THE ENTERPRISE--TIME TO "GET REAL"
FOOLISH MERGERS USUALLY FAIL (THE "TOLD YA SO" CATEGORY)
The Alcatel-Lucent merger is already in trouble. So will the CEO be...soon. Putting together a big, so-so US company with a big French company, and then moving the HQ to France and putting an American woman CEO in charge. What is that, the script for a Woody Allen movie? I predicted it would struggle to succeed before the deal was completed. Now that is happening. Not a surprise, but a disappointment.
CHINA-MOVING UPSCALE, SHORT OF SKILLED HELP, ETC.
China is undergoing a rapid movement through the normal steps of industrialization. The best labor is rapidly being used up. Sure there are almost a billion farmers still out there, but training them and moving them to the work or the work to them is not so simple. But China can now make upscale goods, having also moved quickly through the stages of junk, copycat/counterfeits, workshops, and main line manufacturer. The next thing China will want is BRAND NAMES that will sell all over the world. Watch. (Who knew LG and Samsung as brands 15 years ago? Or for that matter, Google, Amazon and Yahoo!?)
WHERE CHINA IS AHEAD OF THE USA
This past August, China banned "sexually suggestive" commercials from radio and television. No station is allowed to broadcast ads for sexual performance drugs like Viagra, Cialis, Lewvitra or for drugs that treat sexually transmitted diseases. Ads for women's lingerie that were deemed "vulgar" were also banned. The State Administration of Radio, Film and Television said, "Sexually suggestive ads...not only mislead consumers...and harm public health, but are socially corrupting and morally depraving, and directly discredit the radio and TV industry. 1500 ads have been pulled in 2 mo.
Now, before any of my more progressive readers condemn them for "censorship", the US TV industry cannot show cigarette ads, and the National Association of Broadcasters used to have strict limits on misleading ads for children's toys. If the US would ban all prescription drug advertising, it would take a huge step toward regaining sanity in our health care systems, by limiting the money spent persuading consumers to go "ask your doctor" for the latest drug, whether that is the best medical solution or not. (For reference reading, get Overdosed America by John Abrahmson, M.D. It will open your eyes!)
IT'S NUCLEAR (NOT NUCULAR) POWER, AND THE TIME IS NOW
Nuclear power plants are not new news. The new ones are just a lot safer, less vulnerable to attack, more efficient and much less polluting. Why on earth isn't a huge nuclear initiative underway. It can lead the way to energy independence for the USA, and dramatic reduction in CO2 (and particulate) emissions to help the environment? This initiative is so obvious it makes one wonder what the politicians and energy companies are thinking. No less an authority than former EPA Director Christine Todd Whitman takes a public stand for Nuclear power development in the Sept. 17 issue of BUSINESS WEEK in "The Case for Nuclear Power." Mort Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief of US News does the same thing in its Sept. 10 issue in "The Energy Emergency. C'mon folks, let's get real and let's get going
WARNING--THE MATERIAL THAT FOLLOWS IS A RESULT OF ME BEING SICK AND TIRED OF WHAT I CONSIDER RIDICULOUS OR OUTRIGHT DISHONESTY--YOU'LL SEE WHY & WHERE. SOME OF IT IS POLITICAL AND SOME IS OPENLY AGGRESSIVE IN NATURE. IT'S TIME TO GET REAL!
LET'S MAKE A DEAL IN IRAQ RE: BLACKWATER STAYS--OR ELSE
To the Iraqi Government: You get rid of terror squads, suicide bombers and radical militia who shoot, blowup and behead innocent people and we'll get rid of our "mercenaries" like Blackwater. You get serious about finding consensus, making concessions and reaching the compromises necessary to act like a grown up government--and quit killing each other over disputes--and we'll gladly bring (most of) our soldiers home too. And, IF your so-called "eye witnesses" to the Blackwater "incident" are as biased, as frightened and as willing to lie about anything they are told to--which I think is VERY LIKELY--we can't believe anything they tell us. So here's the deal--if you are going to continue to act like a country full of radicals, killers and rogues, we'll keep some of our own tough guys around just to keep things balanced. If you don't like that deal--tough luck. Your alternative is to become a satellite/slave of Ahmadinejad's Iran. Is that what you really want?
AHMADINEJAD AND ROGUE STATES--OUTRIGHT "ACTS OF AGGRESSION"
The little bugger came across as a glibly persuasive maniac. Unfortunately the underdeveloped brains of some Columbia students and faculty apparently failed to comprehend that. Somebody in our nation should have the brains to say to him: Fine, you can have your peaceful nuclear program. The first hint of catching you weaponizing it, and we will consider that an outright "act of aggression" and show you how "tactical" nukes work -- and reduce the area where that aggression originates to craters of molten sand. If you are uncivilized enough to let innocent Iranian citizens remain in those areas (cowards are known to hide behind innocent people), they too will be vaporized. Sorry if that is harsh, but "war is hell" and we will be responding to your making new weapons of war to supply to radical Islamic terrorists throughout the world.
IT DOESN'T TAKE MANY EXTREME EXAMPLES TO GET THE MESSAGE ACROSS
Perhaps the "bribes" will work for a while in North Korea, but I wouldn't depend on it. The "beloved leader" Kim Jong Il (what a joke that title is) is a nutcase. He will resume developing weapons and thumbing his nose at the world. When that happens, we must declare North Korea's nuclear weapons/missile test s as "acts of aggression." Then we blow every known North Korean facility that was involved into dust particles. (Perhaps even without using nukes!) At least then we'd be getting my tax dollars worth from defense spending. We wouldn't have to do this more than once or twice and the "rogue nations" would figure out that a good way to get vaporized is to pull that kind of crap.
For all the readers who think this is too severe a way to handle maniacs, read your history books about Hitler and his Nazi atrocities. Dealing with this kind of insane rogue states is the best reason to start pulling back troop levels and funding in Iraq as soon as we can "reasonably" do so.
SEND THE SYMPATHIZERS & TRAITORS OVER THERE TO LIVE--GOOD RIDDANCE
If you like them so much--go live with them. Those who support the insanity of negotiating with terrorist states, go on over there, and take all the other pacifist sympathizers. Let John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, et. al., and let that whole gang stay at least until they convince the madmen to lay down their weapons stop their aggression and hatred of the USA. The problem is, that delegation might be in danger of being killled--or outsmarted by "a handful of Bedouins and a few camels." If you'd like, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can go along--to impress them with our Congressional leadership--on a par with Ahmadinejad--totally out of touch with reality.
THE GOP NEEDS TO GET ITS ACT TOGETHER--FAST
The religious right are unhappy with Rudy Guiliani, although he might be the best anti-Hillary candidate. Fred Thompson is stumbling around without a script to follow. John McCain is courageous--but still too old. The most qualified candidate is still Mitt Romney. A Romney-Huckabee ticket would have two quality people on it. The only question is whether it can beat Hillary + anyone else. Soon it will be time to choose between Rudy and Mitt. Fred needs to go back to Law & Order, and we need McCain in the Senate. The others are fine fellows, but not going anywhere but back home.
Before saying any more on this. there is one other issue to discuss. I am sick of listening to people question Mitt Romney's suitability to be President because he is a Mormon. (NO, he's NOT part of those fringe sects that exist in all religions and get sensational coverage). I'm a Catholic, and I recall John F. Kennedy's religion being an issue back in 1960. He took it on and set the critics straight--and won the nomination and election. Now we know he was no beacon of moral fiber (Bill Clinton wasn't either) but millions of people looked past his religion and chose the man.
THE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE--A NEW CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE PROGRAM
If religious beliefs and affiliations are so important that we want to set aside our "separation of church and state" principles, then it's time for full religious disclosure for all candidates. All candidates must currently disclose their financial situation. Now we need full religion disclosure by all 20+/- candidates still "supposedly" in the race. What religious affiliation do you claim to hold? Where is the church you belong to and what does it believe and stand for? How often do you and your family attend church? Does your church and its religion have any questionable history? Like, was it a church or religion formed via a revolution and withdrawal from some other established religion by a monarch or idealist who just didn't want to go by all the rules and wanted a religion to fit his/her needs? If that was done, we might find out that all candidates have religious baggage of one form or another. What matters is that we choose candidates for President who will be the best leaders our country can find/choose.
ALL MY EARMARKS--A NEW CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE PROGRAM
While we are at it there is one more big disclosure provision needed--but this one for incumbents. Any incumbent seeking reelection must list and advertise all the earmarks they sponsored during their past term, and who/what the beneficiaries of such earmarks were--AND whether any of them are campaign contributors. Require this listing be posted on the Internet, and in major newspaper ads in all places where campaign ads are running. This may help local candidates by showing how much pork they bring back to their districts. It should expose, and hopefully, eliminate most of the sneaky, secret earmark deals made in the hallways and back rooms of Congress. (Although, some earmarks are actually good, replacing important funding that was omitted from the budget in error.)
AND THEN THERE IS HILLARY-- ASSUMPTIVE NOMINEE (AND NEXT PRESIDENT?--AAARRGGH)
She seems to be taking the Democratic campaign by storm. She says what she believes every now and then, and some of it is actually refreshing. Some is scary, because she lies, too. And what she says seems to change depending on when and where she's saying it (which is partly OK, because sometimes circumstances change, and positions should change) The problem is that she also is very smart, thinks she can get away with lying. She can't. Too many people are watching and keeping track.
IF Hillary wins the nomination and wins the election (BIG IFS), her Presidency would do 4 things that are virtually certain to alter America immensely:
1) Raise taxes on everyone earning $50,000/year, and raise them more on higher income levels.
2) She'd give the government control of more and more of your life--health care will just be the start.
3) She'd give more power to unions, which will weaken America's global competitive position.
4) She'd appoint judges who will change the laws to fit their beliefs, regardless the Constitution.
One thing she will NOT do--and she knows it (and almost admits it): get the U. S. out of Iraq and into a better position in the Middle East--no candidate has that solution figured out.
Finally, she had better be good at managing another 9/11 type of terrorist attack because they will look at her and say "Oh yeahh--now we can go after those soft Americans again." They are likely thinking that right now as they read and watch the news.
But who can stop her? You can. You and lot of people you know and can influence if you can get them to see things the "right" (pun intended) way, and then get them out to vote.
Can you? Will you? Think very hard about what it will be like to have both Houses of Congress controlled by Democrats with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as the leaders.
Then think about Hillary (and Bill?) Presiding over us all.
If you like that scenario--God help us all.
Or are you one of those readers who think she's the best candidate? If so, you will be sorry, we all will be sorry---and the United States of America will suffer for years to come.
Best, John
Read on for bonus material:
"YOU AIN'T GONNA LIKE LOSING"
Author Unknown--but you can guess his/her political leaning--and that it is probably not a "young person."
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq. Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not. Back then they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.
Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not. And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today.
Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war. Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort. Men who were too old or medically 4F lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military.
Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining. You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.
And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a pledge of allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops! Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies. A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being "tortured" by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.
There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets.
No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.
It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the Land of Oz. We even have the wicked witch of the west as the new Speaker of the House of Representatives. We did unite for a short while after 911, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices. We are in great danger.
The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause... Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.
We either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing!
Comments