The Feral Conservative's Open Salon Blog

Mitt Romney, in Context

Sun, 5 Feb 2012 15:02:14 -0500

He claims that he was taken out of context when Mitt Romney said “I like to fire people”. Fair is fair and I decided to listen to the actual quote, in full context. What Mitt said was “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me and I if am not getting good service, I want to say, I’m going to get someone else.” Okay, so Mitt likes to fire people who are not providing him with what he wants.

I may be going out on a limb here, but I will assume that Mitt would equally like being able to fire employees who are not giving him enough profit so he is going to hire someone else.

This leaves me with a question.

Is there any context where I like to fire people is an admirable position or preferred action?

Personally, I’ve had to fire people. I managed a large restaurant and I ran a small business. Each time there were instances where I had to fire people. Sometimes it was because business was off, sometimes the employee was simply not up to the task, and sometimes it was for serious violations like stealing. I can tell you that in every case with no exception, I never liked firing people.

Part of me always deeply regretted it when I fired someone, even when they had fair warning and there was no other choice. Part of me knew that this was still a human being, with feelings, and financial obligations. They were now wounded and I wielded the sword. A dear friend of mine manages a large number of employees and has done so for many years. He is known as a real hard case, a pain in the ass, and worse. The truth is that he’s in a tough business and has to run a tight ship. And the truth is that when he has to fire someone, as he puts it, “It really hurts, and I can’t show it, but it takes a long time to recover from the knowledge that you just were a part of someone’s tragedy”. He and I agreed that when you fire someone, that person failed but you too failed because part of your job as a manager and a human being is to help other succeed.

But Mitt? Mitt likes to fire people. Put that in any context you wish and try to tell me it’s an admirable statement or a desirable position to be in and I will tell you that you have no sense of humanity, no empathy, and your self serving ego is blinding you to the pain you are inflicting on others.

Mitt, if you are reading this, here is a bit of advice. Work at what you truly love, making money. Leave the presidency to someone who values human beings more than quarterly profits.

The BIG Government of The Right

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:09:13 -0400

It was a chilling moment during last week's Republican Presidential Candidate Debate when the loudest applause from the audience was in response to the statement that Texas governor Rick Perry presided over a government that had executed 234 American citizens.

The people in the audience and the men & women on the stage of the debate are the same people who protest against Big Government and champion individual freedom. Any government that is able to execute 234 citizens in ten years is Big Government. In fact, it's as big as any government can be, relative to individual freedom.

So here we see another example of the dichotomy of the Republicans, The Tea Party, and the American Right. They want a government big enough to execute a mentally ill man , but not big enough to provide urgently needed services to the mentally ill.

They want a government big enough to force a pregnant woman to carry her pregnancy full term despite risks to her health and despite the possible ill health of the unborn. And yet they protest against a government big enough to give adequate medical care to sick children and expectant mothers. They attack any government big enough to guarantee maternity leave, child care, and family assistance, while at the same time, claiming the mantle of “Family Values”.

They want a government big enough to issue an official definition of what marriage is and what marriage it not. They do not want a government big enough to support marriage with preferable tax codes and equality for all.

They want a government big enough to hand over our commonwealth, our public lands, and our natural resources to corporations. They do not want a government powerful enough to dictate terms and conditions to these same corporations.

They want a government big enough to raise large armies that can invade any county on earth, tear it to ruins and bring the people to their knees. They oppose a government big enough to take care of its own people, building schools, hospitals, parks, and infrastructure.

They support a government big enough to incarcerate the largest prison population on the planet. They oppose a government big enough to provide health care, education, and a secure retirement for all its people.

They worship the Big Government that can destroy, enslave, and execute its enemies. They are contemptuous of a government that can serve and protect all its citizens, from the rich & powerful to the most vulnerable.

The Right in America is indeed the party of Big Government, and it's a Big Government that ought to bring a chill to us all.

Global Compliance for you, American Sovereignty for them.

Sun, 7 Aug 2011 12:08:00 -0400

A Tea Party friend of mine was upset that "the libs" were going to take over Washington and let The UN dictate our foreign policy. "We are Americans", he reminded me, "And we should do what is good for America, no matter what some foreigners want!" I tended to agree with him and let the matter rest.

A few months later, my Tea Party friend and I were discussing the lack of good paying jobs in America, as business after business closes manufacturing operations here (but leaves the corporate offices intact) and moves to Mexico, China, India, and other nations where labor (and the environment) is more easily exploited. I wondered if this was a good idea; was it wise to let multinational corporations dictate American policy? My Tea Party friend insisted there was nothing we could or should do because, “We’re in a Global Economy!"

Well, okay, I thought. We can't protect our manufacturing jobs because we are in a global economy and many other nations pay poor wages with no benefits for manufacturing jobs, so we've got to submit to this global reality. Suddenly, I had an epiphany.

In this same global economy, virtually all the western industrialized democracies have some form of Universal Health Care! I approached my Tea Party friend and asked, "Hey, under the pressures of a global economy, shouldn’t the USA adopt Universal Health Care?" My friend shot back, “HELL NO! We're Americans. We are a sovereign nation and we will not let some Euro-Socialist commies dictate our national policies!" (But somehow he’s okay with Communist China as our largest trade partner, dictating our policies)

"Oh, right...” I replied, "I forgot that we are Americans and we make our own decisions. I guess that answers my next question."

"What was it?", my Tea Party friend inquired.

"Our CEO's and upper management earn many times more in salary and benefits than their counterparts in the rest of this global economy" I explained. "In order to be competitive, shouldn't we lower their earnings, you know, to be competitive in the global economy?"

"There you go again", my Tea Party friend shouted at me, "Letting foreigners dictate what's best for us. We're Americans and we have our freedoms! We will not allow any foreign markets dictate how much our hard working, job creating, CEO's are paid!"

After a while, I began to see the pattern. The term Global Economy is used to justify eroding the status, wealth, and sovereignty of America’s working middle class. It is a term that requires the user to seek out any and all nations that have lower standards than ours, relative to labor, and apply them to us without question. However, any nation that has higher standards than ours, relative to labor and/or comparatively hostile policies to investor capitalists and the wealthy class is to be ignored, as we are Americans!

The Peasants in the Village and the Nobleman on the Hill

Fri, 5 Aug 2011 21:08:02 -0400

I had a dream last night.

The peasants in the village were all starving and freezing in the midst of a long hard winter. Up on the hill, away from the village but within sight, was the manor of the nobleman who owned the fields that he leased to the villagers at rents so high that they had no money left for firewood or medicine. This same nobleman owned the mines where many of the villagers worked for wages that were not enough to support a family after they paid their small taxes and paid the installments on their mining tool loans.

And yet, the nobleman on the hill lived in luxury, "earning" his fortune on his real estate business and his mining companies. He paid his taxes, but at a rate lower than any of the villagers as it was all "capital gains".....money made with money as he spent his days in the manor, getting manicures and hosting wine tasting parties for the noblemen in neighboring towns. What's more is that this nobleman inherited his great fortune from his father who had inherited it from his father, as each was entitled to such wealth by virtue of their birthright.

The peasants, suffering in great misery, went to the town hall to see what could be done about the lack of food, sanitary plumbing, decent roads to get to the mines, and a host of other problems that the community suffered with. The town mayor told them, "We lack the budget to deal with any of this. So much of our revenue is being spent on the wars to protect the financial interests of our nobleman, and the rest is spent maintaining the roads and canals that lead to the manor, there is nothing else left. We have two options. One is to ask all of you villagers to cut back on eating, perhaps to one meal a day. As some of you die, that will just mean more food for the rest. The other option is to raise the taxes on the nobleman in the manor. This will mean that he will have to cut back on his daily manicures and possibly serve domestic instead of imported wine at his parties. I know his noble-ness will be angry with this hardship.....What shall we do?"

Hearing this, the peasants rose up in anger, took to the streets with pitchforks and torches and marched to the gates of the mansion where in one voice, they shouted aloud with great anger, "Oh great nobleman in the manor, our government wants to raise taxes and we shall all fight to the death to save you from this as you are our job creator!".....

And they all walked back to their hovels in the village and drank tea....and Kool Aid.

The Boehner Family Budget Deficit

Tue, 26 Jul 2011 12:07:58 -0400

John Boehner's argument in this debt ceiling debate is that Washington needs to operate under the same economic principles as the American family. He maintains that like your household budget, when debt gets out of hand in Washington, we need to cut spending.

But Boehner misses a point and my guess is he misses it deliberately. In the "family budget" that is Washington, there are more than one or two bread winners.

The Washington government family is like the typical American family with moms and dads working to support themselves and their children, but unlike the typical American family, the Washington government family has a wealthy uncle who has a private suite on the top floor of the house.

This uncle pays a share of the mortgage and utilities. He also convinced the family to make significant home improvements to the house, mostly benefitting him with an expanded balcony off his suite, Italian marble bath, and three car garage to house his collection of sports cars. He assured them that the money was all there in the house; all they had to do was remortgage the property and there would be plenty of money.

This same uncle, through his status as majority shareholder of the local mill, sent the jobs overseas to enrich his personal portfolio even though it resulted in the unemployment of the mom & dad who lived downstairs.

So now we are at a point where mom & dad have found a few lower paying part time jobs, their kids can no longer afford piano lessons or a vacation at the beach and the bank is calling every month because the mortgage is close to default. Refinancing is not possible because contrary to the uncle's advice, the house is worth far less than the amount of the mortgage. In short, the family is looking at becoming homeless unless someone does something.

They've already cut back. They've already agreed to work harder for lower wages and fewer benefits. What this family needs is for the uncle to be responsible, behave as American families do and help his family.

The only problem is that in Boehner's world, the uncle accepts no responsibility for the plight of his impoverished family. What Boehner's proposed budget would do is transfer ownership of the house to the uncle where he could charge rent to his relatives, maybe even evict them if he thought their credit was not worthy. Where would they go? Who knows? Who cares? Yeah, just another example of good old Republican Family Values.