Charlie's Chatter

Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat, soon to become vacant, will by law be filled by an appointment from the New York State governor David Paterson. Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the assassinated president John Kennedy, has asked Governor David Paterson to appoint her to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Given this news, it seems that a large majority of people do want her to assume that Senate seat. Well, I find that ridiculous. But given the increasing size and ineffectiveness of state and federal governments, and the increasing ignorance of the electorate, this does not surprise me. It does, however, frighten me.
    We do not need a United States Senator who has practically no political knowledge and experience and who has little real knowledge and experience of life as most Americans experience it. At the same time, we do not need a Senator who, whether she knows it or not, thinks like a member of the “elite” – those persons with money and fame whose lives are largely shaped by forces contrary to those experienced by most Americans. These elite people often consider themselves to be very knowledgeable, and to know “what is best” for others, including most other Americans. In the particular case of Caroline Kennedy, she certainly considers herself as “one who knows best”, and this is perhaps best demonstrated by her intense involvement in the Profiles in Courage award. This award is usually given to to elected officials who, acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a “larger vision” of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or pressures from their constituents. Yep, that’s just what we need – a Senator who will not take into serious account the desires of his or her constituents, but instead act according to his or her own wishes. (More on this award and Caroline Kennedy can be found here on my web blog). Apart from everything that I have said about Caroline Kennedy so far, she is also a democrat and a liberal, and given her past civilian activites with so-called “good works”, charities and education, no doubt she would continue such work as a Senator, although of course as a Senator she would have much greater influence over taxpayers’ money, therefore helping to use that money for “her” good work with charities and education. (That is your money in case you were wondering.) In addition, I note that recent news on her activities show her having a well-publicized “lunch” with that race-baiter and race hustler Al Sharpton, that harmful and infamous man of Tawana Brawley fame. Anyone who spends any time at all with that evil man, except to castigate him, is either not very bright or else is attempting to appeal to the baser instincts of many thousands of African-Americans and many people on the extreme left. Such a person is certainly not worthy of any respect.
    Some people clearly do not want Caroline Kennedy as Senator, and one writer even addresses a short comment with the title “Others more deserving of US Senate Seat”. But that implies that Caroline Kennedy does at least deserve the Senate Seat, and that is not at all true. An interesting web post on this matter, with comments, is worth the read.
    I am well aware of the fact that many other Senators in the history of our Nation have been appointed (or even elected) to their office with not much more qualifications than Caroline Kennedy. Heck, a very few may even have had less qualifications than Caroline Kennedy. Why even Hillary Clinton did not have that many good qualifications when she first ran for election as Senator in New York State. But that proves nothing except perhaps that the quality of our highest holders of public office, such as US Senators, is not at all what it should be.

I just read a news article which says that Bush, in a recent interview, said “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Great thinking Bush !   Yep, that is the way to “save” any system – abandon the very principles of the system. Yep, that makes perfect sense. Now of course Bush will “save” General Motors and Chrysler, this despite the failure of the United States Congress to pass bills intended to do just that. Way to go Bush! Add more crap to your legacy! (I normally avoid using bad language in my posts, but I am so, so angry at Bush that I have had it with him, and thus I use stronger language in order to express my absolute disgust.)

The recent attempt by the United States Congress to provide a “bridge loan” or other assistance to the auto companies failed last week. The supposed “final chapter” occurred when the Senate, after intense discussions with auto company management and autoworker unions, could not come up with an agreement which would satisfy management and the unions, and which the Senate could pass. All kinds of reasons have been put forth by editorial writers, politicians and political pundits about the reasons for this failure, and the consequences that will follow. When I hear and read about all of these, the following thoughts come to mind:

• Without a “bridge loan”, it is said that General Motors will have to file for bankruptcy within two to three weeks. And this will lead to disaster, so it is said, because it will soon result in the loss of millions of jobs. This is bullcrap. First of all, General Motors no longer has the nearly half-a-million union workers that it had 30 to 40 years ago. It has less than 75,000 in the United States. So this will result in the layoff of less than 75,000 union workers at General Motors in the United States, followed by a “ripple effect” at parts suppliers and auto dealers. Many parts suppliers will have to lay off thousands of workers, and a few suppliers and auto dealerships might even go bankrupt. Of course many non-union workers will also lose their jobs, at least temporarily. In any event, all these numbers do not add up to more than a quarter-million job losses, one-third of a million at most, whereas over 10 million workers are already unemployed in the United States today! And let’s not forget that, in the event of a bankruptcy, the restructuring that will almost surely follow will result in many of these laid-off workers getting their jobs back, most probably with lower pay and benefits. (Note: the number most often used for the “number of people that will be unemployed” is 3 million. But that number assumes that Ford will also go bankrupt, and yet we know that Ford has enough money to last at least another year. Also, this number uses an absolutely worst-case scenario, clearly in order to scare people. Note that the number of 3 million is only used by those people who are in favor of a “bailout”.)
• If General Motors goes into bankruptcy, then of course General Motors, at least in the United States and Canada, will no longer be able to build cars until restructuring is completed. And during this time period, perhaps a quarter-million jobs will be lost, at least temporarily. Well, why was this not brought up in 1970 when the United Auto Workers’s Union conducted a long national strike against General Motors? At that time about 400,000 union workers were off the job, for more than two months, and at that time General Motor’s market share in the United States was just over 50 percent, whereas today it is less than half that. In 1970 General Motor’s influence on the United States economy was more than twice what it is today, but no, the economic “damage” caused by that 1970 strike was not ever publicized, let alone feared, except to the extent that it might damage the General Motors company itself. Few concerns were voiced for parts suppliers, auto dealers, let alone the general public.
• But oh, you say, today the economic situation in the United States is much, much worse than it was in 1970. Why already more than 10 million people in the United States are unemployed, and over half-a-million lost their jobs just last month, in November. Well then, why were not any “bridge loans” or any other kind of assistance given to at least some of those small to medium-sized companies in order to reduce the number of jobs lost in November? Could one reason be because those jobs were not held by members of the powerful United Workers Auto Union? Could another reason be because the companies who laid off over half-a-million workers were not large enough to have sufficient lobbying-power in the US Congress?   (Yes, it is true that the US Government “gave” or otherwise transferred billions and billions of dollars over the past 3 months to many financial institutions such as banks, insurance comanies and investment firms. But note that this did not do much good since it has been the financial sector that has suffered the most job losses during the past few months, with the possible exception of the housing construction sector.)
• It is important to realize that it was only one year ago that the United Auto Workers Union went on strike against General Motors. So okay, it was actually just over 14 months ago, and not one year. And the strike only lasted a few days, with General Motors eventually agreeing to nearly all of the union demands. But note that that was not very long ago at all, and yet little was publicized by politicians and political pundits about how terrible this was for our economy. And even though General Motors was not profitable at that time, I guess since they were not in immediate danger of bankruptcy, there was no need to bring up such things as the US Government somehow providing a “bridge loan” or other assistance. What a bunch of baloney. By the way, at least parts of the union contract which eventually ended this recent strike, and another union contract with Ford in the same year (2007), are available on this web site. Note the photograph of the pile of over 2000 pages of one of these contracts. Absolutely incredible! These contracts clearly had hundreds of rules and regulations that have hampered the auto companies.
• It disgusts me to see how much “politics” is coming into play nowadays with respect to the auto companies General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. There are public figures such as city mayors, congressmen, senators and governors, those with constituents who are going to be hurt by a bankruptcy of General Motors. For the most part, these public figures argue for a “bailout” or “bridge loan”, and yet most of their arguments do not bring up their constituents; instead they say that almost everyone in the entire country will suffer. In other words, “they” are not being selfish; instead they are looking out for everybody in the United States. What gall. What absolute nerve, (and bullcrap). Of course there is the other side of the coin, where public figures whose constituents will hardly be hurt by a General Motors bankruptcy; these public figures argue against public help for General Motors, saying that it will be bad for the entire country. But of course they too are just playing politics, for the most part.
• In case a “bailout loan” or “bridge loan” is provided to General Motors, this will just postpone the inevitable. So when the problems finally reoccur, as they will, then things will be even worse. And no “car czar” will be able to help. This notion that a “car czar” would force General Motors into bankruptcy if the company (and the union) do not come up with a good “restructuring” plan is nonsense. Can you possibly imagine any person, three to four months from now, forcing General Motors into bankruptcy, even if he or she is legally empowered to do so? I can’t. Why? Because such a person would be subjected to incredible pressure from union workers, the unions, many automotive people, politicians, and perhaps even our new president. What bullcrap.
• To me the final straw will be that provided by president Bush. Supposedly he will take steps to provide at least a “bridge loan” to General Motors, despite the refusal of the US Congress to provide for such assistance. Some pundits say that Bush wants to do this in order to “enhance” his legacy; after all, he is a lame duck with little time left as president. It has even been said that the head of the Auto Workers Union knew about this while negotiations and discussions were going on with the United States Senate, (in order to approve a “bridge loan”), and therefore he decided to play hardball, knowing that if the Senate did not help, the president would. What a jerk Bush is. Hey Bush, if you go ahead and somehow provide a “bridge loan”, this will sooner or later even further harm your “legacy”, such as it is. (This reminds me of what his father did when he was a lame duck president. At that time there was increasing “civil war”, rioting, bloodshed, fighting and even some genocide going on in Somalia. So what did that lame duck president Bush do? He sent United States troops to Somalia to help out. When he did that I personally was absolutely disgusted because I knew that we had no business using our troops and our money in an attempt to help out a dysfunctional country like Somalia. I knew that the elder Bush did that only because he thought that he would improve his legacy by showing the world what a “nice guy” he was – sending American troops and spending American money to help out an African country in peril. Well, we now know what the results of that “help” to Somalia has been. Damn that senior president Bush! He has nerve and courage, no doubt about that, as he proved during the Second World War, but he does not have much wisdom. (By the way, this “Somalia” business should certainly be a lesson to many people who think that the United States should actively help out in order to prevent genocide, such as in Darfur. Yeh, go ahead and send troops and money. Just watch how many of our troops get hurt and killed, and how much of our money will be wasted.)

Given the apparently increasing propensity for government “bailouts” in hard times, it is to be expected that other industries which are in trouble may seek government help. What was supposed to be a joke on a blog turned out not to be all that funny. Yes, the State of Connecticut has now suggested that some failing newspapers in that State be given help by the government in order to survive. Good grief!

I am sick and tired of the increasing incompetence of many politicians, and the voters who support them. In this particular web post, I address a special kind of incompetence – that in which certain politicians call for legislation which is self-contradictory or at least self-defeating.
    In California, most people are aware of the fact that the State of California is in dire trouble financially, and that their budget is terribly out of whack. They need much money since their budget is way out of balance, and they need literally billions of additional dollars in order to balance their budget if they do not instead cut spending drastically. So what do they do? They adopt regulations due to a law which are intended to further cut the emission of greenhouse gases, gases which are claimed to increase globalwarming. Well, even if that does help reduce globalwarming, so what? The stupid politicians can not even spend taxpayers’ money responsibly, wanting not to spend less money but to instead raise taxes. But, at the same time, they can enact regulations which will cost even more money, and which will hurt businesses in California, all to show how “responsible” they are and how eager they are to “save the planet”. After all, we all know that California is the most responsible State in the Union when it comes to being “environmentally sound”, and they do want to maintain that position. Oh yes, by all means, take steps to “save the planet”, but what about the the many thousands of California businesses who will be hurt by this, businesses who will thus leave the State, or go out of business, or at least cut back on their activiities and raise prices? Well, additional California residents will lose jobs as a result of all this, and others will have less money as a result of all this. But never mind them. The planet is more important.
    The latest example of self-defeating political planning is occurring in the United States Congress where politicians debate various proposals to lend money to the auto companies. I find it absolutely stupid and appalling that some of these proposals require the auto companies to spend more money on research for, and the construction of, “environmentally-sound” automobiles which will supposedly contribute to the so-called “green revolution”. But the fact remains that most consumers do not want to buy such automobiles because, for at least many years to come, these cars will be expensive, and most will have other handicaps for most consumers, such as not enough interior space and not enough driving range. What bullcrap and stupidity.

During the weeks and months after the horrors of 9/11, government authorities detained hundreds of people in an investigative attempt to obtain more information about who was responsible for any and all aspects of the 9/11 attacks. Of course nearly all of these detainees clearly had some characteristics that led to their detention and interrogations. (I hate to use that latter word since liberal media and political correctness now often imply that all interrogations, or at least many of them, involve “torture”.) Anyway, the “characteristics” that usually led to their detention were the facts that these people were Muslims, immigrants, and suspected of crimes, to include being illegal immigrants. Well, according to this news article, one of these men has sued the then Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI chief Robert Mueller, claiming that he and others were detained and humiliated because of their religion and ethnicity, and that their civil rights were violated. He claims that the policy to do so was instituted by, or at least approved by, the Attorney General and the FBI chief. Now it seems to me that the “defendants” in this case have initially responded to this lawsuit by claiming that they, as the highest members of the government agencies at that time, were not responsible for knowing about all the actions of their low-level employees, whether legal actions or not. Therefore they said that the lawsuit could not proceed. However, a federal appeals court said that the lawsuit could proceed, and now this issue has just been submitted to the United States Supreme Court for possible consideration. I find this absolutely abominable, for several reasons.
    First of all, given the facts of 9/11, what kinds of people would clearly be most likely to be involved in the attacks? Recent Roman Catholic Caucasian immigrants from Ireland? Or even recent Hispanic immigrants from Central America, legal or illegal? Of course not! Muslims with an Arabian, Persian, or South-Asian appearance, you damn fools! The limited resources of our investigative goverment bodies should have been concentrated on such people because it makes rational sense !
    Secondly, some of the “civil rights” that the lawsuit claims were violated were the fact that these men were not simply “detained”, but that they were subjected to harsh and humiliating treatments such as strip-searches and solitary confinement. Why it was claimed that some men were even “beaten” or at least struck on the face or body. Well, to my knowledge, many suspects originally detained for possible crimes, such as kidnappings and murders, are often subjected to harsh and “humiliating” treatment such as strip-searches and some solitary confinement. What do you expect when you are in jail? A Christmas party? In any event, as far as “civil rights” are concerned, I wonder just how many “civil rights” a person legally has in our country if that person is not a citizen. The same “civil rights” as a citizen? That can’t be right. They can’t vote, as just one example. To my knowledge they can’t legally buy a handgun either.
    Thirdly, it needs to be noted that, at least in the New York area, all of the men originally detained were eventually charged with minor crimes and/or immigration violations, although none were linked to the 9/11 attacks. I note, however, that this does lend weight to the fact that none of these men were detained simply because they were Muslims. The authorities did not detain them simply because they were Muslims, but also because they were suspected of some criminal activity and/or possible illegal immigrant status. That makes complete sense to me. By the way, the man who is the main plaintiff in this suit has since been deported to Pakistan, since he was an illegal immigrant and has pleaded guilty to identify fraud.
    Finally, and of most importance to me, just why in the damn hell has our United States justice system allowed this travesty of a lawsuit to continue at all once it was initially filed? It is for this that I’ve paid taxes over the last 50 years? I guess not. Apparently my taxes are mainly supposed to support the politicians, many useless government bureaucrats, and to give billion dollar bailouts to banks, Wall Street firms, large insurance companies and automobile companies.
          To conclude, I do want the reader to know that I do not condone real torture in any jail or detention center in the United States, even if the detainee is a suspected terrorist. By “real torture” I do not mean intensive interrogation methods such as some sleep deprivation and occasional very uncomfortable subjection to cold or heat. By “real torture” I mean a real beating, for example, and not just a slap or two to the head. By “real” torture I mean actually putting a blowtorch to someone’s hand or legs, and not just forcing a person to spend 24 hours in a cell where the temperature is 100 degrees. It has been alleged that some of these detainees had been subjected to torture, but just how much was real torture I do not know. In any event, if any detainee had been subjected to real torture, then that should be a matter handled by lower-level authorities. Life is often hard, even for those of us who are law-abiding citizens, and this constant claim of discrimination, humiliation, hardship, and so on coming from illegal or criminal Muslim immigrants is ridiculous and should be recognized for the abomination that it is. If these disgruntled Muslim immigrants should sue anybody, it should be the many Islamic “leaders” who condoned the 9/11 attacks and who continue to call for the destruction of us “infidels”.

Given the very high gasoline prices last summer, and the current financial crisis, there have been many, many public complaints about the very high salaries (with bonuses) that most CEO’s of oil companies and financial companies make. For the most part, I have few complaints about these. Most of my complaints are directed at those CEO’s of financial institutions such as banks and investment firms whose companies have benefited from huge financial bailouts from the US Government. Any CEO whose company is in financial trouble, (which now includes the automobile companies), does not deserve a very high salary, let alone a bonus. On the other hand, I have few complaints about the high salaries of oil company CEO’s. As far as I know, most of these companies are not in financial trouble and are not receiving any “bailout” or “rescue package” money from taxpayers via the US Government. Instead their companies have been profitable, and although energy prices have been very high, they have certainly come down a lot lately.
    What I have always found odd, and which I just thought about again recently, is that many individuals in the sports and entertainment industry also make huge amounts of money, and yet almost nobody ever complains about that. The few complaints that I have read about are complaints registered by some rich owners of sports teams who do not always like paying very high salaries and bonuses to some of their players. And to a certain extent, some sports figures who played professional sports in the 1950′s and 1960′s do sort of complain, saying that when they were active they never came close to receiving such high pay and bonuses, and that’s with taking inflation into account. Instead these old and retired players did not make that much more than the average guy way back then.
    It is worth noting that today the average pay of a CEO of a corporation big enough to be included in the Standard & Poor’s index is less than one-third of what Alex Rodriguez makes, about one-tenth of what Tiger Woods makes and less than one-thirtieth of what Oprah Winfrey makes. At least according to Thomas Sowell. Yep, I don’t hear anyone complaining about all the money Tiger Woods makes. And yet I do believe that most people in the United States do not get any enjoyment from watching anyone playing golf, whether it is Tiger Woods or any other golfer. But no complaints ! After all, when it comes to sports and entertainment, the high earners in those fields are real stars! Heck, except for their talent, these are just ordinary folks, almost like us. They certainly are not greedy, fat capitalist pigs !