="http://people-press.org/report/591/">Pew Research Center survey</a> findings that a plurality of the public opposes labor unions, a union endorsement in November will remind the public of Holden's pro union voting record and might be the political equivalent of the Ancient Mariner's albatross around his neck.<br />
<br />
So, how smart is this? You alienate a guy who votes with you 90 percent of the time by withholding an endorsement that he doesn't need but might appreciate, but then set yourself up to need to deliver the endorsement of the same guy when it might actually hurt his chances of getting reelected.<br />
<br />
Are the unions shouting, "I'm going to hurt myself. Does anybody care?"David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-17751539664663100732010-03-18T13:06:00.000-07:002010-04-02T09:30:13.506-07:00It's Never Been EasyIn his "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radicals-Saul-Alinsky/dp/0679721134?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Rules for Radicals</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0679721134" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />" Saul Alinsky said to admit that your "enemy" had any redeeming qualities was idiocy. Saul believed that “Before men can act, an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced that their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.”<br />
<br />
It is no secret that I'm no fan of labor unions, but I have frequently enjoyed the honest writing of a fellow who is a strong advocate of unions. David Macaray, a former labor union representative whose work usually appears in "Counterpunch" writes persuasively about unions. Unlike some union apologists he is not afraid to deal with problems when he finds them. I found a recent Macaray column, "<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/macaray03022010.html">What does $400 Million Buy You These Days?</a>" particularly insightful.<br />
<br />
He recently published a collection of his writings under the title of "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/NEVER-BEEN-EASY-David-Macaray/dp/0982531427?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">It's Never Been Easy</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0982531427" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />." I commend it to all those who are interested in labor unions, pro or con. If you find that he has been too persuasive, send me a note and I'll write an anti-union diatribe or two for you.<br />
<br />
I must be careful. Admitting that someone who disagrees with you isn't "100 percent on the side of the devil" might be contagious. Well, as I said, I am too soon old and too late wise.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-81465576411494412302010-03-15T05:26:00.000-07:002010-03-16T05:03:57.183-07:00Union Membership In America 2009: Organized labor, whither goest thou?On January 22, 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released "<a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm">Union Members - 2009</a>," its annual report on union membership in America. On the surface it was rather normal. The total number of union members fell by 771,000, which shouldn't be too surprising considering that the economy shed almost 5 million jobs. Union density - the percent of the workforce in labor unions - fell just slightly from 12.4 in 2008 to 12.3 percent in 2009.<br />
<br />
The real story is somewhat buried. Union membership on private payrolls declined by about 834,000, while it was increasing by about 64,000 in the public sector. <i>(Yes, I know the numbers don't add up. Must be the rounding.)</i> As a consequence, despite the fact that only about one in six jobs are with government, the majority of all union members in America are public employees. This was a long time in coming. When modern record keeping on union membership began in 1983 only about 32 percent of all union members worked for government. Back in the union heyday of the 1950's - using numbers that aren't quite comparable - it was about 5 percent.<br />
<br />
This shift will have inevitable internal and external political consequences for organized labor. With their future clearly tied to the growth of government employment, labor unions will be even more adamant about the need to increase the size of government and, of course, the taxes to pay for it. The same is true of union opposition to any effort by government save money by contracting-out (privatizing) public services to the private sector.<br />
<br />
At the same time, unions run the strong risk of being perceived by private sector employees they are trying to organize as a government employee thing. What will be the consequences for union organizers when those they are attempting to woo only see unions as the reason for unresponsive, ineffective government and high taxes?<br />
<br />
Recently the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported a remarkable downturn in public support for labor unions, "<a href="http://people-press.org/report/591/">Favorability Ratings of Labor Unions Fall Sharply</a>". It would be interesting to know how much union defense of bloated public payrolls, compensation and benefits during the economic downturn had to do with it. It would also be interesting to know what percent of the "Cadillac" health insurance plans union lobbyists fought so vehemently against taxing during the debate on health insurance reform belonged to government workers.<br />
<br />
All of the data on employment and union membership comes from the BLS Current Population Survey (CPS). (<i>I refer to comparable numbers because in 1983 the survey methodology was improved and the numbers prior to 1983 don't quite fit with the numbers after 1983.</i> <i>There are no CPS numbers on union membership for 1982.</i>) The CPS is an extremely accurate source consisting of about 60,000 interviews each month.<br />
<br />
Drs. Barry T. Hirsch and David A. Macpherson do a great job of providing comprehensive state-by-state information from this survey on their web page at <a href="http://www.unionstats.com/">Union Stats dot com</a>. The only problem I have with this is that it is all annual making it difficult to identify trends. The Public Service Research Foundation has used this data to produce a very interesting set of tables and charts showing employment, union membership and union density - total, private, public, manufacturing and construction from 1983 to 2009 for the nation and for each state. This information is, unfortunately, not available on their web site but is available without charge on request. E-mail requests to david@psrf.org. Please be sure to mention that you learned about them in this blog.<br />
<br />
Further reading: If you are interested in insights into these changes from one of the nation's leading demographers of labor unions - Leo Troy, professor emeritus at Rutgers University - take a look at his "<a target="_blank" href="http://www.amazon.com/Twilight-Unionism-Issues-Human-Resources/dp/0765607476?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969">Twilight of the Old Unionism</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0765607476" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important; padding: 0px !important" />."David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-43078018264169652492010-02-01T14:46:00.000-08:002010-02-01T14:46:39.906-08:00Thank You Massachusetts!In a fit of irrational exuberance over the election of Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts I had some bumper stickers printed up that say, "Thank You Massachusetts!"<br />
<br />
I've given most of them to friends and associates and am selling the remainder on eBay. I'll maintain that posting as long as the supply lasts or at least until the end of February. If you're interested in this you can check it out by going to eBay and entering a search for "Thank You Massachusetts"David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-41654470645072503542010-01-21T12:58:00.000-08:002010-01-21T12:58:32.686-08:00No Such Thing As A 10<div class="MsoNormal">There’s no such thing as a 10.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">I was in the Home Depot the other day and saw a sign saying that if I would rate any part of my experience in Home Depot as less than a 9, I should contact the manager.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Whoa! What’s going on?<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Remember the Bo Derek movie “10”? She was a 10 because she was perfect. Very little in this world is perfect. I can only think of two restaurant meals that I’ve had in my entire life that I would regard as a 10. As fun and as exciting as sex is, I can only think of one or two experiences that I’d rate as a 10.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">That means, at least in my book, that on a scale of 1 to 10, 9 is very, very good and that doesn’t happen very often. In fact, on a scale of 1 to 10, if I could rate my average shopping experience as a 7, I’d consider myself lucky. How is it then that I should notify the manager at Home Depot if my shopping experience is less than a 9?<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">eBay is up to the same sort of nonsense. They now have variable rates that they charge sellers for listings. Those rates go up if the seller doesn’t maintain an average feedback rating of 5 on a scale of 1 to 5. Some of the sellers, realizing more about human nature than the folks who run eBay, are putting pleading language in their listing begging for higher ratings on their feedback.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Is this the “<st1:place><st1:placetype>Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename>Wobegon</st1:placename></st1:place>” effect? Are we all way above average? I am, of course, above average, as are my children and their children, but I’m not too sure about all the others.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Charles Murray, author of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bell-Curve-Intelligence-Structure-Paperbacks/dp/0684824299?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Bell Curve</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0684824299" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />,” did us all a favor by pointing out that half the kids in school were below average.<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Let’s get real. We are imperfect. We live in an imperfect world. On average we do rather well, but rating systems that demand nothing short of almost perfect as the norm are not realistic and don’t provide any meaningful information.<br />
</div>David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-77263513333574039882009-11-30T10:14:00.000-08:002009-12-17T10:55:28.296-08:00Hurricanes Sure Are UnpredictableI got interested in the predictability of hurricanes after the 2005 season. Remember 2005 - 28 named storms and 15 hurricanes including Katrina? The forecast was for 12 - 15 named storms and 7 - 9 hurricanes.<br />
<br />
I've followed the predictions and the results every year since and the predictions seem invariably wrong. In 2009 the forecasters took the safe road. They said that there was a 50 percent chance of a normal season, a 25 percent chance of a below normal season and a 25 percent chance of an above normal season.<br />
<br />
The hurricane season begins on June 1 and runs through November 30. Normal is 11 named storms including 6 hurricanes.<br />
<br />
On August 10, 2009, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow told the Detroit News "Climate change is very real. Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."<br />
<br />
This was really a remarkable statement, particularly considering its timing. As mentioned above, the hurricane season begins on June 1 and ends on November 30. In the 11 years for which season advisory archives are available online from the <a href="http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/">National Hurricane Center</a> (NHC) the latest date for the first named storm, Hurricane Alberto, was August 4, 2000, but in 2009 the first named storm, Tropical Storm Ana, didn't happen until August 15.<br />
<br />
The 2009 Atlantic Hurricane season was, (how can I put it gently?) a wimp. There were only 9 named storms and 3 hurricanes. You almost get the impression that the folks at the NHC went out of their way, dare I say "fudged a bit," to get any kind of respectable numbers at all. Hurricane Fred was extremely short lived and then Tropical Storm Grace appeared almost out of nowhere in the "far northeast Atlantic." Excuse me! Isn't there a better name for a storm in the far northeast Atlantic than a "tropical storm?"<br />
<br />
The folks at the NHC say that with all the new technology their ability to detect storms has improved. It's not so much the size of the storm but the length. They are getting better at spotting the tropical storms that don't last long. That may go a long way toward accounting for why some of the global warming enthusiasts are telling us that the number of storms has increased.<br />
<br />
It probably won't surprise you that I'm a global warming skeptic. In fact, it was the 2005 hurricane season that got me interested in this. If I recall correctly several prominent spokespersons for global warming said that the increased number of hurricanes was attributable to global warming. It's not that I don't believe that average global temperatures increased between about 1979 to 1998. I'm just not convinced that CO2 emissions are such a big part of the cause of the increase and that if they are that it is a bad thing.<br />
<br />
I also like to think of myself as an environmentalist, but I read a book called "<a href="http://www.heartland.org/books/UnstoppableGlobalWarming.html">Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years</a>" by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. Their idea is that earth has been going through warming and cooling cycles for millions of years. They back it up with quite a few references to scientific studies. It made a lot of sense.<br />
<br />
The idea that earth goes through periodic cycles of warming and cooling is a great deal like what Rachel Carson discussed in "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sea-Around-Us-Rachel-Carson/dp/0195069978/ref=dp_cp_ob_b_title_0"></a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sea-Around-Us-Rachel-Carson/dp/0195147014?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Sea Around Us</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0195147014" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" />."<br />
<br />
At around the same time a friend gave me a copy of Michael Crichton's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061782661/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259691339&sr=8-1"></a><a href="http://www.amazon.com/State-Fear-Michael-Crichton/dp/0061782661?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">State of Fear</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0061782661" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" />." That's when I caught on to the shift from "global warming" to "climate change."<br />
<br />
Back to the hurricanes, during the 2005 season many of the global warming/climate change enthusiasts said that it was evidence of the destructive nature of GW/CC and proof that something must be done immediately to reduce greenhouse gases, particularly CO2.<br />
<br />
Well, I haven't heard from them about the 2009 season. Let's see if they can figure out some way that it is just another reason to cap and trade.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-42288718799288283252009-11-10T11:29:00.000-08:002009-11-10T12:48:27.728-08:00First, Unionize All The Physcians<span style="font-size:+1;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;"> With all the controversy about health (insurance) reform and considering my interest in employment and unionism issues I figured there must be some sort of angle on this issue for me.<br /><br />Being lazy by nature I used readily available sources of information like <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.unionstats.com/">http://www.unionstats.com</a><br /><br />I was amazed to find that between 1983 and 2008 the level of unionism in hospital employment hadn't really changed that much. In 1983 union density in hospital employment was 17.6 percent compared to 15.3 percent in 2008. So, it fell like the rest of union density figures, but not quite so much as the national average. That may be because some hospital employment is in the public sector.<br /><br />In 2008 public employment was 36.8 percent union compared to just 7.6 percent on private payrolls. Unfortunately, the data on hospital employment doesn't make that distinction.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:+1;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;">Some cynics have gone so far as to suggest that one of the reasons the unions are insisting on a so-called "public option" is that they think it would be easier to organize workers whose livelihood depended on the public dole. Forfend! </span></span><br /><span style="font-size:+1;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><br />It is interesting to note that between 1983 and 2008 the U.S. population increased by 30 percent, total employment increased by 46 percent while hospital employment only increased by 42 percent.<br /></span></span><span style="font-size:+1;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;"><br />Don't worry. It's not all this boring. I saved the best for last.<br /><br /></span></span><span style="font-size:+1;"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman, Times, serif;">The real shocker for me was the data on physicians. Between 1983 and 2008 the number of physicians increased from 243,505 to 653,392. That's an increase of 168 percent. During that same time employment in physicians' offices increased by 119 percent.<br /><br />An interesting sidelight on this, in this case from the Bureau of National Affairs "Union Membership and Earnings Data Book," is that in 2008, 6.3 percent of physicians were union members and they earned an average of $35.84 an hour compared to $56.46 for those who were nonunion.<br /><br />Maybe there's a lesson in that for those concerned about reducing health care costs. To paraphrase the Bard, "First, unionize all the physicians."<br /></span></span>David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-50171402290772716532009-11-06T13:10:00.000-08:002009-11-06T13:39:15.588-08:00Obama/Labor Bid Rigging Scheme UnravelsOne of President Barack Obama's first acts in office was to rescind an Executive Order barring union-only<a href="http://www.psrf.org/issues/pla.jsp"> Project Labor Agreements</a> (PLA) on federal public works construction projects. This was a huge boon to Obama's Union Boss friends.<br /><br />PLA's are bid rigging and protection racket schemes under which the construction owner agrees to use only union labor, thus driving up the cost of the project at the public's expense, while the unions guarantee "labor peace."<br /><br />To put this in perspective, picture a thug at a candy store in Chicago telling the store's owner that for a weekly payoff his windows won't be broken and his customers will not be molested. The cost of the weekly payoff is, of course, passed along in higher prices to the purchasers of candy. The thug has the additional economic responsibility to impose the same terms on all other candy stores in the area so that his client won't be at a disadvantage.<br /><br />Now comes the U.S. Department of Labor with plans to build a Jobs Corp Center in New Hampshire and advertises the bid specifying a PLA.<br /><br />And, to the public's rescue comes North Branch Construction which protests to the Government Accountability Office with the assistance of the Associated Builders and Contractors. According to The Truth About PLA's "the Department of Labor cancelled its unlawful PLA mandate the day before the agency was required to file a response to our bid protest."<br /><br />Read all about it in the ABC's "<a href="http://www.thetruthaboutplas.com/2009/11/06/first-project-labor-agreement-under-obama-administration-cancelled/">The Truth About Project Labor Agreements</a>."David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-23783274471910092772009-11-04T11:29:00.000-08:002009-11-08T06:09:45.932-08:00The Rooster and the Sun RiseThank God for roosters! Were it not for these little creatures we would live in a world of perpetual darkness for the sun wouldn't rise. Well, at least that's the impression you'd get if you listen to the roosters.<br /><br />The very same applies to labor union political influence. In the 1994 elections, Republicans captured control of the U.S. House of Representatives. In October of 1995 when he was elected President of the AFL-CIO John Sweeney promised to spend $35 million in the 1996 elections to recapture control of Congress for those beholden to union special interests. It didn't happen. The AFL-CIO then pledged to spend $28 million to accomplish the task in the 1998 elections. The money was spent but Congress remained in Republican hands. The sad tale goes on election year after election year, tens of millions of union dues dollars after tens of millions of union dues dollars, 2000 - $46 million; 2002 - $35 million; 2004 - $44 million.<br /><br />These are, of course, minuscule amounts compared to what the unions actually spend but they are for some reason the ones that grab the headlines.<br /><br />Then, cock-a-doodle-do, in 2006 with an unpopular Republican President half way through his second term in the White House, a less than popular war half a world away that few understood, an uncertain economy and a Republican majority in Congress that had abandoned all pretense of fiscal restrain, the Democrats recaptured control of Congress and the Union Bosses dislocated their shoulders patting themselves on the back with congratulations.<br /><br />Then comes 2008 with the economy in dire straights, the war, if the word "war" is really a good description of the mess in Iraq, seeming to be endless, a lackluster candidate at the top of the Republican ticket and the Democrats increase their majority.<br /><br />Cock-a-doodle-do again. To listen to the Union Bosses you would get the impression that the sun will not rise on the Democratic Party's candidates if they don't strut and crow.<br /><br />The fascinating thing about this is that there are a great many members of Congress who are acting as if they believe them.<br /><br />Now here's a strange thing. On November 3, 2009 the voters in New Jersey went to the polls and elected a Republican governor. No less a personage as the Vice President of the United States visited the New Jersey AFL-CIO convention to exhort them to support Jon Corzine's reelection.<br /><br />The state AFL-CIO chief pledged that there would be an army of volunteers working for Corzine every week until the election. President Obama himself visited the state to plug for Corzine, yet when it came to election day all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't, well you know the story.<br /><br />In Virginia the picture is even more stark. One of the focuses of Bob McDonnell's winning campaign for governor was his opposition to federal legislation like the perversely named "Employee Free Choice Act," which would strengthen unions by taking away workers choice. Ken Cuccinelli, the successful Republican candidate for attorney general also made opposition to the EFCA a central argument in his campaign.<br /><br />And, say what you will about poor little Dierdre Scozzafava up in New York's 23rd Congressional District, two of the bad raps against her were that her husband was a union boss and that she was endorsed by the Working Families Party, an organization heavily supported by labor unions, including a $1,000,000 donation in 2008 from the New York State affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.<br /><br />The Democrats took a traditionally Republican seat, but the ripe odor, dare I say "stench," of union interests undoubtedly had a lot to do with the fact that the Republicans couldn't stomach the nominee hand picked by their party's leaders.<br /><br />So, are the union roosters still crowing? As Sarah Palin might say, "You betcha!" But do the politicians really believe that the sun rises on them as a result? Well, they still have to pretend to, at least until the checks clear.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-30788067936309700732009-11-02T07:57:00.000-08:002010-09-10T12:23:43.926-07:00What vanishing middle class?There is a constant refrain from union officials and their allies in the media, academia and politics about the need to strengthen unions to restore the vanishing middle class.<br />
<br />
Being unencumbered by too much formal education, such complaints seem very strange to me.<br />
<br />
In our relatively classless society, terms like "middle class" are usually defined by household income and household income is analyzed by quintiles, or fifths. The third quintile is considered to be the middle class, the second the lower middle class and the fourth the upper middle class, the first the poor and the fifth the wealthy.<br />
<br />
It is impossible for quintiles to disappear, vanish or even shrink. After all, a fifth is a fifth. (This analysis does not, of course, apply to fifths of good whiskey. They have been known to vanish, sometimes rapidly. I have witnessed this myself.)<br />
<br />
Perhaps then, those who complain about a vanishing middle class believe that the purchasing power of the middle quintiles is diminishing. That, for example, the average household income of the third quintile is falling.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/index.html">The U.S. Census Bureau has information about this on their web site covering 1967 to 2008</a>.<br />
<br />
This information is expressed in both current and constant dollars. There's good news for those who fear a shrinking middle class. In constant 2008 dollars, average household income is up in every quintile. The growth isn't steady and it isn't uniform from quintile to quintile, but it is up across the board.<br />
<br />
The alarmists can do some cherry picking to get numbers they want. For example, if one were to compare 1998 to 2008 it would show a decline, but if you compare 1997 to 2007 it shows and increase. Over the long haul the movement is upwards in all quintiles.<br />
<br />
There are, of course, other dimensions to this issue. I'll discuss them in a future blog.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-33720755819997132342009-10-26T11:34:00.000-07:002009-10-27T13:49:51.058-07:00The Enemy Is Us - Again!Have we gone nuts? If this nation faces a long-term economic problem it is health care costs for the elderly followed shortly behind by the fact that the Social Security system is going to run out of money.<br /><br />So, what is our government doing about this impending crisis? Investing in ways for us to live longer! Give me a break!<br /><br />The best example, and it has been going on for years, is the government's war against smoking tobacco. The anti tobacco zealots tell us that smoking will shorten our lives by years. A recent study by some British researchers put it at 10 years.<br /><br />What do you think would happen to the question of the solvency of the Social Security system if the actuarial assumptions for life span were shortened by 10 years? I don't have a figure for you but I'll give you a guess that the system would be so rolling in dough that they'd be talking about increasing Social Security benefits, not the need to reduce them.<br /><br />Smokers are super patriots! Not only are they attempting to shorten their life expectancy, they are paying all sorts of extra taxes to do it.<br /><br />When Congress enacted Social Security back in 1935, the average life expectancy was 61.7 years and you had to be 65 years old to collect. In other words, when they enacted Social Security they didn't really anticipate having to pay benefits to many people. The average life expectancy at the time for African-Americans was only 53.1 years, but that's another story. The only people who had a shot were white females and their life expectancy was 65.0 years. The latest word is that life expectancy is 78.1 years and rising.<br /><br />Fatsoes beware! When they first went after smokers it was just a matter of setting aside a little space for those who didn't smoke. Who could object to that? Then came a reversal where they set aside a little space for those who did smoke. Well, that wasn't quite the same thing but we didn't have the good sense to see the writing on the wall. Then came things like no smoking in public buildings, period! Now there are proposals floating around that would ban smoking on public beaches and parkland.<br /><br />Why? The only possible excuse for this madness is that they want us to live longer.<br /><br />So, here's a warning to those who are trying to save the country from insolvency by eating themselves to death. (Research shows that being obese shortens your life just as much as smoking.) When there is a proposal to set aside a little space in restaurants for those who are not obese, fight it with everything you've got. If you don't, the next step will be to set aside a little space for the fatties and it will go downhill from there.<br /><br />I, fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, am somewhat detached from the madness. Earlier this year, about a month before my 65th birthday, after five days in the hospital for something that had absolutely nothing to do with smoking, in a moment of weakness when my wife said, "You haven't had a cigarette for five days. This would be a good time to quit," I promised her that I would. It must have been something in the water. No, the problem was that while I was in the hospital they kept me on a rather strong patch. I was getting so much good stuff I had little or no desire to light up. That was almost eight months ago and rarely a waking hour goes by that I don't crave a cigarette. I suppose that I should add that I'm 5'7" and weigh about 140 pounds. How I'm going to help Uncle Sam out by kicking off a few years early is beyond me.<br /><br />Pogo was right. We have met the enemy and he is us.<a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Ca%20href=%22http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061782661?ie=UTF8&tag=unifreame-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0061782661%22%3EState%20of%20Fear%3C/a%3E%3Cimg%20src=%22http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=unifreame-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0061782661%22%20width=%221%22%20height=%221%22%20border=%220%22%20alt=%22%22%20style=%22border:none%20%21important;%20margin:0px%20%21important;%22%20/%3E"><br /></a>David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-47635775676884476432009-10-09T09:56:00.000-07:002009-10-09T11:50:51.848-07:00The Enemy Is UsWalt Kelly had a great line in a Pogo strip that went something like. "We have met the enemy and he is us."<br /><br />Nowhere is this more true than on the question of Congressional earmarks, the nasty little millions of dollars that members of Congress make sure go to favored constituencies to buy support and/or reelection.<br /><br />Everybody, well, almost everybody, hates earmarks and members of Congress who sponsor them. The picture that comes to mind is some fat cat contributor who is getting mega bucks for his business as a quid pro quo for all the campaign cash.<br /><br />NOT! Think again. It is us.<br /><br />Just the other day there was a story in The Washington Times saying that already this year state and local governments had already spent more than $80 million in our tax dollars to pay lobbyists to get more money from the federal government.<br /><br />This isn't new, it's just getting bigger - dare I say "worse" - because of the recession.<br /><br />Several years ago I attended a conference where a panel of conservative members of Congress were asked about earmarks. There was embarrassment in the air. To a man (and a woman) these opponents of earmarks confessed to seeking earmarks in appropriation bills at the request of local governments in their districts.<br /><br />I'm a conservative of sorts and I'm interested in politics so around election time I give some money to local government candidates. As a result I'm on a first name basis with several of them and they usually return my e-mails. Well, when I got home from that conference I sent an e-mail to my local office holder friends asking whether they had spent any of my (our) local government tax dollars to pay lobbyists to try to get earmarks from Washington. Guess what? Not a one replied.<br /><br />It is my strong sense of things that at least some of these conservative local office holders are spending my tax dollars to get our representative in Congress to put earmarks in legislation. Since my Congressman, a "conservative" Republican, is somewhat of a king of pork in his own right, I doubt that the lobbyist has much of a job to do.<br /><br />Back to the idea of hating earmarks. I should have added that we hate earmarks, unless of course, they are sponsored by our own fine and upstanding member of Congress and they do something really neat for your home town.<br /><br />Pogo had it right. We have met the enemy and he is us.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6296804993473622378.post-5520884458091662002009-10-05T12:46:00.000-07:002009-10-05T13:47:07.673-07:00Overpaid?Will Rogers famously said, "I never met a man I didn't like." I think that I've found a modern corollary. I've never met a man who was overpaid.<br /><br />I'll bet that the Wall Street bankers who are hauling down millions don't think they are overpaid. Can you imagine that the guys who can throw a ball into a basket better than most and who are making so much money only the wealthy can afford tickets to the games think they are overpaid. What about the guys who make millions reading the evening news on network television, don't imagine for a moment that they think they are over paid. I'll bet that the firefighters in Vallejo, California who drove the city into bankruptcy with their six figure salaries didn't think they were overpaid. I'll bet that the auto workers who brought General Motors to its knees with excessive costs of employment and benefits don't think they are overpaid. How about it? Can you name a person who will admit to being overpaid?<br /><br />There's a point to all this. The more something costs the less we buy of it. That's true of almost everything. You may say, "Yeah, but I've got to buy gas for my car." But look what happened people not only started driving less, they started buying more fuel efficient cars. What about food? We all have to eat. Yeah and the restaurant business is in trouble because people are eating out less and people are grilling burgers instead of steaks.<br /><br />I don't know about you but I'd rather be employed at a job that paid a bit less than be unemployed at a job that paid a bit more. Maybe what we need to do is take a cold hard look at ourselves and what we do and ask ourselves whether we're worth it.<br /><br />Don't worry. I already know the answer. Of course we're worth it. I've never met a man who was overpaid.David Denholmhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06376627436563433493noreply@blogger.com0