About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Free Speech for All? Or Only the Elites?


Last week the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) handed down its decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and I think it’s one of their really great ones, as it restores the right of free speech and political advocacy that was radically curtailed under McCain-Feingold.
 
At issue was whether or not a “corporation” – in this case a political advocacy group – had the right to electioneer in the final days leading up to an election. SCOTUS decided that political free speech rights attach to corporations just as they do to individuals.
 
Needless to say, liberals are in high umbrage and hair-on-fire mode over the decision.
 
Obama even broke protocol to wag his finger at the Justices watching him read his teleprompter at the State of the Union thingie.
 
The most common complaint is that somehow corporations – which are apparently all owned by sneaky foreigners intent on subverting our electoral process (I have no clue HOW they know this) – will subvert our elections and we’ll turn into a banana republic or something.
 
Which could just as easily be said about the shareholders of the LA Times, another big corporation, and yet liberals don't seem upset that the MSM (to obviously exclude Fox and talk radio) – the majority of which are nothing but a bunch of cheerleaders for liberalism – were perfectly free to print all the advocacy they wanted, right up to the day of an election.
 
So clearly, “corporations" already have free speech, and liberals are okay with that ... IF it’s the “right kind” of corporation.
 
Yes, the First Amendment specifically prohibits curtailing the "press", but if you want to look at the contemporary "press" of Revolutionary times, they weren't "corporations". They were proprietorships.
 
You can't have it both ways.
 
So as far as I can see, if it's okay for the corporation known as the LA Times to electioneer and recommend – "endorse" – candidates right up to and including the day of the election in order to further THEIR agenda, I don't see any reason why Exxon – or the NRA or Planned Parenthood or anyone else – shouldn't have the same opportunity to do exactly the same thing.
 
All we've had prior to this decision is a situation in which SELECT corporations have been able to electioneer all they want, under essentially a preferential and privileged status. Well, that's the only thing that's changed, and I think it's a very healthy development.
 
Further, just exactly what is it corporations are going to say or do in their ads that’s so bad it’s going to “destroy” America? That socialist policies are BAD for America? Well... I hope they do; I can hardly wait!
 
Obama’s teleprompter constantly says how he wants to be “clear” on issues. I’ll tell you what’s clear to me: the liberals understand they previously controlled most of the “approved” information outlets immediately prior to elections, and now they’re hopping mad that their monopoly has been stolen from them. Well, that’s too bad.
 
I have a lot more trust in the boards of Exxon and Mobil, not to mention the NRA and Citizens United, than I do in the LA Times and its ilk.
 
What part of the First Amendment’s "Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech..." do Lefties not understand?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (241) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama as Salesman


I spent the majority of my work life in sales. I enjoyed being in sales and I was very good at it. At various points in my career I was in management or mentoring positions in which I was involved in training newbies. At an early point in the process, there was a question I always asked him or her:
 
“As a salesperson, what do you think is your most important asset?”
 
I got a very wide range of answers. “My intelligence, and ability to think on my feet”. “My product knowledge”. “I’m a very persuasive speaker”. “I’m a persistent closer”. “I never take ‘no’ for an answer”. “I know the competition, and how to comparative sell against them”. “I’m very likeable”. Etcetera.
 
Extremely few people ever got the right answer. My response was almost always: “That’s a great asset, but the wrong answer. Your most valuable asset is your ears. It’s your ability to hear when someone’s talking, and hopefully to LISTEN to what they’re telling you. Because they’ll tell you what’s important to them IF you’ll listen to them.”
 
My first step on any call was to establish (or re-establish) rapport with a little personal chit-chat. Human nature dictates that people prefer to do business with people they like, plain and simple.
 
Once the actual sales dynamic started, I didn’t launch into some canned speech about how great my product or company was, or how lousy my competition was; I asked questions. “What are you trying to achieve? What’s your budget? What performance criteria are important to you?”
 
You’d be amazed at what you can learn. People usually love to talk, especially about the things that are important to them. A “good listener” is welcome anywhere, and that’s who you want to be. Further, as they’re answering your questions, they’re telling you exactly what you need to know in order to present to them a solution that will fit their requirements. It allows you to tailor your presentation to their self-expressed concerns and interests, and present the proper product to fill the bill. If you sell cutlery and the guy’s looking for forks, you’re going to be dead in the water if you start pitching spoons. He can only afford silver jewelry in your store, and you’re trying to push platinum. You’ve set yourself up for failure.
 
You may not have a product that precisely fits their desires, in which case you need to establish how much they’re willing to compromise, then present your product that best fits those needs. Sometimes that will be acceptable, sometimes not. There comes a point at which a final decision is reached, and you must be prepared to accept that decision, favorable or not. Sometimes you have to simply walk away. But doing so gracefully leaves the door open for you to come back later when the next opportunity presents itself.
 
“That’s all very interesting, Brian, I’m sure”, you’re thinking, “But what does that have to do with Obama?”
 
Well, here’s your answer.
 
Obama ran a pretty good election campaign, the “establish rapport” part of the process, and the fact that his opponent ran such a bad campaign made him look even better than he actually was.
 
But over the last year, while he’s been in office, he’s been absolutely tone deaf. His “most valuable asset” to which I earlier referred is not in use. The result? His polling numbers are dropping faster than a porn star’s pants.
 
It’s not as if his potential clients – the American electorate – haven’t been telling him what he needs to know. They’ve been doing that loudly, clearly, and distinctly; at townhall meetings, Tea Party events, and through polling. They’ve emphasized the point through the elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Massachusetts.
 
Obama’s response? “I haven’t been speaking to the American people enough”.
 
Are you kidding me? The guy’s on TV more often than American Idol and the ShamWow guy combined! The only way to get away from him is to hide in your bathroom, and I won’t be surprised if he tries to follow me in there, too!
 
No... his problem is that he’s still trying to sell refrigerators to Eskimos, and he refuses to LISTEN when people tell him they don’t want that product. And the net result of ignoring your client’s needs and continually pushing a product they’ve told you they’re not interested in is that you squander whatever goodwill you’ve built up during the “rapport” stage of the process.
 
His State of the Union speech last night confirms everything I’ve written in this essay. In spite of rejection after rejection at the polls; Tea Parties everywhere; townhall meetings at which his policies are all but set on fire; polling data that shows him losing support and goodwill right across the board; he STILL insists that he’s just going to keep pushing even harder.
 
Good for conservatism (if a certain party pays attention), bad for liberalism... and Obama.
 

Addendum on 28 Jan 2010:
 
And doesn’t this just say it all! From that article:
 
He accepted partial blame for the deep troubles facing his health care push, but he implored lawmakers to finish the task rather than yield to public opposition.”
 
Yeah... Damn that pesky “public”! Who cares what THEY think?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (74) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

“Going Green” from an Engineering Standpoint

 
The “climate change” zealots have suffered some real setbacks lately, between the “climategate” release of the emails from East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and the newest revelation that the claim that the Himalayan glaciers were going to significantly diminish by 2035 was all a hoax. I wonder if Gore’s going to have his Oscar and Nobel revoked? Not gonna hold my breath on that one.
 
Yet while people huddle in their homes during this harsh winter praying for a little of that “global warming”, the fanatics continue to push their agenda.
 
Think about it. What’s the biggest target they’re trying to eliminate? It’s always “fossil fuels”. And of course, the largest target in that category is the internal combustion engine. That’s why we always see the demonization of SUVs, the glorification of hybrid cars, and the mantra that “new technologies” will wean us from the usage of gasoline and diesel.
 
Well... beam me up, Scotty, and how’re the dilithium crystals doing?
 
Here’s the reality. First, we have some of the most extensive fossil fuel deposits on the planet, particularly in oil shale and natural gas. We have enough energy to not only make us energy-independent well into at least the next century, but we could be a net-exporter nation, too, if we want to.
 
Canada’s Athabasca oil sands development has proven the technology viable and economical. Shell’s new in situ extraction process means there’ll be very little ecological impact on extracting the oil from shale. In shale oil, we have proven deposits somewhere between 1 and 2 TRILLION barrels, more than the entire known deposits in the Middle East. Our natural gas deposits in the East are of such vast quantities that I’ve seen estimates that there’s enough there to last us at least a couple hundred years.
 
Drill here, drill now, baby!
 
The reality is that modern technology evolved around the use of fossil fuels, particularly in the transportation of people and goods. Trains were powered by steam generated by burning wood or coal (a fossil fuel). Cars were developed originally as steamers, then switched to internal combustion engines (fossil fuels). Ships, trucks, buses, airplanes... all use fossil fuels.
 
Let’s focus on the most ubiquitous devices to illustrate the issue: personal transport. Cars in all their variants (vans, SUVs, etc.).
 
There’s a lot of talk about switching car production to electric power. Here are the problems involved. First and foremost, that means we’re talking battery power. Batteries have a finite range, maybe a couple hundred miles or so at best, then they have to be recharged. That recharging takes HOURS, and that’s not going to change in the foreseeable future, according to experts in the field of that technology. So what happens when you want to visit Grandma, who lives 300 miles away? You have to overnight in a motel somewhere while your car recharges? Right now, you pull off the freeway into a gas station, fill up your gas tank, grab some snacks, and hit the road again; maybe a ten minute delay. Not if your car’s powered by batteries.
 
Which then means the only alternative is the “hybrid”, which means once again... gasoline or diesel, those evil fossil fuels.
 
Even if at some point battery power alone does become technologically feasible, then what? Every gas station in the country is exactly that: a GAS station, not a BATTERY station. The cost to this country of converting those 121,446 stations (according to the 2002 census) to battery stations would run into the untold trillions of dollars. Who’s going to pay for that? What about the summer “brownouts” we already have? What happens when you add millions of cars to the electricity demand?
 
Even IF the changeover happens, what about the rest of the world? Are we going to be the only country in the world that outlaws gasoline-powered cars? What happens when the rest of the world doesn’t go along? Are car companies going to have to manufacture duplicate versions of everything? Battery cars for America, and regular cars for everywhere else? How will poorer countries afford the transition? What happens to the aging fleet of gasoline cars out there in the world?
 
Now compound those issues when you consider other engine-driven transport. Large ocean-going ships could be nuclear powered because they’re big enough to house reactors. That’s not the case with anything else. Battery powered big rigs? Maybe someday, but have you ever heard of a hybrid big rig? What about aircraft? Maybe mount a bunch of solar panels on the wings? And by the way, kiss goodbye forever to jet engines, and the speed and power they afford. The only way to have jets is to burn kerosene or some other fossil fuel.
 
That’s the problem with these pie-in-the-sky proposals continually touted by the fanatics: they have no basis in real-world science. They’re dependant on the development of some unknown and unspecified “new technology” that’s going to appear on the horizon like magic.
 
Dilithium crystals, anyone?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (53) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism Hit By Tsunami! “Moderation” Swept Up in Backwash!


Teddy Kennedy, “The Liberal Lion of the Senate”, held the seat for over forty years. Nobody ever bothered to really even challenge him for it. It was his endowment; there was discussion of handing it to JFK’s daughter Caroline as an entitlement. The current pending healthcare legislation was pushed “in honor of Teddy”.
 
What a difference a day makes (new meaning for that Golden Oldie).
 
For the third time in as many months, Obama extremism has met a solid rejection at the polls: Virginia, New Jersey, and now in Massachussetts, that bluest of Blue states.
 
I think there are many issues of note in Scott Brown’s victory over Martha Coakley, but the most important single aspect is that Brown ran his campaign clearly as a referendum on Obama and the proposed “healthcare reform” – plainly promising to be the “41st vote” to break the Democrats’ filibuster-proof status – and was elected on that basis.
 
There’s no disputing that Coakley ran an abjectly incompetent campaign. But what does that tell us? Is that an excuse? No. It’s simply evidence of the grotesque contempt in which the political hacks – particularly on the Left – hold Joe and Jane Sixpack... the very voters who give them their office, and for whom THEY work.
 
Even a last minute Hail Mary campaign effort by Obama and Bill Clinton couldn’t pull the rabbit out of the hat for Coakley... further evidence of Obama’s weakening powers on the political front.
 
There are very important lessons here for both major political parties. First, the Democrats should take from this defeat the understanding that the American people aren’t willing to accept their imposition on the nation of radical socialist programs. This race was CLEARLY waged as a referendum on “healthcare reform” by Brown, so that message should be unmistakable.
 
In watching some of the liberal analysts interviewed yesterday on Fox, I saw that many of them got it. But it’s also evident that many of the Dem politicos in DC are either in a state of complete denial, or their natural hubris and arrogance are simply too strong to be tamed, as they’re determined to forge ahead with their program in spite of this defeat and all the extant polling data showing that the vast majority of the electorate just hates this proposal. Elitism personified. Like children whistling as they walk past the graveyard in the dark, they’re choosing to ignore the meaning inherent in this election, and what it portends for them this November.
 
But many in the GOP seem just as blind. Michael Steele, the Clown Prince of the party, seems intent on trying to portray this as a victory for the same old mantra of “moderation” and his mangled version of Reagan’s “Big Tent” philosophy, instead of seeing it for what it truly is: a campaign successfully waged on the basis of traditional CONSERVATIVE principles, not GOP cronyism.
 
Steele sees a parade, and is trying to jump out in front of it. He really has to go.
 
Obviously, Mitch McConnell is just as clueless. According to an article on the TH website today (here):
 
"'The president ought to take this as a message to recalibrate how he wants to govern, and if he wants to govern from the middle we'll meet him there,' said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky."
 
In reality, Brown’s victory is a vindication and validation of the Tea Party movement more than anything else. A populist campaigner, running on core conservatism focused like a laser on a hugely unpopular socialist program, tapping into voter frustration, and succeeding on the basis of his own sweat equity.
 
The GOP needs to understand that they don’t have to “go along to get along”. They don’t have to be the “Me, too, but just a little less” party. They don’t have to “compromise”, or “reach across the aisle”. They don’t have to “meet in the middle”, Mitch.
 
They can be strong, principled, and vociferous opponents of the Dems on the principles of the issues... and WIN!
 
This is the lesson we learned from Reagan back in 1980, the 1994 Contract With America sweep of Congress, and is reaffirmed by Scott Brown’s victory now.
 
Addendum, 23 Jan 2010:
 
Watch a very stirring YouTube video here
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (132) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

When Did It Become “Mandatory” to Exercise Your “Rights”?


According to the socialist tyrants currently in power in Washington, there is not only a “right” to “affordable” healthcare and insurance, but if their current legislative effort becomes law, you will be smacked with tax penalties, fines, and possible prison sentences if you refuse to participate.

Now, my understanding how of a “right” works is that you – as an individual citizen – are afforded the opportunity to exercise your power to decide for yourself whether or not you want to actually exercise that right. In other words, you have the power to “choose”. Isn’t that what liberals are all about? “Choice”?
 
Well apparently, in this Brave New ObamaWorld as enacted by Emperor Reid and Tsarina Peloski, you will not only “choose” to have insurance, but “you vill LIKE it”, in the immortal words of Colonel Klink.
 
So, the thought occurs to me: how does this new philosophy affect other rights we as citizens enjoy? How about the right to vote? Will we now HAVE to vote, under penalty of jail time? Or maybe get fined? What if there’s no one we want to vote for (an occurrence that seems to become evermore commonplace lately)?
 
“You didn’t vote, and you call yourself a good liberal? Shame, shame on you! Twenty dollar fine.”
 
Or maybe: “You didn’t vote, and you call yourself a conservative? Thirty years!”
 
Of course, like most liberal policies, that one could possibly backfire, as hoards of conservatives swarm the polling places and elect people who actually realize there’s a Constitution.
 
How about another new “right”: abortion? Will that now become “mandatory”? Yikes! Better speed up the illegal immigration process, then, because otherwise we’re going to run out of people if we kill off ALL the unborn!
 
Of course, there IS an upside: “mandatory” gun ownership! It’s an actual “right”, spelled out in the Bill of Rights and affirmed by the Supreme Court. And if the liberals are intellectually honest (I know... that one even made me laugh, and I knew it was coming) they’ll not only legislate fines and penalties for not owning a gun, but will enact new subsidies to enable poor folks to experience the same joys and benefits of gun ownership as “the rich”. 
 
I... don’t think I’ll hold my breath.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (179) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »