Friday, August 31, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/31/2012

Naturally I, nor anyone else, knows how the coming election will turn out. But now that the Republican convention has ended, there are a few things which I believe are certain. 
First and foremost, regardless of the election’s outcome, those who paid any attention at all to the proceedings in Tampa saw undeniable evidence that the face of the party has changed significantly. The image of fat cat, cigar smoking barons sitting in club chairs, reading stock market reports by the fire as their dividends pile up is gone completely.
They’ve been replaced by a new breed of predominately young, multi-racial, ambitious go-getters, a significant number of them women, whose unified goal is the return of the United States to its position as the most powerful and respected nation on earth, apologizing to none for its hard-earned world-leading status. 
To that end, a roster of dynamic, committed, erstwhile, forward-lookers and thinkers spoke from their hearts as they related stories of personal success and their desire to help others achieve goals of their own.
In that regard, I doubt anyone, regardless of political persuasion, can remain dry-eyed while listening to Condoleezza Rice tell of her parents who raised her in highly segregated Birmingham, Alabama, yet continually assuring their young daughter that she could become whatever she wished, up to and including POTUS. Because this was the U.S. And then that little girl went on to become the Secretary of State. 
Florida Senator, Marco Rubio, too spoke of his father who worked tending bar at the back of many banquet rooms, doing his absolute best to insure that his son would one day appear at many of those same venues as the one addressing the crowds from the podium at the front.  
Another of the many, many composed achievers who impressed me greatly was Susana Martinez, currently the first female governor of New Mexico and first female Hispanic governor in the United States. She told of meeting two influential Republican men who’d invited her to lunch one day. As a Democrat then, she went because she thought she’d enjoy the free food, though was absolutely convinced she’d ignore their pitch and simply thank them for the hospitality at the end. However, as they described their individuality-based credo, she realized their beliefs were more in line with hers than her own party’s, so she switched.
As speaker after speaker reinforced the theme of personal responsibility and achievement, I got the sense that the incumbent president gave them all an invaluable gift. One likely to come back and haunt him for years to come. Because each and every one of them in their own way, was sure to mention that all those who accomplish their goals, though they might have had some help here and there,  absolutely built their success themselves.
And then there was Clint, who at 82 might be showing the strains of his age. But nonetheless, Dirty Harry told it like it is and pulled no punches while stating that those in office work for the people, not the other way around. And as such, when they fail, it’s time to replace them which is why he thinks it’s time for the incumbent to get out of Dodge. Consequently, whether seeming a bit shaky or not, his beliefs and comments brought the house down in cheers.
Finally of course, came the man of the hour whose goal was to help folks get to know him better. Especially since the press has tried to paint him as cold, uncaring and aloof. But despite all the media negativism, what came through was an accomplished, polished, highly professional achiever with the kind of control that can only come thorough seasoned, continued confidence gained by considerable success.  And, in that regard, Mitt Romney came off as a winner by any measure, including a warm, caring, extremely close relationship with his wife, five sons, their wives and 18 children, which I think all helped to kick off his campaign in high gear.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, August 30, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/30/2012

Yesterday, I led off with the extremely positive impression Ann Romney made on me when addressing the RNC in Tampa. And then during the day, several pundits, including high profile pollsters, all stated that they thought she’d help her husband seem more “human,” and soften his image as a cold, stand-offish businessman only concerned with the bottom line.
Most of the talking heads then indicated that they believed he had to follow up on her groundwork and prove to voters he had a warm side, otherwise he’d be quite vulnerable to the much more affable and folksy incumbent.
As I listened to these “experts,” a light soon went on in my mind. Because I didn’t realize until then that I have a considerable amount of commonality with Mr. Romney.
My primary occupation for most of my professional life has been financial sales which requires personally calling on prospective customers nationwide. Over time, as my responsibilities increased, I began addressing larger audiences, whether in sales meetings, conferences, guest speaking engagements, trade shows, seminars and similar situations that arose.
And although the need was there for me to perform in all these different types of environments, I had no background, particular talent or ability to fulfill those roles. In fact, my strongest forte was one on one sessions with prospective customers wherein I could describe my products and services, help select the best alternative for each particular case, ask for an order, close a sale and depart.
However, since in order to meet the demands of my jobs, I had to step up to the task of “public speaking,” I swallowed my fears, doubts and trepidations and began stepping into the arena, which in time led to performing in some very large venues.
And here’s what I found out.
The key to selling yourself has nothing to do with glibness, snappy patter, fast pace or silky smoothness in speech. What it’s actually all about is the particular products or services you provide.  Therefore, your objective is to thoroughly understand their value yourself, and knowing specifically, in detail, how they help customers achieve what they want and why. And the more you understand about the intricacies of what you can deliver, and match them to the needs of buyers, not only will you close more orders, satisfy more clients, and be asked to come back…you’ll very likely be recommended to others.
On the other hand, if when asked what you can do for prospects all you can tell them is that your competition is worthless, distrustful, harmful, misleading them and can’t perform as promised, you actually look like an unqualified amateur who’s in over his head. And the funny thing is that the smartest of buyers see through that sham immediately, making them quite wary. While beyond that, hearing someone so forcefully disparaging a rival likely incents prospects do some more homework to find out why they’ve got you so scared.
So, in Mitt Romney's case, I don’t think he needs to worry about softening his image or trying to make folks fell comfy cozy, because that’s not his job. His responsibility will be to fix the fiscal ills of the nation, something he certainly knows from experience how to do quite well. And if he simply tells folks, plainly and clearly how he’s going to do that step by step, illustrating the rationale and benefits as he proceeds,  I think they’ll gladly give him the order for the next four years and be very pleased that they did.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/29/2012

Watched some of the clips this morning of last night's speakers at the Republican National Convention. There were no surprises for me at all except the stage presence, composure, sincerity, and impressive intelligence displayed by Ann Romney. And whereas I knew nothing about her until now, I think she came across as a solid, believable, and certainly knowledgeable, information source as to what’s Mitt’s all about, and will prove to be a very strong plus for his campaign. The presentation she made was perfect for it's purpose.
Aside from the convention however, which is doing what it’s supposed to with obvious bias, there were two other items in the news which might have positive effects regarding Romney.
According to Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy Magazine on-line a commentary in Monday's China Daily read, "By any standard, the U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's China policy, as outlined on his official campaign website, is an outdated manifestation of a Cold War mentality. It endorses the ‘China threat' theory and focuses on containing China's rise in the Asia-Pacific through bolstering the robust U.S. military presence in the region."
So, what that says to me is they’re presently quite happy having the oval office occupied by someone whom they see as no threat, and thus can likely use to their advantage. But Romney’s potential election scares them enough to put their fears in writing. And considering they’d like nothing better than to wipe out the U.S. economically -or try to by force if they had to- their obvious fear of him is a huge endorsement of Mitt.
And then there was the announcement that Hillary won’t attend the Dem Convention next week, because, "she’s just to busy doing her job and will be traveling instead to the South Pacific, Asia and Vladivostok in Russia." However, this is the first convention she’s missed since 1968, her original involvement in politics.
So, as regular readers know, I’ve suspected she’d be asked to step in for Joe Biden whereas he’s such a huge liability for the incumbent. But now it seems that really won’t happen, which naturally leads me to wonder what the truth really is.
My best guess is, she likely thinks the incumbent’s run is over and doesn’t want to be tied to the debacle he’s caused, preferring to be as far away as she can, like maybe the Far East or Europe. Yet, whatever the case, I agree with Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College, who wrote, according to Reuters, "I would be surprised if she was not at the next Democratic convention, either as a former first lady, former secretary of state, or as a candidate herself. I bet she has already cleared her calendar."
And then there’s the case of Bill, who’s still introducing the incumbent’s speech at the upcoming convention. But now, if Hillary’s truly out of the VP picture, and considering how much he hates the incumbent himself,  I’ve got to wonder what he might say or do to sink him. And in that regard, if I were in the incumbent’s shoes right now, I’d cancel Bill’s speech for sure and replace him someone I know and trust. However, that’s presents another problem, because is seems there just aren't any of those folks left.
That's it for today folks.

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/28/2012

I’ve let lots of movies and shows pile up in my DVD, to have things to watch on TV for the next few days. I pre-record what I watch all the time anyway, because that way, I fast-forward through all the commercials. It’s been many years since I watched any kind of ad and even do that with my favorite, Jeopardy, viewing it on disk a half hour after it actually airs.
However, the reason I’m piling up extra viewing footage is that, as I’m sure everyone reading this knows, the Republican convention begins in earnest today in Tampa. And for myself, I have no intention of listening to days of endless speeches, commentary and dribble from talking heads whom are very, very, very unlikely to tell me anything I don’t already know.
I also don’t understand who could possibly be a living, breathing human being intending to vote that hasn’t heard everything there is to know by now either. Because for the past three years, the partisan stuff’s been pounded out in the press and on the air 24/7/365.  In fact, as I write these words, I think anyone truly unaware of exactly what’s going to be spewed and discussed in Tampa, has to be either a mental vegetable or have been stranded on a yak in Tibet in a blizzard for a long, long time.
And that brings me to the subject of speeches in general. Because I simply don’t understand their value, unless those delivering them are unknown to the listener completely. And even in that case, speeches themselves amount to nothing more than a stream of absolute and worthless BS. What's more is: Whereas I wasn’t born under a turnip, I know that it doesn’t matter what people say or promise that counts, all that matters is what they actually do.
So, in regard to the spewers in Tampa, every one of them’s a high profile figure with a documented track record that’s not only public, most of them appear in the news on a regular basis, thus I already know what they've done to date. And what are they going to tell me? They think Romney’s good and the incumbents bad…gee whiz, what a surprise! And then when the hot air’s been dispersed, pundits and “experts’ will parse and re-parse every word, until listeners are not only bored senseless, they’ll likely be comatose altogether.
And that’s why I’ll avoid all the repetitive campaign gibberish and tune in my DVD. Because although I’ve watched Dirty Harry countless times, as well as a Few Good Men, Let It Ride, and a slew of old Law & Orders, they’re all far more interesting and certainly better acted than a bunch of windbag politicos and analysts who’ve got nothing new or interesting  to tell me at all.
That’s it for today folks.

Monday, August 27, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/27/2012

I’ve watched every episode of The Newsroom, a new HBO TV series aired on Sunday nights. It’s creator and primary writer is Aaron Sorkin, who chronicles the behind-the-scenes events at a fictional channel, Atlantis Cable News.
Throughout the season so far, I’ve found the show’s premise and performance interesting enough to keep me tuning in. However, although I know the show is fiction and greatly contrived, there are scenes and  story segments that actually get me livid at times. And, despite the fact that I should have realized the cause far sooner, I now think I’ve figured out why.
The lead character, Will McAvoy -I think played quite well by Jeff Daniels- is the anchor at ACS whom continually describes himself as a true moderate Republican. However, at present there are many aspects of what he believes the party's become that he strongly disagrees with. And as a result, he uses his anchorship forum to vividly point out a host of issues to prove his point.
Therefore, there are TV clips and bites showing such folks as Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Sarah Palin, among other Tea Party favorites at their worst, making gaffes, sounding foolish or otherwise looking bigoted or simply out of touch. But the fact is, with first rate editing, direction and surrounding filler and commentary, producers can present almost any image or perception they want.
And that’s when the belated light went on for me. Because I finally woke up and realized that by making the show’s lead a Republican who’s currently displeased by some in his party, and having him demonstrate the reasons by focusing on examples supposedly proving his point, Sorkin’s using the character to smear, disparage, degrade and point out all that he himself likely disagrees with. Which is something I believe confirmed by the case that Democrats are not only never discredited, they aren't even mentioned at all.   
Now, if my assumptions about the show’s politics are correct, it’s premise is absolutely brilliant and beyond. Because by creating a frustrated Republican whom addresses a large audience each week with continual examples of why he’s upset with his party, Sorkin throws every kind of mud he can think of under the guise of Mc Avoy being their ally.
And what’s even better for Sorkin is that since the show is fiction, there’s no rebuttal or requirement for equal time
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, August 26, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/26/2012

Aside from the hurricane heading for Tampa, there’s not much else in the news. And it will likely stay that way, barring an unexpected event, until the Republican convention begins on Tuesday.
However, while scanning stories on Drudge this afternoon, I came across a link to an article titled, Romney and the neo-Neanderthals, by Maureen Dowd.
I clicked on the link out of curiosity and wasn't surprised at all to find that it was simply another day and another repetition of the same old theme that the liberal press pounds out by rote. But, while I glanced down the page, I realized that in Dowd’s attempts to totally discredit Romney as a candidate, most of the reasons for her displeasure have absolutely nothing to do with the hard core issues facing the nation but are basically social preferences having no bearing on national governance at all.
And that’s when it occurred to me that to a great extent, the presidency's become a position wherein there are so many facets now ingrained in the job, it’s likely no one could possibly appeal to the total number of special interests involved. But what compounds the issue further -and this I believe is true regardless of which side pundits are on- is that today it’s no longer good enough to simply state disagreement. There is now a widespread tendency to degrade, insult, vilify and destroy the character and substance of those choosing to run for office.
So, in the case of Ms. Dowd, while she absolutely has every right to her opinions and beliefs, I don’t think Mitt Romney's disagreement with her is cause to discredit his considerable accomplishments. Which brings me to my point.
What the nation needs at the moment is someone who can reverse it's economic direction and restore it’s financial substance, which are well with Romney’s proven talents. But if while doing that he also has to meet other tests involving citizens of every ilk’s personal preferences, I doubt he can accomplish that achievement. But, neither can anyone else. So maybe the time has come for pundits like Ms. Dowd to realize that no good bargains are ever made where only one side wins, and the best situations result from negotiation and fairness, not pig-headedness.
That’s it for today folks.

Saturday, August 25, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/25/2012

Last night, Sean Hannity had a panel of nine or ten folks who voted for the incumbent last time, but have changed their minds for this time around. I only caught the last fifteen minutes or so of the show, but picked up the gist pretty quickly.  For the most part, it came down to the economy and the disastrous effects it’s had on those I heard speak. 

What made the most dramatic effect on me, however, was that while several panelists spoke of hardships now encountered: job losses, business closings, higher costs and continual decisions faced as to whether to buy food or fuel while living from paycheck to paycheck and in danger of losing their no longer affordable homes, video clips flashed alongside showing various luxurious vacations, trips, outings and golfing excursions enjoyed by the incumbent and his family. The difference was, stark, dramatic and vivid, clearly illustrating how out of touch the incumbent seems with reality, a point clearly having a negative impact on the panelists.

I also thought the panel's timing interesting because it appeared on the same day, Friday, that I’d earlier posted a long entry regarding the typical Dem trait of total hypocrisy. Because, despite all their noise of concern for those less fortunate, the bulk of it is lip service, hype, mirrors and smoke whereas with all their claimed concern about economic disparity, they actually do very little about it. 

And that last point was confirmed for me this morning, when I read an article in the The Wall Street Journal’s, Review & Outlook on-line.

According to the WSJ, “In January 2009, the month President Obama entered the Oval Office and shortly before he signed his stimulus spending bill, median household income was $54,983. By June 2012, it had tumbled to $50,964, adjusted for inflation. That's $4,019 in lost real income, a little less than a month's income every year.”

They continue with “Unfair, you say, because Mr. Obama inherited a recession? Well, even if you start the analysis when the recession ended in June 2009, the numbers are dismal. Three years after the economy hit its trough, median household income is down $2,544, or nearly 5%.,“ and "The overall decline since June 2009 was larger than the 2.6 percent decline that occurred" during the recession from December 2007 to June 2009. For household income, in other words, the Obama recovery has been worse than the Bush recession.” 

The article then lists in detail reasons for the dismal results which I’ve listed below.

"The big pay freeze is also the bitter fruit of public schools that have failed to teach the basic skills and knowledge needed to succeed in a competitive global economy. Rising health-care costs have also forced employers to take money that used to go into higher wages to pay higher premiums. 
A key driver of higher wages in the 1980s and 1990s was a surge of capital investment in computers, plant and equipment, which made Americans workers more productive. When Mr. Obama pledges to raise taxes on investment income (capital gains, dividends and small-business profits), he is making it costlier to innovate and modernize. That plays out over time into slower gains in productivity and wages. 
America's corporate tax rate is the highest in the industrial world. A 2011 study by economists at the American Enterprise Institute found that because of the capital flight from the U.S. as a result of this high rate, "every additional dollar of tax revenue [from the corporate tax] leads to a $4 decrease in aggregate real wages." 
And lastly, “Mr. Obama also likes to say that government workers like teachers are hurting and the private economy is doing "just fine." But the data indicate that over the past three years households with government workers saw their incomes decline less than households with private workers. The public-private pay gap is now wider than ever ($77,998 government versus $63,800). "
So, here again we have a respectable source of information (WSJ) doing the research to establish that, in fact, the typical and constant Dem rhetoric regarding the economy is not only false, but their ideas and policies are far more just harmful, they’re disastrous. However, as horrendous as the situation is that they've created, what makes it far worse is that they're such hypocritical liars to boot.

That’s it for today folks.


Friday, August 24, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/24/2012

Kevin D. Williamson, of National Review on-line, posted an interesting article yesterday afternoon, regarding what he refers to as a “gossip” website called Gawker.
Williamson writes that “Gawker has an interesting headline up: ‘Inside Mitt Romney’s Tax-Dodging Cayman Schemes,’ which incudes some 950 pages of material related to Mitt Romney’s investments, mostly having to do with Bain Capital and together reveal the "mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his $250 million fortune."
Williamson then goes on that, “As John Cassidy relates in The New Yorker, Gawker’s own finances are “organized like an international money-laundering operation.” For example:
“Much of its international revenues are directed through Hungary, where [bossman Nick] Denton’s mother hails from, and where some of the firm’s techies are located. But that is only part of it. Recently, [Felix] Salmon reports, the various Gawker operations—Gawker Media LLC, Gawker Entertainment LLC, Gawker Technology LLC, Gawker Sales LLC—have been restructured to bring them under control of a shell company based in the Cayman Islands, Gawker Media Group Inc."
Cassidy then asks: “Why would a relatively small media outfit based in Soho choose to incorporate itself in a Caribbean locale long favored by insider dealers, drug cartels, hedge funds, and other entities with lots of cash they don’t want to advertise? The question virtually answers itself, but for those unversed in the intricacies of international tax avoidance Salmon spells it out: “The result is a company where 130 U.S. employees eat up the lion’s share of the the U.S. revenues, resulting in little if any taxable income, while the international income, the franchise value of the brands, and the value of the technology all stays permanently overseas, untouched by the I.R.S.”
Now that I’ve provided the background, here’s the part that interested me most where Cassidy recaps, I think perfectly, “So we have evil offshoring -exploiting those poor marginalized Hungarian nerds- baroque tax-minimizing schemes, assets that will not be repatriated because of U.S. taxes, and that favorite sin of the Left: hypocrisy. In my mind, hypocrisy is a lesser sin than stupidity, and it is sort of stupid to write up a breathless account about Romney’s doing the precise same thing your company does. Incidentally, there is nothing in the Gawker report or the accompanying documents suggesting that Romney or Bain did anything improper. And neither did Gawker, for that matter: U.S. tax practices create very powerful incentives to pursue avoidance strategies. Gawker’s owners apparently know that, even if its writers lack the guts or the intellectual capability to acknowledge as much.”
As for me, at the risk of sounding like redundancy, I think the three contributors to the preceding story did an outstanding job of illustrating leftist hypocrisy and it's very typical finger pointing. However, what really came through to me is that, when all was said and done, what Mitt Romney really did was manage his business to benefit its owners the most which is his primary responsibility. And not only that, in order to accomplish the same things for themselves monetarily, Gawkers management did exactly what he did and you can’t get a better endorsement of his ability than that.
That’s it for today folks.

Thursday, August 23, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/23/2012

Flipping channels yesterday, a screen-crawling item caused me to turn up the volume. Legal analysts on Fox News Shepard Smith show were discussing an April gambling incident  at the Golden Nugget casino in  Atlantic City, NJ.

It seems that when mini-baccarat  players kept seeing the same sequence of cards dealt over and over again, they kept increasing  their bets, from $10 to as much as $5,000. Forty-one consecutive winning hands later, 14 players had racked up more than $1.5 million in winnings. By then, casino security had surrounded the table, convinced the group had cheated, but were unable to prove how.

As it turned out, the casino buys pre-shuffled cards, ready for use, from a Kansas City playing card manufacturer. But in this case pre-shuffling wasn’t performed, for some reason or other, which is why the same hands kept repeating and the players soon figured that out.  

But here’s the part that got my attention. The Golden Nugget is now suing the players for return of their winnings, saying they’d taken unfair advantage of a mistake and therefore, weren’t entitled to keep the money. And while I understand that the casino obviously must feel it’s worth a shot to see if they can recover all, or even part, of what they’d lost…I almost fell over when one of Fox’s lawyers said he thought the casino was right.

Now, as for myself, I spent considerable time playing all kinds of cards in the past, and although I avoided casinos, preferring games with folks I knew and trusted, I understand that a bet’s a bet, no matter. And if a dealer, or anyone else in the game, is too dim to realize an error and immediately correct it, the wins are wins and losses are losses…and that’s what gambling's all about. 
What’s more, if you make gambling mistakes, and others take advantage, you’re likely in the wrong line of work. So, perhaps, the Golden Nugget ought to learn some of the basics of playing cards.  Such as opening decks and flipping though them before putting them in play. 
But, whatever the case, the next time I sit in a game it will be at the Golden Nugget. And, because I‘ll likely win,  for the first time in my life I’m going to bring a lawyer -from anywhere but Fox. 

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, August 22, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/22/2012

Just a few days ago, I mentioned that suspicions and ideas posted here are often considerably ahead of later occurring events. I then attributed those predictions to be simply the application of basic  common sense, rather than any gifted or unusual foretelling capabilities on my part. Because I really believe the assumptions are quite logical and obvious to anyone capable of thought who actually pays attention to what occurs around them.  

And then just today, I came across an article by Jim McElhatton of The Washington Times on-line who wrote, “The Labor Department paid out hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal stimulus funds to a public relations firm to run more than 100 commercials touting the Obama administration’s “green training” job efforts on two MSNBC cable shows, records show.”

He then went on to state that “The commercials ran on MSNBC on shows hosted by Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann in 2009, but the contract didn’t report any jobs created, according to records reviewed recently by The Washington Times.”

Federal Recovery Act  reports show $495,000 spent to “raise awareness among employers and influencers about the [Job Corps] program’s existing and new training initiatives in high growth and environmentally friendly career areas” as well as spreading the word to prospective Job Corps enrollees. 

But the comments that interested me most came from David Williams, president of the nonprofit watchdog, Taxpayers Protection Alliance, who called the contract “questionable” because it created no jobs and because of the placement of the ads on shows viewed as friendly to the administration’s policies, and then said, “Hiring a PR firm does not create jobs, and this was obviously meant for selling a particular political agenda. The placement really reeks of a political ad rather than a job ad, and taxpayers see through this.” 

Williams concluded his thoughts with this: “Taxpayers would be a lot happier at the end of the day to see a completed road rather than a bunch of ads on cable television.”

So, here we have a confirmation of my previous entries wherein I questioned the value or sense of ads aired today. Because I sincerely believe they’re either written off by audiences as pure pap, hype, or smoke to which nobody really listens. Or more likely, if not ignored completely with the sound turned off, listeners or viewers simply change the station like I do.

Therefore, as I I’ve suggested before, instead of advertisers continuing to throw money away on valueless babbling endeavors, why not put their bucks to work on something that really counts? Simply donate the funds to reducing the national deficit and actually save taxpayers billions of bucks.

That’s it for today folks.


Tuesday, August 21, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/21/2012

Nothing much of interest going on in the news, but I did see mention on several websites that the incumbent’s campaign is outspending his rivals significantly.

And although I’ve noted the subject before, I got to thinking again about the whole aspect of political ads and their worth. Because I still don’t understand how anyone who has even the merest capacity to think, or pays the slightest attention to what goes on around them, is going to be swayed by any kind of ad or promotion that presents premises in conflict with the facts or the truth.

In that regard, and I’ve noted this before too, I’m reminded of the end of Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq, when the news commentator on the government station assured the viewing audience that their side was winning the war and in absolute control of the nation. And as he was speaking, U.S. troops took over the studio and hauled him out at gunpoint, alive and in color for all to see everywhere on the globe.

So, whereas I think that folks simply don’t buy the hype, smoke and downright BS continually thrown at them 24/7/365 regardless of the subject, service or product, I have to ask: What’s the point of all the political advertising? Because today, people have too much exposure, direct input and hard information to accept whatever it is that biased presenters throw at them in any kind of ad or promotion.

And along those same lines, I have to wonder exactly how good voters think a presidential incumbent is for them who’s telling them all the things wrong with an experienced successful business investor, when they’re watching the TV ad while waiting for an unemployment check to arrive.

So, I guess a significant problem for the administration this time around is, their story about hope and change is getting clearly refuted by the facts.

That's it for today folks.


Monday, August 20, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/20/2012

I mentioned yesterday that Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, was beseeching states to request about a half billion dollars of unused taxpayer's funds for roads and highways, without even the slightest consideration that perhaps, since no one wanted the money so far, the folks who earned it ought get it back. However, since he’s a bureaucrat, using his head or heart isn’t part of his job description. 
Then, this morning I read a blurb on the Associated Press on-line site reporting that “The price of gasoline is setting a record as the summer draws to a close. AAA says drivers paid an average of $3.72 per gallon Monday, which is the highest price on record for Aug. 20. The auto club says more daily highs are likely over the next few weeks.”
So, while all these politicians are spending their time and money on hate ads, travel and attending rally’s packed with pre-screened ardent supporters, why is no one paying a whit of attention to the fact that citizens are shipping billions of their dollars to foreign nations every day of the week?  
It’s been estimated that our nation sits on almost as much oil as there is in the Middle East, however, due to pure politics only, we aren’t allowed to touch it, whereas we might have an occasional spill or displace a few red-billed, flap-winged, four toed, purple-crested fleener birds, or worse, break one of their eggs.
But in the meantime, Saudi Arabians and Brazilians do nothing at all but ship oil to us and probably need bigger barrels than oil drums to store all our cash while our whole economy goes into a different kind of tank.
And as ridiculous as our situation is, whereas the idea of importing oil is beyond the realm of even the simplest common sense, if that’s the case at least why not get it from our closest neighbors and friends, the Canadians? 
But, oh no, even that can be accepted and the proposed pipelines been stopped.
Which leads me to ask once again: How long are folks going to sit there without a peep, while being ripped off in broad daylight by others with an environmental premise that isn’t even correct? Because there’s no better time than right now to state that we’re fed up and instead of listening to arguments about how many years of tax returns a candidate ought to release,  it’s time for some politician to actually do something that’s good for the population of the United States. 
That's it for today folks.

Sunday, August 19, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/19/2012

The national debt’s at $16 trillion dollars, so I guess that half a billion realty doesn’t mean very much to bureaucrats who fritter away huge sums of taxpayer’s money practically every day that goes by.

But even though it’s well known that the current administration simply has no clue as how the nation’s economy works, I was surprised to hear yesterday that they’re making a concerted effort to give away unspent highway funds to states that promise to use the money to "create jobs and improve transportation."

According to an Associated Press article on Fox News on-line, “Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Friday that more than $470 million will be made immediately available for projects such as repairing crumbling roads and bridges.”
Now, it seems quite obvious to me that politicos and bureaucrats have some kind of sixth sense when it comes to glomming taxpayer’s bucks. These weasels could smell a dime from ten miles away in a blinding blizzard and would shoot any kind of relative (I doubt they have friends) without compunction if it meant a nickel more for them. So, therefore, if they haven’t already grabbed these funds from the taxpayers till, that means even they can’t find a way to waste, steal or ferret them away.
However, despite the fact that none of the states seem to show any interest in the idle funds, the administration will keep trying to cajole and beg their use rather than to simply give it back to the folks who earned it. And I, for one, think there’s something terribly wrong with that.
What’s more is the fact that this is only one of the situations concerning wholesale abuse of funds that we’ve heard of which leads me to ask: How many other departments, agencies or governmental related entities have similar situations where taxpayers funds are so thoughtlessly misapplied? Because if we could get a real answer to that, and stop the blatant, non-caring, total mismanagement of our money, we might actually wind up with a national surplus instead of trying to pay off the administration’s colossal debt.  
That’s it for today folks

Saturday, August 18, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/18/2012

Yesterday I mentioned the suspected offering of the VP slot next time around to Hillary. As stated, I did so because I thought that was a distinct possibility some time ago, when Willy softened his critiques of the incumbent whereas I could see no other reason for Willy’s change of heart toward someone he seems to despise.

Then yesterday evening, I came across Larry Sabato talking to Neil Cavuto on Fox News. Sabato’s a political scientist and analyst and the Robert Kent Gooch Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia and director of its Center for Politics.

During their conversation, Sabato made the point that he thought by now, regardless of what anyone else says, 95% of those who will actually vote next November have already made their selections and therefore all the advertising, smoke and hype is directed to only about  five percent whom are truly still undecided.

I mention this today because I’ve been saying the exact same thing for months now and don’t believe there are even that many folks whom are still wavering. Because if they really are still undecided, they must be living under some kind of rocks and have completely missed the past three and a half years altogether.

So, it seems to me that both candidates can keep throwing their money away on ads, promotion and the like, but I doubt it will have any effect. Because today voters know too much, have been greatly affected themselves, either way, and most important of all: anyone who’d believe or be swayed by anything said in any kind of ad, speech or debate is too dumb to even find the booth on election day, much less figure out which lever to push.

As for me, I certainly don’t know who’s going to win the coming election and wouldn’t know where to begin obtaining the required data to make any kind of viable predication. But as sure as I’m sitting here typing, unless there’s some kind of cosmic event that results in massive changes of heart, voters minds are long ago made up and all that remains to be seen is the actual count itself.

That’s it for today folks.


Friday, August 17, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/17/2012

Just for the record, I want to pat myself on the back a bit. Because everyone to whom I’ve mentioned my belief that the incumbent would offer Hillary the Vice Presidency next time around has told me I’m daft, out of touch, or don’t have a clue about how  politics work at all.

And then, lo and behold, what did the incumbent do yesterday? Why he offered the job to Hillary of course.

To reiterate quickly, I first got the sense that the invitation was coming when Willy agreed to take a significant role in the upcoming convention. Because it’s no secret that he despises the incumbent completely whereas he harpoons him every chance he gets.

So, I guess the question now is, who else might be selected for the VP slot because anyone with a grain of sense realizes what a liability Biden is on the ticket. And, as I stated a couple of days ago, I still expect that some issue or other will cause the Veep to resign, especially now that Paul Ryan’s the contender for the job because a debate between those two isn’t even a contest. The only way Biden could have a prayer for a win is to have his mouth taped shut and an intelligent interpreter speaking for him.

As far as Hillary goes though, I’m surprised she turned the job offer down. Because, although I can see that she likely wants to stay away from the taint of the blunders, horrendous mistakes and incredibly poor job done to date by the administration, she’d likely be able to remain above all that and perhaps even become a savior.

But even more important than all that is her prior White House experience and knowledge of how sometimes politicos wind up in nearby Fort Marcy Park. And if that happened somehow to the incumbent, due to some tragic event occurring during his next term, she’d slide right in to the job she’s always wanted without even having to win an election.

Consequently, despite all the valid reasons for her not wanting to occupy the second slot right now, I still think a major opportunity’s being wasted.

That’s it for today folks.


Thursday, August 16, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/16/2012

According to The Hill on-line, President Obama has no intention of getting rid of Vice President Biden as his running mate. White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “Republicans are being “ridiculous” and trying to “distract attention” with their focus on Vice President Biden and his controversial comments earlier this week.
Now, ordinarily, I’d ignore Carney’s comments because his only job is to double-talk and divert, and I doubt anyone on earth really cares a whit about what he says or thinks. However, I’m mentioning him because of his further statement which was “it's an “obvious” attempt to take attention away from policy issues.”
When I stopped laughing, I sat down to type because I doubt that neither Joe Biden nor the entire administration have any policy issues they want to discuss. In fact, for quite some time now the incumbent himself has stayed clear of the White House, campaigning practically 24/7 and trying to divert attention from his actual record.
So, although I certainly don’t know what the Incumbent, Biden and Hillary discussed at their various meetings today, I doubt any of it had to with governance, serious issues facing the nation, or anything else except how to get two of the three re-elected. But to learn which two we’ll have to wait a bit longer.
That’s it for today folks.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/15/2012

I certainly haven't a crystal ball, and can’t predict future events either. If I could, I wouldn’t be sitting here typing, I’d be out making bets at the track. However, I wrote a while ago that I think the Dem’s will drop Biden from the ticket and more than likely replace him with Hillary. 
My rationale was, I believe Bill truly hates the POTUS and therefore think he only agreed to play a major role in the upcoming convention after forcing the president to soon replace Biden with Clinton’s wife. And I’m mentioning it again today because of a blurb I read this morning about comments made by Sarah Palin on Fox News.
Apparently, she “blasted Vice President Biden over his claim to a Virginia audience Tuesday that Republicans would ‘put y'all back in chains,’ and that her former 2008 rival ‘drags down’ the Obama ticket and should be replaced by Hillary Clinton.”
She then called Biden's comment "disgusting," considering the southern Virginia town where he was speaking is almost 50 percent black, going on to say, “If that's not the nail in the coffin, really, the strategists there in the Obama campaign have got to look at a diplomatic way of replacing Joe Biden on the ticket with Hillary." She furthered feared the eventuality of Hillary actually joining the ticket whereas she thinks they’d then become much harder to defeat at the polls in November.
Then along the same lines, Rudy Giuliani on CNBC, questioned Biden’s ‘mental capacity’ to assume the presidency should anything happen to Obama and remarked, “I’ve never seen a vice president that has made as many mistakes, said as many stupid things. I mean, there’s a real fear if, God forbid, he ever had to be entrusted with the presidency, whether he really has the mental capacity to handle it.”

Rudy went on to state “I mean, this guy just isn’t bright. He’s never been bright. He isn’t bright. And people think, ‘Well, he just talks a little too much.’ Actually he’s just not very smart.
So, as for myself, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to hear that some contrived incident or other, perhaps something calling for time away from the job, will cause the VP to resign for the sake of all due to the unknown time involved before he’s able to effectively return. But, however it gets accomplished, I still believe firmly that he’ll be gone by the time the convention’s finished. However, for the sake of making this an easy Republican win, I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
That’s it for today folks.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/14/2012

According to William Kristol of the Weekly Standard on-line, “Bill Bennett suggested on his radio show this morning that the Romney-Ryan campaign (or someone else) cut an ad to make famous these remarks (delivered a year ago at the University of North Carolina) about Paul Ryan by Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles.”
Here’s what Mr. Bowles said, “Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I’m telling you this guy is amazing. He is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget that he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, serious budget and it cut the budget deficit just like we did, by $4 trillion.…The president as you remember, came out with a budget and I don’t think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97 to nothing." 
Kristol went on to state that “Publicizing Bowles's comments could help shape the public's view of Ryan -and improve the public's view of Mitt Romney, the man who picked him. I think conventional wisdom doesn't yet appreciate how much of a positive Ryan can be for the ticket.”
I mention this because, as I recall up until now Kristol was quite wishy-washy about Romney altogether. But it’s funny how things can change when even hugely self-impressed pundits finally pay some attention and realize that Mitt Romney always knows what he’s doing. 
And then, in comparison to two folks like Romney and Ryan, who know how to govern and understand finance and economics, the Treasury Department announced it expects to lose about $25 of the $85 billion of taxpayer funds used to bailout the auto industry. That’s 15 percent higher than previously estimated, according to the Detroit News.
The article goes on to say that “The report may still underestimate the losses. The report covers predicted losses through May 31, when GM’s stock price was $22.20 a share." And “considering that on Monday GM’s stock fell 0.3 percent to $20.47, the losses may be greater than the latest report estimates:”
At the same time, the BBC business news on-line notes that  Honda's car sales more-than-doubled in the US and Japan during the period and revenue from its motorcycle division also rose.
But what was most interesting to me is the fact that the GM bailout with taxpayers funds completely preserved the union jobs, benefits and retirement funds, which are likely to sink the company again. However, Honda in the U.S., which has no union employees at all, is not only once again breaking all kinds of income records, but is even shipping vehicles made here to nations all over the world. 
So, I guess what these stories go to prove once again, is that when folks who are all talk while having no skills whatsoever, try to reshape an economy to fit a faulty premise regarding income redistribution and the penalization of the successful, the actual results show collosal failure. However, the real question to me is: How inept, incompetent and misguided do you really have to be to continually shoot yourself in the foot the way Dem’s do?
That's it for today folks.

Monday, August 13, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/13/2012

Other than the expected reactions of both political parties to Paul Ryan’s selection as Mitt Romney’s running mate, there’s not much else in the news. And, in fact, I had no intention of mentioning that subject today at all. However, while scanning Drudge I found an article by Steve Schultze, Bill Glauber and Craig Gilbert of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that set me to typing.

According to the author’s, when asked about Ryan’s becoming Mitt’s choice, Milwaukee’s Democrat Mayor Tom Barrett said the policies of Romney and Ryan "are based on a flawed economic theory, a trickle-down economic theory that takes us back to the past."
Now, I’m not an economist by any measure and except for required college courses have no formal knowledge at all, but nonetheless I believe that the fundamentals of “trickle-down” theory indeed do work, because they’re nothing more than common sense.
I think even the dimmest Dem would be able to grasp the fact that if businesses grow significantly, they have to hire more people whether they want to or not, they also require more materials and supplies, they need more services provided, and depending on the trade they’re in, are likely to require more physical space, vehicles, fuel, power of different kinds, and as the list of expenditures increases, the entire economy expands as well because the same scenario repeats itself across the business spectrum.
If you take the other route, however, which is where we are right now, where government inhibits growth, threatens increased taxes and regulates to the extent that businessfolks become fearful and unwilling to invest, you not only get stagnation, the entire nation becomes buried under trillions of additional debt whereas its income has so significantly decreased.
So, I think perhaps the time has come where politicians ought to stop and think before making ridiculous statements and trying to undo truths for self-serving reasons. And what’s even more ridiculous is trying to make the point that its government that should control the economic spectrum, because once politician’s get their hands on a buck, it not only won’t grow…you’ll never, ever get a penny back.
That’s it for today folks.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/12/2012

I got my first real sales job many years ago. The product was Allis-Chalmers (AC) materials handling equipment, specifically –fork lift trucks. At that time, the industry leader by far was Clark equipment which had a huge percentage of the market overall.

AC itself, was relatively new to the lift truck game, arriving there almost by default. Their real interest had been in a company called Buda, known for it’s engines which AC wished to install in it’s farming and agricultural equipment. However, whereas Buda also built fork lift trucks, after acquiring Buda, AC decided to grow that business as well.

As for myself, when I first went out in the field, I knew almost nothing about the intricacies of purchasing decisions from the buyer’s side of materials handling equipment. And that lack of expertise became a major embarrassment to me when quickly noticed by not only prospective customers whose questions I couldn’t answer, but to my own manager who dressed me down as if I were unworthy of my position…and he was absolutely right.

Fortunately, I wasn’t immediately fired and had enough time to react, whereupon I came to one of the best conclusions I’ve ever reached. First, I read and memorized every single specification sheet AC ever produced regarding it’s line of equipment, and then went into our shop, going from mechanic to mechanic as they worked on various models performing every kind of repair and adjustment imaginable from engines to hydraulics, to tune-ups, replacing lift-chains, to clogged propane lines, to tire jobs and welding of broken parts. And then in time, there just weren’t any questions that anyone could possibly ask me about the design, engineering and performance of our trucks that went unanswered correctly.

Now, the best part of it all was that AC had truly done a brilliant thing by acquiring Buda for its engines, because they were by heads and shoulders above all the rest, including Clark’s. And now, when I called on prospective customers, and especially when given the chance to prove my promises by providing a demonstrator unit, I not only most often outsold my competition of all kinds, I frequently blew them out of the ballpark altogether.

So, why recap all this history of my career? Because what it taught me was, if you know your product well and it works as promised, you never, ever, have to say anything negative about your completion. All you really need do is professionally present your facts, illustrate why and how what you offer provides the best possible alternative available, and clearly demonstrate the benefits to be derived. And when you do it that way, you not only gain buyer’s confidence, you attain their respect.

However, if you do it the other way with smears, distortions, untruths and aspersions of any kind about your competition, you come down in the eyes of serious, thinking, decision-making people and most often, not only lose the order…you completely lose their respect as well.

And speaking of someone totally outclassed with absolutely nothing to offer except weak attempts at complete degradation of his competition, is that remindful of anyone we know?

That’s it for today folks.


Saturday, August 11, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/11/2012

Now that Mitt Romney’s made a VP choice, there’s news breaking every few seconds all over the place. And since I suspect that will go on for several days, it won’t be long before any interested party will be able to find every scintilla of detail regarding Paul Ryan’s life, be it private, personal, social or political.
However, while searching the web a few minutes ago, and expecting to find all kinds of important information about Mitt’s choice, I read a headline on Drudge that actually had me laughing out loud.
The line read: MEDIA COMPLAINS ABOUT RYAN'S LACK OF 'PRIVATE-SECTOR' EXPERIENCE atop an article from The New Yorker Magazine on-line, no less, written by Ryan Lizza
The text goes on to say that, “For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience. Besides summer jobs working at McDonald’s or at his family’s construction company, or waiting tables as a young Washington staffer, Ryan has none of the business-world experience Romney frequently touts as essential for governing. In the run-up to his first campaign for Congress, in 1998, that gap was enough of a concern for Ryan that he briefly became a “marketing consultant” at the family business, an obvious bit of résumé puffing.”
Lizza then adds, “But Ryan’s Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President—which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he’s never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy. Given how Sarah Palin was criticized for her lack of such experience, I’m surprised that Romney would pick someone whose ability to immediately step into the top job is open to question.”
As for me, what I find remarkable is how bias in the press convolutes data, either for it’s own purposes or perhaps due to outright ignorance. I state that because in this particular case Romney himself has all the experience, and more, to lead the nation, especially so regarding business success and acumen. Thus, by selecting Ryan, he’s covering the “inside Congress” base with a guy who’s been there for fourteen years. 
What’s more, Ryan wrote the budget that passed the House but was defeated in the Senate because it would have killed the Dem majorities plans to continue to tax and spend, despite the fact that they’d already added twelve trillion to the nation's deficit in just four years with nary a clue as how to correct it.
Now naturally, it wouldn't have mattered an iota who Romney picked to run alongside him, media bias being what it is and smearing and sliming the normal reaction to everything. But regardless, the preceding article is incredible to me in the way it tries to discount and disparage the experience of two quite well-rounded men in their particular fields of expertise. Because if you compare either one to the incumbent, you realize that the current president has no experience whatsoever in any area of endeavor you can think of. But far worse than that, after three and a half years in office he still hasn’t learned a thing about heading a nation and still acts as though he’s remained nothing but a political activist roaming the Chicago streets. 
That’s it for today folks.

Friday, August 10, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/10/2012

A headline on Drudge this morning, sent me to an article by Pat Buchanan on WND Commentary.

According to Buchanan: “In an ad produced by the super PAC Priorities USA, Mitt Romney is charged with moral, if not material, complicity in the cancer death of the wife of a Missouri steelworker.

Speaking straight into the camera, Joe Soptic, 62, charges Romney with coldly shutting down the plant where he worked and cutting off his health insurance. This, says Soptic, left his wife without insurance to pay for her care, until, falling ill, she went to a doctor, who discovered stage 4 cancer, which killed her in 22 days.

Soptic implies a causal connection between Romney’s decision to shut the plant and his wife’s death.”

Buchanan goes on to write that “the ad is a premeditated attempt to murder the reputation of Mitt Romney. And from start to finish, it is a deception.” He then lays out a time-line establishing that Romney wasn’t even employed by Bain when the alleged incident took place, and that Soptic’s wife also lost her own job somewhere else which provided health care coverage as well. Buchanan then lists additional information illustrating that the entire story presented in the ad is false.

Now, I’ve not seen the ad, nor know nothing about it directly. But regardless, I have a different take on the premise. Because if people truly believe that businesses have a responsibility to remain open when they cannot sustain, or choose to close for other reasons, and those same people also believe that closures are responsible for future events affecting displaced personnel…then it seems to me that the current administration is responsible for any future health care issues, including any unfortunate deaths, of those who’ve lost their jobs due to it’s total mishandling of the nation’s economy altogether.  

Thus in this ad we have yet another example of total incompetents in office who have nothing even remotely positive to say about themselves and, consequently, must scrounge, sift through the sludge, and grasp any straw they can find to disparage their competition. But what’s truly most remarkable about today's particular subject is that, due to his horrendous new health care tax, if you apply Dem logic, the incumbent himself will cause the losses of either insurance coverage or jobs altogether for millions upon millions of folks in the future which in turn will kill how many others?

Unfortunately, the answer to that one will be off the charts. 

That’s it for today folks.


Thursday, August 9, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/8/2012

The French have never done anything for me. And, I don’t think they’ve ever done anything for anyone else either.

However, today they finally did me a favor.

Their new Socialist president, Francois Hollande, has proposed raising the tax rate to 75 percent on income above 1 million euros ($1.24 million) a year which has led many of that nation’s top earners to indicate they’ll simply move somewhere else.

Since this is another indication of what I think will happen right here,  the most successful folks in France are consequently not only helping to prove my point, their position on taxes is succinct and thus saving me three quarters of a page of keystrokes.

That’s it for today folks.


Wednesday, August 8, 2012

BloggeRhythms 8/8/2012

Scanning the news this morning, I came across this link on the Fox website: “Ad links Romney to death of steelworker's wife, campaign decries 'contemptible effort.”

I didn’t click on the link, don’t care what it says and have no curiosity about it whatsoever. And that’s what set me to thinking about political ads altogether. Because, I fail to se their value.

I’ve been around for a while now, and have been involved in sales and marketing for most of my professional career. And in my experience, most competent folks buy on facts, proven track records of providers, and accurately documented data presented. Almost no one -except perhaps those who have no other hope or alternative-relies on any sort of hype, unfounded promise or smoke.

Beyond that, for many, many years now, everyone’s been bombarded with ads for everything imaginable on earth, 24/7/365 and if they’re anything like I am, simply tune them out. And in that regard, as I’ve noted here many times before, when watching TV, I most often don’t even turn the sound on at all. In cases, however, when I do turn up the volume, I switch to an alternative commercial-free station during the two minutes or so of ads.

So, what all this leads me to conclude is that except for those who are truly naïve, immature or extremely gullible, most ads have little meaning in general. And when it comes to politics in particular they’re exactly what one should expect –one side smearing the other in every way they can cook up, dream, or imagine regardless of truth or proof. Therefore, few with any intellect would believe them whatsoever.

Consequently, although the statistics on political advertising might indicate they were causative when the actual results concur with their their efforts, I believe the reverse to be true. I think that when the winner’s are one’s who spent the most on ads, that statistic happened to coincide with what the voting public decided for itself.

That’s it for today folks.