French Retirement Protest

Once again a Government takes the wrong path to a resolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11633178

Increasing the retirement age will increase unemployment as the older citizens affected by it will hang on to their jobs longer. Thus, there's an increase in unemployment as the younger citizens are entering the job market. The benefit is only a temporary blip for two years while taxes are collected and not paid out for two years. After that, they're back in the same boat again. Then, they'll be talking about increasing the retirement age again just like they are here in the U.S. It's only a short-term solution that only moves the problem into the future.

What they (and all Governments) need to do is eliminate the "nice to have's" they could afford during a booming economy but can't afford during a failing economy. That's similar to families cutting back on vacations, movies, and name brand foods when things get tough. When things get better they can enjoy the "nice to have's" again.

 

 

NPR Unjustly Fires Juan Williams

Seriously? They fired Juan Williams for this?

Link to CNN story

Who doesn't get a little nervous around people who are clearly different than everyone else around them and/or people they're use to? When I'm on my walks in the evening and there's a crowd of teenagers in the park I'm a lot more cautious and keep my eye on them. When I make a wrong turn and find myself in a neighborhood where I clearly don't fit in I get a little nervous…and they are watching me too by the way because I don't fit in there. When I'm on a plane and see a lady with a baby get on I get nervous that they're going to sit next to me. And yes, when I see people walking around in Muslim "garb" I keep an eye on them too. But I also keep an eye on tattooed biker-types dressed in leather and chains, grungy over-pierced teenagers, and anyone still wearing a "members only" jacket. This is natural and normal human behavior.

I take it that Juan Williams was too much of a centrist for NPR and not far left enough. I've always like him on Fox because he does lean to the left. He gives a truer perspective than the lefties and righties. They fired him for making a remark that millions have made. I've been on planes where I've heard the same thing as someone steps on in Muslim "garb". Fire him for something "real" if he's done something but this is ridiculous. It's funny how "liberals" really aren't that liberal. Liberals seem to be less tolerant than the far right conservatives they enjoy attacking.

Congo Barbaric Savagery

Why aren't the U.N. and the world sending troops to the Congo to stop this mess? Of all the places that need help why is this still going on?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/10/19/congo.rapes/

This type of barbaric savagery is why many people in the past (as well as some today) felt it was OK to enslave the African people. The thinking was that the African people had been on the planet just as long, if not longer, than everyone else. Yet, they had not evolved to the same degree as everyone else. Thus, they would not evolve and it was OK to enslave them. I'm not condoning it, I'm just explaining some history of the warped thinking of the times.

This continued barbaric behavior in the Congo, Rwanda, Somali and other African nations does make you wonder though. Why have they still not progressed in a more civilized manner like most of the rest of the planet? Also, why is the rest of the planet allowing them to continue to behave this way? The planet has fought two World Wars to stop barbaric behavior. Countries have been invaded and taken over to stop barbaric behavior. Why is nothing being done about these African nations?

The U.N. should be doing something about this atrocity. The Congo has been at war continuously since 1996 (2 civil wars and 2 sub-conflicts). That'd be the Clinton, Bush and now Obama administrations. None have pushed the U.N. to stop it. In the last 14 years I'm sure the U.N. could've done something if they truly wanted to. But, these humans must not be worth enough to the rest of the planet. There's no oil and they're in no position to be buying Japanese video game consoles, German cars, French wine or U.S. electronics built in China. If they were good consumers with plenty of cash they'd probably be rescued by now. If they were an oppressed people with plenty of oil reserves they'd probably be rescued by now. But, darn the bad luck; they have no oil and no cash to be good "global economy" consumers. Thus, nobody, not even the U.N. is doing anything substantial enough to make a difference. Once again the U.N. is a worthless P.O.S.

Unofficial Founder of the Tea Party

No, this isn't a criticism so just follow along. Obama is the one who preached "Hope and Change". His message was one against the establishment and "business as usual" of the professional politicians in Washington D.C. The message hit a chord with many Americans and he won the election. In the subsequent two years that change hasn't been fully realized to the degree that many more Americans would like. Thus, to continue the promised change in Washington, the Tea Party emerged. Therefore, in an unintended way, Barack Obama is the unofficial founder of the Tea Party. The message of "Hope and Change" is still going strong against the career politicians in D.C.

Solar Panels on the White House

Yay! They never should've been taken down in the first place. At least they're going back up.

It is interesting that Clinton/Gore didn't put any up in their 8 years but "W" did and nobody mentioned it before now (at least this is the first I've heard about it anyway).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11478561

Obama’s Secret Strategy?

Obama is not helping the Democrats right now. He'd be more helpful just shutting up. He's touting the stuff that people are upset with. That is not going to help. That is just going to rile up the right. However, I wonder if maybe he wants to mix things up. Maybe he thinks if the Republicans take over they will help him be re-elected as they did for Clinton in 1994. Obama is more about winning than he is about doing. That has been his lifelong pattern. He knows how to win; he is just not sure what to do once he gets there.

That reminds me of what a boss of mine once told me. He compared projects and work in military terms. He said that some Generals are great at taking the city but are horrible at running it. That is why the Army has some Generals that "take cities" and others that "run cities". He said the best way to run a business is the same way. Some managers are great at running a project and getting it implemented and then move on to the next project (i.e. city). Other managers couldn't run a project successfully but could manage it to perfection after its implemented. Obama is the former; he is pretty darn good at taking the city but not so hot at governing it once he has it.