I’ve been trying to avoid politics and debates for the past month or so to clear m head. (I’ve found that listening to sports talk radio instead of news talk radio can be very therapeutic.) I still cruise over to Hot Air quite often to stay current, but I just can’t stomach any more debates. Besides. by the time the primary reaches me in Texas my choices are truly limited. I’m still miffed because back in 2008, thanks to Huckabee and Florida, we got screwed. Romney would have been a much better choice then, and I think he is the best choice now. Not the ideal choice, but the best choice we have remaining.
But talk radio has sucked me in again. This week we have seen lots of complaining about attacks on Romney and attacks on Gingirch. Romney’s superPAC ran ads in Iowa that shredded Gingirch over his political record. Repeat: over his political record. Topics included his $300k ethics fine levied by a Republican congress, his $1.6 million from Fannie/Freddie, and his coziness with Nancy Pelosi. All are true, by the way, and they are pertinent to the current political discussion.
On the other side of this fight, Romney supporters are screaming about attacks on Bain Capital, and capitalism in general. The focus has been on who was fired at companies that Bain took over, and how much money was made by Bain executives. All true, but none of it is pertinent, and here’s why.
Bain Capital is a private company and it exists to make a profit. That is how capitalism works. Profit and losses occur when transactions are made, and it takes two parties to complete a transaction. When companies are struggling they need to make changes in order to survive. Contracts get signed when companies are taken over, and sometimes an owner of a company brings in a firm like Bain to get help. Sometimes said owner just wants to get out and/or wants to dump the company to cash out after years of hard work. And that is fine. On the other side of the transaction is a company like Bain. It sees the potential for profit and agrees to the transaction, just like the business owner did.
Bain has had successes and failures. But every time it made changes to companies — which by the way range from process improvements, accounting corrections, business planning, to the firing of employees — the ultimate goal was to make money. The agreement between company owner and Bain was not signed with the specific goal of creating jobs. It was signed with the goal of the former owner making money, and the new owner eventually making money. Ideally this would happen by making the company more financially stable and attractive and then profiting by the sale of the new and improved entity to someone else that perceived value in the new company. In a perfect world the company would not only be saved, but it would grow and therefore need to hire more people.
Now to the attacks. From what I have seen of the Romney superPAC ads, the call out a few things:
- Gingrich being fined $300k for ethics violations by a Republican congress.
- His receipt of $1.6M from Fannie/Freddie before or while criticizing them.
- His coziness with Nancy Pelosi and legislation that was friendly to China.
These are all true. They are not distortions, at least not from what I’ve seen. (If I am wrong and they are lies, or these statements are misleading, please let me know. I want to be accurate here.) Now, with regard to the attacks on Romney, Newt has gone as far as interviewing people that were fired by Bain Capital. Were they fired? Yes. Did it make sense to do so to save the companies? Probably. but as I’ve said before, it is better to downsize than to go out of business. Avoid firing 20% to be nice and you might end up causing 100% to lose their jobs because you didn’t take the steps necessary to save the company.
Why not interview people who’s jobs were saved by Bain Capital, or people that were hired thanks to the efforts of Bain’s improvements to clients? Yes, it is true that these people were fired, but they are only part of the story. It is cherry picking of the highest order and makes zero sense coming from a supposedly capitalism-friendly Republican like Gingrich. To me it is a childish and pathetic attempt to do anything he can to win, at all costs. It is indicative of his temper and political ADD. But, if the Gingrich team wants to take this path, lets give them something to truly bitch about and release ads featuring interviews with people cheated on by Newt. They would be true, right?
If I were to bring up the topic of economic carnage caused by big government run amok, would I be talking about the 111th Congress, or about Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged? As the Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore wrote, Atlas Shrugged has gone from fiction to fact in less than 60 years.
Continue reading »
I’d like to say a few things about this video and its value to us as parents. On the surface its presentation and tone are friendly and it is easy to believe that it is a well-researched mini documentary, but that’s the scary part. It IS well presented, but it’s mission is not to inform, it is to persuade. It is a blatant attempt to mislead and actually lie to our childre; this video should NOT be in our schools, unless an opposing viewpoint is offered for equal time.
The video came out last year, and that far right-wing network CNN (sarc) did a short segment on it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vTJdpbUYhY
The “Story of Stuff” video portrays America and corporations in general as bad, a concept that I wholeheartedly disagree with. Leonard complains about “stuff” but fails to talk about how the manufacture, sale and consumption of “stuff” has helped make America the greatest nation on Earth.
For starters, Annie Leonard is the host. As with any presentation the audience should know what the speaker’s credentials are and why we should be listening to her. Leonard has worked for some of the most liberally oriented organizations in America.
- Greenpeace International – Far left environmental activist group, its history and violence is well-documented.
- GAIA – A Dutch group who’s vision is stated in its web site: “for all people to live in settlements containing all elements of society much like a holograph, where every part contains the whole.” It is anti-corporation, but interestingly enough, GAIA is funded through a massive hedge fund based on currency trading.
- Health Care Without Harm – The Tides Foundation is one of its many funders. HCWH has “a vision of a health care sector that does no harm, and instead promotes the health of people and the environment. To that end, we are working to implement ecologically sound and healthy alternatives to health care practices that pollute the environment and contribute to disease.” This sounds great, but the group is quite liberally biased.
- Global Greengrants. This group is a non-profit that provides grants to green projects and activists. Its board treasurer works for George Soros’ Tides Foundation, its board chair runs the Tobacco Free Project based in San Francisco.
- Essential Information – Founded in 1982 by Ralph Nader, Essential Information is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. Very anti-corporation, anti-industry.
Based on her resume Annie Leonard is what most people would consider biased. As to the facts and errors in the video, it has been thoroughly explained and debunked. These videos are worth watching more than once.
- Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uJgG05xU
- Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZzHU3ZfTtY
- Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgLrZc7cws8
- Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XeW5ilk-9Y
If you lack the time or attention span to watch the four videos above I’ve provided a small sample of the problems that lie within. Keep in mind that the following five errors appear in just the first three minutes of the video. The italicized statements are from the video verbatum, you can also download the script with footnotes in PDF format.
The source of this statement is the “War Resisters League.” Obviously they are biased enough, but the math is just horrible. To reach this conclusion they removed Medicare, Medicade and Social Security costs from the equation to inflate its number. Why? Because it serves their purpose of persuasion. By the way, the Congressional Budget Office confirms that military spending consumes 20%, not 50% of tax dollars. That’s a BIG difference.
2) “It’s the government’s job is to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their job.”
This is a very liberal interpretation of the PreAmble to the Constitution. The government exists to protect us from invasion, to handle foreign trade, and that’s about it. The STATES have more rights. The state is NOT our parent, our teacher or our baby-sitter. We get Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness, not the GUARANTEE of happiness.
3) “Of the 100 largest economies on earth now, 51 are corporations”
Source: IPS, which acknowledges that it operates as a training center for radical organizers. This is a radically left anti-corporation organization. It is based on sales revenue, not profits. It is meaningless. Yes, Exxon/Mobile sells more product than the entire country of Chad. So what? This is just more anti-corporation rhetoric.
4) “we’ve seen a little change in the government where they’re a little more concerned in making sure everything is working out for [corporations] than for us.”
Again, more liberal anti-capitalism bias. The video shows the government shining the shoes of fat corporations. She completely ignores the influence of unions, lawyers and environmental activists on corporate behavior.
5) “In the past three decades alone, one-third of the planet’s natural resources base have been consumed. Gone.”
100% false. Pure liberal bias based on a book by environmental activists. It cannot be proved because it is a useless statement. As one of the videos above says, land with oil underneath it was useless until we discovered oil and learned how to use oil. Resources are replaceable.
I could go on but I think I’ve made my point. This well-produced video — funded by some of the most liberal, anti-American, anti-capitalism groups in existence — has done damage that we as involved parents need to correct. I shudder to think how many parents are not aware of this and how many millions of minds have been falsely persuaded toward this liberal eco/green way of thinking.
