Archive | debate & financial responsibility RSS feed for this section

Obama’s “infrastructure” infusion; DOA without product strategy!

24 Dec

Obama’s Recovery: The danger of product-less society!


In the early 1990’s, to very smart American, one Democrat, the other Republican, founded a group they called the Concord Coalition. The late Paul Ethemios Tsongas, a brilliant Democrat, and Warren Rudman, a standout lawyer and politician from Massachusetts, felt that the United States economy is moving on a track leading to long-term disaster.


Paul Tsongas who at one time attempted to run for President, was extremely concerned about a very fundamental phenomena that by its nature could destroy an economic system. Tsongas and members of his coalition insisted that models of the industrial revolution were a sound foundation for a sustaining economy, but that when the phenomena of an industrial product economy is switched to a service-economy; catastrophic results should be anticipated.


Since the 1990’s when the United States started to lose significant manufacturing jobs to Far Eastern countries, many slow-down, and minor recession occurred. However, the catastrophe that the late Paul Tsongas spoke of appears to have begun during the waning months of President George W. Bush Presidency.


Since the backbone of America’s industrial economy its automobile business, the recent decline of auto industry fortunes is a clear signal that the United States economy may be suffering from issues that Paul Tsongas discussed some two decades earlier.


President-elect Barak Obama is proposing an economic stimulus package that will yield three million jobs, and infuse money into an ailing economy. The plan proposed by the Obama people is an essential step to stop the present economy to hemorrhage and become an actual depression. The Obama plan is also important as part of maintaining an acceptable quality of life for the American people. The plan deals with fixes to the Nation’s infrastructure, an essential and overdue undertaking.


Some of the problems with the Obama plan have to do with the fact that it will not yield products. The Obama plan would be based on people serving other people. The plan, rather than to generate sellable commodities that are needed to fuel an economy in today global environment, is designed to improve quality of life, not to generate income generating products.


Since the Obama plan would inject some trillion dollars into the economy, one may look for some product-generating fall out. The three million new employees are likely buy cars, appliances, and houses, all items that are required for a successful industrial economy.


Many question remain. The trillion dollars of taxpayer’s money will have to come from some credible source; what is that source? How will the money be repaid?


If President-elect Obama is serious about fixing the ailing economy, a production recovery element of an economic plan must be developed in parallel with the infra structure infusion, or the present declined will continue and become worse.

Obama, a figment of the public imagination:

29 Nov

There is no Barak Obama!

President-elect Barak Obama, is in reality a virtual person. The American public voted for the virtual-Obama, the person it wished for, not the person that Obama actually is.
The handsome tallish Mulatto with his captivating smile, a voice made in heaven, and oratory skills second to none, is a figment of the public collective imagination; or perhaps, a gift from the Creator to the world, his crumbling creation!
The person that is Barak Obama, the one that the American public elected, is not the person you see, it is rather: JFK, Superman, the Messiah (a la Louis Farrakhan, and others,) Winston Churchill, and the Christ Himself, all rolled into one…
In desperate times people resort to desperate measures, electing Barak Obama is such a measure. The Obama election could prove an act of the Creator and “save” the Nation, or turn out to be just another blimp on the radar screen of history.
The “Change” promised as is demonstrated by early selection of staff, will not come from Obama. If a change occures it will come from the minds, and possibly actions, of the American public.
Let us hope for the best realizing that Obama is not a panacea, but that he is very likely to be a great improvement over President George W. Bush, one of the worse Presidents in the history of the United States.
Good luck Barak Hussein Obama, let the Creator be with you!

PS There is indeed a Barak Obama who from all indications is a very fine person, but as elected, he became what the public wanted him to be, rather than what he really is. Let’s hope that, at least in part, the real and virtual Obamas merge and become one… 

America: We are not the “greatest…”

19 Nov

After about two years of hearing politicians, and the media, continue to state that America is the greatest nation on earth, that the US military is the best military on the planet, and that we are the freest people in the world, we come to find out that “the people” must bail out this greatest of greats, or it will falter.

The automobile industry, “backbone” of the US economy, is in shambles. It seems that some inferior people with slanted eyes and who live far away out produced America’s “most productive” people in the world, to the point that taxpayers have to be called upon to bail out the greatest industries of them all.

America’s land of opportunity finds itself in a position that “the people’s” investments in securing their own futures are now in jeopardy. America’s greatest military of them all does not seem to accomplish many of the tasks given them by “the nation.”

The amount of money required to run a major political campaign in the United States was proven in 2008 to make America not the land of equal opportunity to all, but actually to make those with money “more equal,” than for those who are less fortunate. The free press of the United States proved in the 2008 elections that being biased and using its immense influence to promote one candidate over the other, could sway, if not actually direct, the democratic process. While skewing the political landscape, the media kept referring to itself as being “the greatest,” demonstrating a posture of arrogance that is made of while-cloth.

There is little or no doubt that America is a great country. But like other great nations in history, it is becoming arrogant and may cause its own demise. Perhaps it will only lose its leadership position, and not actually disappears, but arrogance already reduced its economic viability.

America must be careful and not encourage mediocrity; it must not come to the rescue of every “great” institution that fails because its failure may affect the rest of the nation. America must be made to stand on its own two feet and become an equal partner in the global community of nations. America must shed off its self-image of being the best, or greatest, it is not that any more, if it ever were…

The “bailouts” crime

19 Nov

Starting with the $700 Billion financial institution bailouts, and moving own to a discussion of an automobile industry bailout, the United States congress, and the Administration, is perpetrating a crime!


Mike Todd, of Elizabeth Taylor fame, paraphrasing what he used to say in explaining the secret to his financial success, that to owe a tremendous amount of money, much more than he could ever repay made sure that his [well to do] creditors would not let him fail so that they do not ultimately lose the money that they were owed. This philosophy may be flawed, and it is not likely that Todd meant it literally, but present day automobile industry situations seem to fall in that kind of category.


The automakers made it clear to the United States Congress that if they fail, millions of jobs would be lost! Serving “the people,” Congress cannot let millions of its constituents join the ranks of the unemployed; it must keep the automobile companies in business and use “the people’s” money for the task.


If a typical member of “the people” was to fall so far behind, the law will likely be called upon to “fix” the problem. The individual would have to be held ac countable and live up to the responsibility of living up to legal commitments. Why should large industries be made to live up to the same standard?


The pragmatic answer is simple; holding the likes of the automakers responsible would hurt the nation, not something that the Congress can allow happening.


What is the alternative?


Those executives who were at the helm when the irresponsible spending took place should not only be deprived of “bonuses,” they should be made to pay reparation to the public, and if the damage reaches a given level, those responsible should punished in an appropriate legal manner, even incarceration if deemed necessary.  

The executives who justify the obsene pays by claiming to be “the best of the best” should be made to prove their value by fixing the problem, or be punished in a suitable manner. Those voting for baiouts should be dealt with especially if those who they help bailout are owed political favors.

Calling a spade a spade: More people killed in the name of religion than for any other reason. The Holocaust, and Islamic Jihad, two leading offenders!

7 Oct

This blog is intended to dispel notions that religions are peaceful, and that in order to be “politically correct,” one must not offend believers.

Attention will be given to United States politics versus that of others, and a discussion of how the present Administration is dealing with friends, and with foes, will take place. With a critical eye, discussion of the Administration “political correctness,” and its blind-eye to violent Islam (and that of other religions,) will be pursued.

An examination of the need to maintain the quality of life of as much of the American public as possible (even at the expense of some minorities,) in face of terrorist threats to the United States, will take place. The premise that “the good of the many supersedes that of the few,” will be examined in face of the fact that Muslims should be “profiled” based on the role members of their Islamic faith play in most of today’s terrorist acts around the word.

The view of this blog is that “profiling” can be done with care, and without causing undue indignities to those being “profiled.” Those “profiled” can be made to understand that the act is not against them individually, but that it is rather because they happen to be members of a group that endanger others. Israel is a case in point. Israeli security screeners seem to go to great length not to offend those Muslims that they “profile;” there is no reason why American “profilers” cannot do the same.

Finally, American foreign policy will be reviewed, especially as it relates to the Middle East, to United States and the Islamic World, and to its relations with “friends and foes,” alike. Special attention will be given to the United States failure to reduce threats from the likes of North Korea, and Iran…
Items [to search] of particular interest:
UPDATE, December 14, 2012

Pure Socialism…
Obama, epitome of the Peter…
Tax eqitablizatuion…

UPDATE, March 19, 2010

Jerusalem, Israel’s Capital in Perpetuity
Obama Orator extraordinaire, poor communicator

FOLLOWING IS A PARTIAL LIST OF PUBLICATIONS TO DATE (01/18/2010); please visit “archives,” start with the most recent post (January,) and others will follow in sequence:

Calling a spade a spade: More people killed in the name of religion…
About Dangoor (Dan Goor)
All of Jerusalem is Israel’s via Divine…
“Divine” obstacles may well dismantle 2-state…
Israel has no occupied land…
Neither pure socialism, nor pure capitalism…
The Koran is Islam’s declaration of war…

Returning to the purpose and reason for this blog:

Particular attention will be given to the fact that the major source of today international terror is done in the name of Islam, and the largest single event that destroyed [innocent] people, and did so because of their religious beliefs, or ethnicity, was the Holocaust. The fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to “wipe Israel off the map,” an act that he may well be able to carry out after enough nuclear devices are produced by his regime, will be carefully monitored, especially in light of that fact that such an event would be approaching the magnitude of the Holocaust, if it occurs.

Close scrutiny will be given the Middle East, including, but not limited to the fact that the State of Israel is the major obstacle to Islamic encroachment on the Western world. Will Israel with its formidable nuclear arsenal, “take-out” Ahamadinejad’s nuclear capability, which could be deployed against Europe, as well as Israel? The apparent deterioration in United States relations with Israel will also be reviewed, especially with an eye on President Obama’s apparent Islamic sympathies, which do not seem to be always reciprocal.

In the Twenty-first Century armed conflict seems to be concentrated among Muslims. War between brethren (i.e. Yeman and Saudi; Somalia; the Sudan, etc.), or conflict in the name of Islam, a Jihad, if you will, the means for forcing Islam on the world. Another item of interest has to do with the fact that the Muslims are divided, Shiites, Sunnis, and others, they are continuously at each other’s throat. Islam is using Israel, or what they call Zionism, as a uniting element, a “temporary glue” that hold them together for their present common cause, if they did not have Zionism to exploit, and their own one can expect a set of catastrophic conflicts (i.e. the recent Iran/Iraq war, etc.).

Not being Islamophobic, I have read the Koran and realize that those who believe, those who accept its words, must rid the word od infidels, not a peaceful suitable for civilized societies. That notwithstanding, it is clear that modern Muslims can, and do, accept the Koran in a manner compatible with Twenty-first Century society; and, like religious Jews who do not put to death those who do keep the Sabbath, or stone adulterers, adhere to the religion yet let others (infidels) believe as they wish.

Strict adherence to the Koran requires all Muslims to destroy infidels, but in reality, most Muslims accept a compromise, just like Christians, and Jews do, and adjust to be compatible with the world in which they live.

30 Sep

The September 26 United States Presidential debate:


Two nice men faced each other for a little over ninety minutes. They were civil, accommodating, but lacking in vision. Some of what was lacking might have been the result of moderator’s questions, some clearly due to limitations of the candidates.


The first question that came to my mind: Are these the best and the brightest?


This is not to question the innate intelligence, or acquired knowledge of the two men, but a concern that lacking is the creative brilliance, the vision, and the instinct that makes mortal man into great leaders, and the United States needs a great leader.


The debate did not enhance, or detract from the already accepted notion that Barak Obama is a great orator. Senator Obama, however, is much better at giving speeches, than he is in debates. The debate did not serve to change the perception that Senator McCain is a nice person with vast and unique experience, but not a man with a vision. The debate, in other words, did not change “the balance of power.”


Both candidates were well rehearsed, both committed to memory many facts, including names that they will not remember, nor need to know, tomorrow. 


The purpose of a Presidential debate is two fold. The debate is designed to demonstrate to the public a candidate’s demeanor, and ability to function under pressure; and it is intended to display the candidate’s knowledge and ability to deal with facts that may affect the nation.


Barak Obama, who has proven once, and once again, that he is an extraordinary public speaker, was expected to excel in the area of presentation and performance. It was expected that John McCain’s [much] longer experience would show. Since the demeanor is what audiences see, hear, and feel, it was presumed that Senator Obama would wipe the floor with Senator McCain; that did not happen. It was surprising to see how, in spite of his age; Senator McCain did not appear less poised, or less capable of dealing with the audience.


Since in real life quality of presentations matters only if it affects the effectiveness of what is being communicated, one must give much more weight to content when choosing a President. 


Neither candidate dealt effectively with the financial crises. Obama, more than McCain, missed the fact that the present crises are only a symptom of a much deeper problem. The present situation is critical, but it is less critical than is the problem behind it. It is very important to realize that even if the present financial situation is corrected, its cause will likely bring about other catastrophic events.


The root of present day financial meltdown is in the foundation of the economy. Modern economies are propelled by energy, and in the short-term the United States energy supply is in trouble. Both candidates touched on the issue, but both candidates dealt with long-term solution, while they are facing an immediate short-term calamity.


September 30, 2008


The US House of Representatives finally showed some responsibility by turning down the bailout package. Following are some scenarios that suggest the rejection was appropriate in spite of some added short-term problems on the public and financial institutions,


In order to not deviate from dealing with the Presidential debate, each situation must be limited in scope. Assuming that the bailout does what it is intended to do, what if:


  • 2008 and 2009 are cold years, oil supplies are low and consequently the price of a barrel of oil reaches $200.00, and a price of $9.00 per gallon of gasoline at the pump:
  • OPEC decides to cut production, or even only Chavez in Venezuela cuts supplies to the US
  • A major hurricane shuts down US oil refineries
    • No airline is likely to survive
    • The trucking industry would be in shambles and the prices of whatever they ship will be out of reach for most consumers.
      • Layoffs in the transportation industry would be devastating
    • The inability to heat homes in the colder parts of the country would cause illnesses and a significant added costs to the healthcare system.
    • Utilities cost would be staggering causing many businesses to shut down, and additional layoffs.


What do we do?


Without getting into details, unless the United States is able to come up with a short-term solution to energy supply, the bail out would be paramount to putting a band-aid on a malignant cancer.


McCain appeared more attuned to the time constraints than Obama. Obama was talking about energy independent in some years; McCain did address off shore drilling, nuclear plants, and new refineries.


Energy as the foundation of the economy will require a President with a unique ability to deal with highly complex problems. To deal with the short-term energy problems the United States will have to find a way to get additional supply from those sources that are presently producing refined oil and are in a position to immediately increase production.


The other part of the debate dealt with security, and foreign policy. The candidates did not seem to understand in depth the present day interrelations between security and oil dependency. They spoke of Al Queida, Middle Eastern countries, China, North Korea, and Russia. A great deal was said about Russia, which appears to changing into rogue dictatorship under Vladimir Putin.


Both candidates demonstrated that they were recently schooled on the subject of foreign policy.


Some items of note:


  • Neither candidate tied economic, security, and foreign policy, together.
  • Obama was talking about the failed economy of the last eight years. Not to excuse President Bush, a recession started, ENRON was in place, Bin Ladin was active, and energy policy missing before George W. Bush took office.
  • McCain’s point that for the President of the United States to hold direct negotiation with the likes of Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions would lend Ahmadinejad undue credibility was well made.
  • Since OPEC (with such rogues as Chavez and Ahmadinejad,) and Russia may hold the key to short-term energy solutions, Obama’s insistence that discussion is in order makes sense. When he mentioned that a number of ex Secretaries of State agreed McCain went on a meaningless tangent about being a friend of Henry Kissinger.


CNN was the big loser. Blitzer and company ineptly interpreting for members of the audience what they heard. Then, the CNN highly biased “pundits,” continuously self-proclaimed that they make up: “The best political team on television;” when in reality that statement is arrogant fantasy of a very [intellectually] mediocre group of biased individuals.


There was no outright winner; yet by virtue of not capitulating but rather keeping up with the great orator that Obama is, McCain deserves to be declared the winner.