Posts Tagged ‘president’

What Government and Business Have in Common

March 24, 2017

I recently ran across a video explaining why government and business were not compatible, and how a CEO should not become president.  The video itself isn’t worth posting, but I will give you the highlights:  condescending casual businessman-looking jerk talks down to you for five minutes.  The jerkface makes random claims:

1.   CEOs “just” have to make profit, and that is not as complex as running a country.
2.  Presidents are representatives of the people, but CEOs represent themselves.
3.  The government pays for things.

First, the challenge of making a profit is what makes a CEO’s job difficult.  There is no “just” about it.  Whether or not it is as complex as running a country depends entirely on how your mind works.  Really, they are different types of work in some respects, and it is hard to compare them.

Second, a CEO answers to the board of directors.  The board of directors is elected through its share holders.  A president is elected through the electoral college, who base their votes on their state’s popular vote.  So, just as a president must answer to the voters, a CEO must answer to the share holders.

One may argue that a CEO can blow off the concerns of John Q. Shareholder.   We could say the same about any given president.  One could argue that the nominating committee of the corporation determines who gets to run for the board of directors.  One could look at the Democratic Party’s nomination of Hilary Clinton over Bernie Sanders to see the parallel.

Finally, the video argued that services, like the US Postal Service, are required to serve the good, poor people of Bratislavia, Pennsyltucky.  At any cost, Bratislavian people are owed mail service.   He mention how UPS or FedEx neither one will support offices in small towns, and that it was the duty of the USPS to operate in that town so that the people could send mail form that town. He also states that the existence of the USPS keeps the prices of the UPS and FedEx low.   He also speaks of several other govenment services, and how they are required to give people what they need, even though fulfilling needs is not economical.

The big problem with this entire story is that the video assumes that the government just has money.  Where does it come from?  Nobody knows.  The government just has money.  Infinite money to pay for heavily subsidized health care and postal delivery in every town, especially those where industry knows are unable to support such a service.

In the ultimate slap in the face, this money comes from taxes.  Taxes taken from the companies who know it is not economical to run a delivery service to these towns.  Taxes then used to undercut their businesses in towns where there is (or perhaps was) enough customers to support them.

A good CEO president would trim the areas that were not economical to run.  Bratislavia, Pennsyltucky would not have postal service, but they are not owed postal service, either.  And just like towns that do not have a Walmart, UPS or Ford dealership, the residents would either commute to another town, or do without.  People of New York City, or Bratislavia or wherever are not owed postal delivery or health insurance any more than they are owed a Ford Dealership or an In N Out Burger.

That is what this video was missing.  The understanding that the government’s sole purpose is to protect the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its residents.  Courts to uphold the law and police to arrest those who choose to violate the rights of others.

The government is not here to supply your needs on any level.

Censorship and the 1st Amendment

January 27, 2017

As many of you have heard, President Donald Trump wrote Executive Orders to keep the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and several other organizations from making press releases and social media posts.

Many on the left are calling this censorship and a violation of free speech.  Neither of these is true.

Basically, one part of the government has told another part of the government to shut up.  That’s it.  It is no different than what they’ve told folks with a security clearance for years.

Censorship is the act of a government forbidding its citizens from speaking freely.  Like, say, this.

It isn’t a war on science, either.  You can still get these articles from peer-reviwed sources, same as always.  The only difference is that, for the time being, people working for the federal government cannot publish press releases designed to alarm citizens in an effort to get more funding.

As a scientist/engineer, I am sick of seeing awful science published in regular media outlets.   So many of the press releases are done so poorly, they can hardly be called science.  From CNN articles about hurricanes in the Dakotas and blaming every weather disaster on climate change to exaggerated claims about new technological advances, the real science is not featured.

In the end, I really don’t care if the government can’t toot its own horn any more and exaggerate its contributions to science.  How many climate scientists believe in climate change?  How much funding would they receive if they disagreed?  How much would they receive if anthropological climate change wasn’t blamed every time the wind blew?

This isn’t to say that climate change isn’t happening or that government funded research hasn’t led to great discoveries.

I’m done ranting for the evening.  Thank you for reading my post.

When You Can’t Say Something Nice…

October 21, 2016

I dislike both candidates.  And I think deep down, we all do in some ways.  I could write yet another article on how awful either candidate is and how anyone who votes for either of them is a terrible person.  We’ve run out of negative things to say- we have called Clinton a compulsive liar (which is likely true) and called Trump “Hitler” (not quite accurate).  We’ve defriended longtime friends and sworn off speaking to relatives over it.

I’m done with it all.  They are neither one a great choice.  Trump’s “Stop and Frisk” is a gross violation of freedom and his wall is a financial disaster in the making.  Clinton’s socialist policies, shady track record of associates, and anti-gun statements make me want to puke.

Instead of writing another article about it, I will instead answer the debate question that they both sucked at answering.  “What is one thing you admire about the other candidate?”

Trump:   Trump has a certain financial genius.  He borrowed his father’s money and turned it into more money.  Plenty of folks think this was an easy task, and yet there are thousands of lottery winners, and probably millions of folks with large inheritances, and yet, we don’t have millions of Donald Trumps.

Trump also appears unfazed by public opinion.  On one hand you want someone who speaks for the will of the people- but you also want someone who does what is right in any situation, versus someone who bends to whatever popular whim is en vogue at the time.

Both of these qualities are things I’d like to see in a president.

Clinton:  Clinton is tough.  Tough as nails.  This woman went from being first lady, to woman scorned, to thrown under the bus by the press and Obama, only to stand back up and fight again.  Plenty of folks would slip away into a quiet retirement after finding out that their significant other cheated on them with an intern.  Instead, Clinton played on.  When she ran for president in the 2008 primaries, the media and Obama (who was a virtual nobody) had nothing nice to say.  I figured here career was over after she was stepped over for the 2008 Democratic Nominee.  Instead, she dusted herself off, accepted the Secretary of State position with no hard feelings and now runs for president, in spite of it all.

In a world where terrorist acts are becoming the norm, rather than the exception, we do need a leader who is in the fight for the long haul. One who won’t give up when things get tough, and Clinton is certainly tough.

Anyway, both candidates are abominable. I dislike Trump slightly less than Clinton.  I just thought it was time someone had something nice to say about people they didn’t like for a change.

You may resume your circus- er um, debates.

Democratic Debates

October 14, 2015

There’s really nothing to say about this. It’s like watching a train-wreck; no matter how terrible it is, you can’t look away.

Besides, the Cubs are going to the World Series; the world will end before the 2016 election.