THE ENTERPRISE
ONE OF THE HARDEST THING TO DO IN MANAGEMENT (& POLITICS) IS TO GET A STRAIGHT ANSWER
More CEOs fail because they make seemingly brilliant decisions based on flawed information. Nobody gives the boss the straight info. It is always filtered, watered down, cleaned up and "perfumed" until it bears only a passing resemblance to the real facts. Building enough trust in an organization is the first, and perhaps the only key to getting honest answers, from which problems can be defined and then solved--in that order. Thus, my frustration after watching the second so-called "debate" (whatever these things are, they sure as hell are NOT debates.)
THE MOST COMMON FINANCIAL QUESTION:
What should I do during this financial meltdown. Assuming you invested sensibly in the first place, and diversified your holdings among cash, bonds, stocks and banks...NOTHING. The way to win in the investment market is to "Buy low, sell high." The most common mistake individual investors make is to do just the opposite: "buy high and then sell low"-- during a panic! If the initial investments were sound, the value will return--over time--not all at once. If they weren't, there's no easy way to get out of them when the market is at or near its bottom. Stay calm, don't panic, and get expert advice (not offered on TV!) For those with cash on hand, this could be a buying opportunity--but remember, the market could fall further before it begins to recover, so take any actions cautiously.
NOTE for Obama Supporters: If you choose to skip over the following "political" stuff, be SURE to read the last article--a "Moving Story," located above my sign-off.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTIONS?
We are trapped in an enormous global financial crisis, trying to choose our next leader and neither of the candidates are answering the questions posed to them. What will they do? Who will they enlist to help them? Do they really have any idea of what to do that isn't already being done? It's OK if you don't, but please admit it, and promise to "get help."
WHAT DON'T YOU KNOW? WHERE WILL YOU LEARN IT?
These are legitimate questions, which were asked at the end of the 2nd "debate" by the professional moderator--Tom Brokaw. Did either of the candidates answer? Not quite. Well, sort of...The start of John McCain's answer was not particularly controversial and fairly bland--he didn't know what the future held. But the second part of Barack Obama's answer alarmed me. Obama said he'd consult his wife to learn about what he didn't know. NO JOKE, and I believe he was being honest and truthful in this statement. If you were watching you know he was serious. First of all, that may not be a big surprise. Many prominent men have strong women "behind them." In Obama's case, the question is "who really wears the pants in that family?" What do you know about the "expert" Barack Obama would consult about what he didn't know? Not so much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Obama She's smart; strong willed; not very happy with or proud of America (by her own admission). Here's a tiny glimpse, of which there is much more posted at the end of this edition, and in the Wikipedia link above:
Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University was titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community. ... AND "...at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America."
Now do you get an idea maybe why Barack Obama (who doesn't seem like a black militant to me) may have attended Rev. Wright's church for 20 years. Do any of you attend a church or a social circle because your spouse or partner wants to? Of course you do!
CHIPs IS AN ACRONYM I HAVE USED IN MY WORK TO DESCRIBE WHAT TO LOOK FOR IN A LEADER (AND A TRUE PARTNER): CHARACTER, HONESTY, INTEGRITY & PRINCIPLES
I am looking for it in our presidential candidates too. Opponents of John McCain will cite numerous transgressions over his long career, but overall (my opinion)--he has largely exhibited CHIPs. Barack Obama is the new guy about which little is known (beyond what he wrote about himself in his two memoirs). During the campaign a few additional issues have been raised.
THESE QUESTIONS DON'T INVOLVE WHAT OBAMA WOULD DO AS PRESIDENT--THEY INVOLVE WHETHER HE IS HONEST & TRUTHFUL AND CAN WE BELIEVE HIM?
--George W. Bush took many hits over lying about Iraq. Some of them were deserved. HIs credibility suffered greatly.
--Bill Clinton was caught in a lie about his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky, and actually had to survive impeachment proceedings.
--We don't need another president that lies to us. Thus these questions still remain unanswered by Barack Obama.
Senator Obama:
ARE YOU TELLING THE TRUTH? OR ARE YOU LYING (OR "PARSING THE TRUTH?")
1. ARE YOU LYING ABOUT BILL AYERS? Your involvement with terrorist and radical revolutionary Bill Ayers. First Ayers was "just a guy in the neighborhood." Then you tell us you was only 8 yrs. old when Ayers was at the peak of his terrorism, and you thought Ayers was "rehabilitated." But as recently as 2001 Ayers said he "wished he could have done more [damage]"... NOTE: If you would apply for a job with the FBI or with the Secret Service, you would be disqualified because of his past association with William Ayers, a known terrorist. If you are elected President you would not qualify to be your own body guard! (And the majority of the people don't seem to care.)
2. WERE YOU LYING ABOUT REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT? You admit you and your wife--and later your family--attended Wright's church for 20 years, but ask us to believe you never heard any of Wright's radical, rascist sermons? Really? That's hard to believe.
3. ARE YOU LYING TO US (OR NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH) ABOUT CUTTING TAXES? You say you'll give tax cuts to 95% of Americans. But more than 30% of Americans pay no taxes now. How does you give them a tax cut? Do you give them a "handout" couched in the terms of a tax credit/rebate, and hidden under the mantra of "fairness?" Won't you take this money from all of us taxpaying citizens and redistribute it to the non-taxpayers.
4. HAVE YOU BEEN LYING TO US ABOUT RAISING TAXES? You say no one making less that $250,000/year will pay any more taxes. But you've admitted you plans to raise the Capital Gains rate from 15% to at least 20% and perhaps as high as 28%. Since some 40% of American own securities that can generate capital gains, won't they incur increased taxes?
5. ARE YOU TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT ACORN'S FRAUDULENT VOTES? I believe that your peripheral involvement a long time ago doesn't saddle you with this organization or its practices--UNLESS-- you and your organization (or party supporters) are funding and encouraging those fraudulent practices NOW.
6. ARE YOU LYING ABOUT YOUR ROLE WITH FREDDIE MAC & FANNIE MAE? OR DO YOU JUST PICK BAD PEOPLE TO ASSOCIATE WITH? When you are number two on the donor list of these two organizations with Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank being the top four, it certainly raises suspicions. Maybe the donors were just "covering the field," as is often common practice in political donations--give to all the people you think might help you out. But, you certainly look "guilty by association"-- if not in fact.
BEING SMOOTH AND ARTICULATE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BEING HONEST AND TRUTHFUL; "PARSING THE TRUTH" IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH! If you are an Obama supporter, you should at least think about which of the things you believe about him are based on truthful statements and which are not. Bush and/or the CIA lied during the Iraq decision crisis--at least it looks that way in retrospect. Hillary was proven to be a liar--more than once. She says she "misspoke." Is Barack Obama a liar too? And if he'll lie to get elected, what will he do once in office. He may have perfectly good answers to every one of them. I hope so, especially if he gets elected the next President.
BUT FIRST, AMERICANS DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THESE FIVE ISSUES OF TRUTHFULNESS--BEFORE THEY VOTE!
By the way, if another of your questions is "How can John McCain hope to lower taxes, AND fund his proposed programs AND reduce the deficit?" He may be able to, if the tax cuts stimulate enough growth to drive big increases in tax income--and IF he can "freeze spending" and veto spending laden bills (unless there is a veto-proof Congress majority). Possible, maybe; difficult, absolutely. But, it worked in the past--more than once.
-----------------------------
HERE'S AN INTERESTING WAY TO LOOK AT THINGS:
OCTOBER 10, 2008.
Obama's Magic
Presto, change-o!
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
©The Wall Street Journal & Dow Jones, Inc
And now, America, we introduce the Great Obama! The world's most gifted political magician! A thing of wonder. A thing of awe. Just watch him defy politics, economics, even gravity! (And hold your applause until the end, please.)
To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
[Potomac Watch] Ken Fallin
For his next trick, the Great Obama will jumpstart the economy, and he'll do it by raising taxes on the very businesses that are today adrift in a financial tsunami! That will include all those among the top 1% of taxpayers who are in fact small-business owners, and the nation's biggest employers who currently pay some of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. Mr. Obama will, with a flick of his fingers, show them how to create more jobs with less money. It's simple, really. He has a wand.
Next up, Mr. Obama will re-regulate the economy, with no ill effects whatsoever! You may have heard that for the past 40 years most politicians believed deregulation was good for the U.S. economy. You might have even heard that much of today's financial mess tracks to loose money policy, or Fannie and Freddie excesses. Our magician will show the fault was instead with our failure to clamp down on innovation and risk-taking, and will fix this with new, all-encompassing rules. Presto!
Did someone in the audience just shout "Sarbanes Oxley?" Usher, can you remove that man? Thank you. Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do. Mr. Obama will follow this with a demonstration of how his plan will differ from our failing Medicare program. Oops, sorry, folks. The Great Obama just reminded me it is time for an intermission. Maybe we'll get to that marvel later.
We're back now. And just watch the Great Obama perform a feat never yet managed in all history. He will create that enormous new government health program, spend billions to transform our energy economy, provide financial assistance to former Soviet satellites, invest in infrastructure, increase education spending, provide job training assistance, and give 95% of Americans a tax (ahem) cut -- all without raising the deficit a single penny! And he'll do it in the middle of a financial crisis. And with falling tax revenues! Voila!
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
And for tonight's finale, the Great Obama will uphold America's "moral" obligation to "stop genocide" by abandoning Iraq! While teleported to the region, he will simultaneously convince Iranian leaders to peacefully abandon their nuclear pursuits (even as he does not sit down with them), fix Afghanistan with a strategy that does not resemble the Iraqi surge, and (drumroll!) pull Osama bin Laden out of his hat!
Tada!
You can clap now. (Applause. Cheers.) We'd like to thank a few people in the audience. Namely, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who has so admirably restrained himself from running up on stage to debunk any of these illusions and spoil everyone's fun.
We know he's in a bit of a box, having initially blamed today's financial crisis on corporate "greed," and thus made it that much harder to call for a corporate tax cut, or warn against excessive regulation. Still, there were some pretty big openings up here this evening, and he let them alone! We'd also like to thank Mr. McCain for keeping all the focus on himself these past weeks. It has helped the Great Obama to just get on with the show.
As for that show, we'd love to invite you all back for next week's performance, when the Great Obama will thrill with new, amazing exploits. He will respect your Second Amendment rights even as he regulates firearms! He will renegotiate Nafta, even as he supports free trade! He will . . .
-----------------------------------
END WITH A LAUGH...A "MOVING STORY!"
Sometimes, we all need a good laugh--something not furnished by the election mania or the financial system meltdown. But, given those two topics, what better part of the anatomy to feature than this one? After you read it, and if you've ever had one )or even know someone near and dear to you who has, it will take a moment to catch your breath from laughing.
The Colonoscopy
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NOT HAD THE PLEASURE OF A COLONOSCOPY, THIS IS GOOD "PREP READING."
FOR THOSE WHO HAVE, BEWARE. YOU MAY WET YOUR PANTS FROM LAUGHING (NOW THAT YOURS IS OVER.)
This is from news hound Dave Barry's colonoscopy journal:
I called my friend Andy Sable, a gastroenterologist, to make an appointment for a colonoscopy. A few days later, in his office, Andy showed me a color diagram of the colon, a lengthy organ that appears to go all over the place, at one point passing briefly through Minneapolis . Then Andy explained the colonoscopy procedure to me in a thorough, reassuring and patient manner. I nodded thoughtfully, but I didn't really hear anything he said, because my brain was shrieking, quote, 'HE'S GOING TO STICK A TUBE 17,000 FEET UP YOUR BEHIND!'
I left Andy's office with some written instructions, and a prescription for a product called 'MoviPrep,' which comes in a box large enough to hold a microwave oven. I will discuss MoviPrep in detail later; for now suffice it to say that we must never allow it to fall into the hands of America's enemies.
I spent the next several days productively sitting around being nervous. Then, on the day before my colonoscopy, I began my preparation. In accordance with my instructions, I didn't eat any solid food that day; all I had was chicken broth, which is basically water, only with less flavor.
Then, in the evening, I took the MoviPrep. You mix two packets of powder together in a one-liter plastic jug, then you fill it with lukewarm water. (For those unfamiliar with the metric system, a liter is about 32 gallons.) Then you have to drink the whole jug. This takes about an hour, because MoviPrep tastes - and here I am being kind - like a mixture of goat spit and urinal cleanser, with just a hint of lemon.
The instructions for MoviPrep, clearly written by somebody with a great sense of humor, state that after you drink it, 'a loose, watery bowel movement may result.' This is kind of like saying that after you jump off your roof, you may experience contact with the ground.
MoviPrep is a nuclear laxative. I don't want to be too graphic, here, but: have you ever seen a space-shuttle launch? This is pretty much the MoviPrep experience, with you as the shuttle. There are times when you wish the commode had a seat belt. You spend several hours pretty much confined to the bathroom, spurting violently. You eliminate everything. And then, when you figure you must be totally empty, you have to drink another liter of MoviPrep, at which point, as far as I can tell, your bowels travel into the future and start eliminating food that you have not even eaten yet.
After an action-packed evening, I finally got to sleep. The next morning my wife drove me to the clinic. I was very nervous. Not only was I worried about the procedure, but I had been experiencing occasional return bouts of MoviPrep spurtage. I was thinking, 'What if I spurt on Andy?' How do you apologize to a friend for something like that? Flowers would not be enough.
At the clinic I had to sign many forms acknowledging that I understood and totally agreed with whatever the heck the forms said. Then they led me to a room full of other colonoscopy people, where I went inside a little curtained space and took off my clothes and put on one of those hospital garment designed by sadist perverts, the kind that, when you put it on, makes you feel even more naked than when you are actually naked.
Then a nurse named Eddie put a little needle in a vein in my left hand. Ordinarily I would have fainted, but Eddie was very good, and I was already lying down. Eddie also told me that some people put vodka in their MoviPrep. At first I was ticked off that I hadn't thought of this is, but then I pondered what would happen if you got yourself too tipsy to make it to the bathroom, so you were staggering around in full Fire Hose Mode. You would have no choice but to burn your house.
When everything was ready, Eddie wheeled me into the procedure room, where Andy was waiting with a nurse and an anesthesiologist. I did not see the 17,000-foot tube, but I knew Andy had it hidden around there somewhere. I was seriously nervous at this point. Andy had me roll over on my left side, and the anesthesiologist began hooking something up to the needle in my hand. There was music playing in the room, and I realized that the song was 'Dancing Queen' by ABBA. I remarked to Andy that, of all the songs that could be playing during this particular procedure, 'Dancing Queen' had to be the least appropriate.
You want me to turn it up?' said Andy, from somewhere behind me. 'Ha ha,' I said. And then it was time, the moment I had been dreading for more than a decade. If you are squeamish, prepare yourself, because I am going to tell you, in explicit detail, exactly what it was like.
I have no idea. Really. I slept through it. One moment, ABBA was yelling 'Dancing Queen, feel the beat of the tambourine,' and the next moment, I was back in the other room, waking up in a very mellow mood. Andy was looking down at me and asking me how I felt. I felt excellent. I felt even moreexcellent when Andy told me that It was all over, and that my colon had passed with flying colors. I have never been prouder of an internal organ.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Dave Barry is a Pulitzer Prize-winning humor columnist for the Miami Herald.
IN THE CATEGORY OF "BEEN THERE, DONE THAT"
This is so graphically accurate that only those of us who have "been there, done that" can fully appreciate the humor of it (now, after its over). When you are inclined to become upset about the election or the financial meltdown, take a moment and consider what's important in life. Family, friends, your health and "having everything come out right in the end." (Groan)
Best, John
ADDITIONAL READING:
I'm not a big fan of Christoper Hitchens, but this article was the most comprehensive I could find on Michelle Obama's position in the Rev. Wright controversy.
Slate Magazine
Are We Getting Two for One?
Is Michelle Obama responsible for the Jeremiah Wright fiasco?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, May 5, 2008, at 11:24 AM ET
So numbed have I become by the endless replay of the fatuous clerical rantings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that it has taken me this long to remember the significant antecedent. In 1995, there appeared a documentary titled Brother Minister about the assassination of Malcolm X. It contained a secretly filmed segment showing Louis Farrakhan shouting at the top of his lungs in the Nation of Islam's temple in Chicago on "Savior's Day" in 1993. Farrakhan, verging on hysteria, demanded to know of the murdered Malcolm X: "If we dealt with him like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours?" His apparent admission of what had long been suspected—that it was the Black Muslim leadership that ordered Malcolm's slaying—is not understood or remembered (or viewed) as often as it might be.
I invite you to look at the film of Farrakhan's sweating, yelling, paranoid face and to bear in mind that this depraved thug, who boasts of "dealing with" one of black America's moral heroes, is the man praised by Jeremiah Wright and referred to with respect as "Minister Farrakhan" by the senator who hopes to be the next president of the United States.
Liberal comment on Wright, and on the incredible damage that this conceited old fanatic has done to the Obama campaign, tends to dwell on the negative effect that black chauvinist rhetoric has on white working-class voters. Fair enough, I suppose. But why should a thinking black member of the working class want any truck with a Farrakhan fan or with a moral idiot who thinks that the drugs and disease in the black community are imposed by an outside conspiracy? I don't need any condescending liberal to explain to me why black Americans are inclined to be touchy about the way their forebears were treated any more than I require a patronizing former Harvard law student to guide me through the anxieties of the gun-owning and hunting community. I can quite easily understand these points without pedagogic assistance. What I won't be told is that Tawana Brawley was right, or that AIDS is the fault of the government, or that Jews were behind the slave trade, or that there is a secret Masonic code in the dollar bill. And the apologist for murder "Minister Farrakhan" and his big-mouth Christian friends flirt with this kind of half-baked garbage every day.
Nettled at last by the way in which this has upset his campaign, Sen. Obama last week cut the ties that bound him to his crackpot mentor. Well, high time. But those who profess relief at this should perhaps revisit what they thought (and wrote) about the earlier Philadelphia speech in which Obama was held to have achieved the same result with less trouble. If he was right last week, then the Philly speech was a failure on every level, and if it was a failure on every level, and thus left Obama hideously vulnerable to the very next speech made by his foaming pastor, then that must raise questions of eligibility for the highest office.
What can it be that has kept Obama in Wright's pews, and at Wright's mercy, for so long and at such a heavy cost to his aspirations? Even if he pulls off a mathematical nomination victory, he has completely lost the first, fine, careless rapture of a post-racial and post-resentment political movement and mired us again in all the old rubbish that predates Dr. King. What a sad thing to behold. And how come? I think we can exclude any covert sympathy on Obama's part for Wright's views or style—he has proved time and again that he is not like that, and even his own little nods to "Minister" Farrakhan can probably be excused as a silly form of Chicago South Side political etiquette. All right, then, how is it that the loathsome Wright married him, baptized his children, and received donations from him? Could it possibly have anything, I wonder, to do with Mrs. Obama?
This obvious question is now becoming inescapable, and there is an inexcusable unwillingness among reporters to be the one to ask it. (One can picture Obama looking pained and sensitive and saying, "Keep my wife out of it," or words to that effect, as Clinton tried to do in 1992 when Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader quite correctly inquired about his spouse's influence.) If there is a reason why the potential nominee has been keeping what he himself now admits to be very bad company—and if the rest of his character seems to make this improbable—then either he is hiding something and/or it is legitimate to ask him about his partner.
I direct your attention to Mrs. Obama's 1985 thesis at Princeton University. Its title (rather limited in scope, given the author and the campus) is "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." To describe it as hard to read would be a mistake; the thesis cannot be "read" at all, in the strict sense of the verb. This is because it wasn't written in any known language. Anyway, at quite an early stage in the text, Michelle Obama announces that she's much influenced by the definition of black "separationism" offered by Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton in their 1967 screed Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. I remember poor Stokely Carmichael quite well. After a hideous series of political and personal fiascos, he fled to Africa, renamed himself Kwame Toure after two of West Africa's most repellently failed dictators, and then came briefly back to the United States before electing to die in exile. I last saw him as the warm-up speaker for Louis Farrakhan in Madison Square Garden in 1985, on the evening when Farrakhan made himself famous by warning Jews, "You can't say 'Never Again' to God, because when he puts you in the ovens, you're there forever." I have the distinct feeling that the Obama campaign can't go on much longer without an answer to the question: "Are we getting two for one?" And don't be giving me any grief about asking this. Black Americans used to think that the Clinton twosome was their best friend, too. This time we should find out before it's too late to ask.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2190589/
Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
---------------------------------
FROM DICK MORRIS.COM
Barack Obama should have run screaming at the sight of William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn. Ayers has admitted bombing the U.S. Capitol building and the Pentagon, and his wife was sent to prison for failing to cooperate in solving the robbery of a Brink’s armored car in which two police officers were killed. Far from remorse, Ayers told The New York Times in September 2001 that he “wished he could have done more.” Ayers only avoided conviction when the evidence against him turned out to be contained in illegally obtained wiretaps by the FBI. He was, in fact, guilty as sin.
That Obama should ally himself with Ayers is almost beyond understanding. The former terrorist had not repented of his views and the education grants he got were expressly designed to further them.
So let’s sum up Obama’s Chicago connections. His chief financial supporter was Tony Rezko, now on his way to federal prison. His spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, of “God damn America” fame. And the guy who got him his only administrative job and put him in charge of doling out $50 million is William Ayers, a terrorist who was a domestic Osama bin Laden in his youth.
Even apart from the details of the Obama/Ayers connection, two key points emerge:
a) Obama lied and misled the American people in his description of his relationship with Ayers as casual and arm’s-length; and
b) Obama was consciously guided by Ayers’s radical philosophy, rooted in the teachings of leftist Saul Alinksy, in his distribution of CAC grant funds.
Since Obama is asking us to let him direct education spending by the federal government and wants us to trust his veracity, these are difficulties he will have to explain in order to get the votes to win.
Now that Obama is comfortably ahead in the polls, attention will understandably shift to him. We will want to know what kind of president he would make. The fact that, within the past 10 years, he participated in a radical program of political education conceptualized by an admitted radical terrorist offers no reassurance.
Why did Obama put up with Ayers? Because he got a big job and $50 million of patronage to distribute to his friends and supporters in Chicago. Why did he hang out with Jeremiah Wright? Because he was new in town, having grown up in Hawaii and Indonesia and having been educated at Columbia and Harvard, and needed all the local introductions he could get to jump-start his political career. Why was he so close to Rezko? Because he funded Obama’s campaigns and helped him buy a house for $300,000 less than he otherwise would have had to pay.
Not a good recommendation for a president.
Comments