The Fourth Option

The Wasp Sting has previously explored options around Obama’s “leadership” and the agenda of the American Left. Unfortunately, as more and more events unfurl, The Wasp Sting has become more and more cynical. There is a Fourth Option related to what the American Left wants and in the context of the recent downgrading and complete debacle around our debt that this option is looking more and more a reality. The Fourth Option?

American liberal elites want to destroy America as we know it.

First, let us define “America.” Not a simple task but we will try to get to the brass tacks. St John de Crevecoeur in Letters from an American Farmer (1782) defines an American as being any person who:

"Americans are the western pilgrims who are carrying along with them that great mass of arts, sciences, vigour, and industry....The American is a new man, who acts upon new principles; he must therefore entertain new ideas and form new opinions. From involuntary idleness, servile dependence, penury, and useless labour, he has passed to toils of a very different nature, rewarded by ample subsistence."

So to summarize and perhaps over-simplify, America is a nation of industry, principles, and open-mindedness. To prove the premise correct, TWS will call out specific cases where Obama is attacking our industrious, free-market capabilities, weakening and cheapening our principles, and is attempting to squash political debate by race-baiting and creating class warfare.

Anti-Industry:

Perhaps the single best example of the current war on business is the NLRB - National Labor Relations Board – war against Boeing. Among the countless cases the anti-business NLRB has lodged against corporations, the Boeing South Carolina case is the most widely known and perhaps among the most egregious. The NLRB has created a real world Atlas Shrugged scenario.

In a dispute over having more portions of the Dreamliner built in Washington vs South Carolina, Boeing in good faith started negotiations with International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. Talks broke down over union demands, including the demand to have a board position and a promise that Boeing would build all future planes in Washington. Boeing, being responsible to their shareholders and following their rights as a business, made a decision to take this opportunity to the pro-business folks of South Carolina.

Over 1000 jobs can be created in South Carolina and the boom to the local economy is project to be over $2 billion. This could be delayed years, all the while Boeing is trying to compete against EU’s Airbus, who continues to gain market share. (http://bit.ly/e46d7l)

The EPA, countless czars, the inability to work with natural gas and oil producers could employ thousands. Not to mention the current corporate tax structure, the highest in the developed world (http://bit.ly/qEAqKr)

Anti-Principled:

As previously discussed by TWS (What do you want), the principles of a long-term welfare state continue to cheapen self-worth and drive down individual morality. The TWS loves John Stossel’s analysis (http://bit.ly/npRIjk and http://bit.ly/rnA2pj) of what has happened with American Indians over their history. It is a great study because it takes a subset of American citizenry that has been completely nannied and has its own welfare infrastructure in the Department of Interior, over twenty different programs supporting American Indians and almost all Indian tribes are completely and wholly wards of the state.

What he found is, not surprisingly, highest poverty rate, the highest unemployment (only 25% are employed in some reservations!), drug abuse, alcoholism are well documented among American Indians.

Is this the picture of the America Crevecoeur wrote about? Does extending this welfare-state across the landscape of country extend the virtues of America or extinguish them? It’s clear.

Close-mindedness:

As a president who was elected for hope and change, who promised to be a different kind of politician, who wanted to be the most transparent executive in our history, he has done the exact opposite. We all carried with us a pride that America had healed itself racially enough to have whites and blacks join together to elect this man with so much promise. And that, no question about it, is an amazing thing we should be proud of.

However, who can argue we are even more polarized, further apart, and worse off socially due to the complete vitriol on the far left – and far right. The radical lunge left has spawned a backlash in the Tea Party. The foundations for the Tea Party were created before Obama, and Bush’s liberal fiscal policies were partly to blame. But Obama knew he was elected to lead a center-right country. He had a choice. He could lead as Bill Clinton had done or as Jimmy Carter had done. He could be America’s President or George Soro’s puppet. He could falsely interpret the election as a mandate and our country asking to be turned socialist or correctly interpret it as real hope for a toned down DC.

He continues down his path at his own peril – and the peril of this great land. His language is nothing but consistently laden with anti-rich, anti-wealth and blaming them for the ills that currently beset our nation. His constant call for shared-sacrifice is code for punishing the “haves” because of their ill-gotten gains vs instilling a work ethic in the “have-nots.”

Each of these decisions and Obama’s direct “leadership” on the same – and many more – has proven he is willfully, purposefully, and as intentionally as possible driving this great country towards destruction. He wants and desires more than anything else to destroy America and will do anything to make that happen.

What do you want?

I've been polling my anti-American friends lately to see what kind of vision of America they want. Since the principles of our Founders', the values they so carefully documented, and ideals they cherished are incongruent with the agenda of the left, what exactly is the Anti-American Dream for a socialist? So far, I don't have any more a clue than I had when I started, but that won't keep me from addressing it here!

So what do we know?

1. We know tax and spend doesn't work. We know no economy has ever taxed itself into prosperity. Socialistic economics fails and there is no modern economy based on it, or at least the modern interpretation of it. Keynesian Economics' foundations are suspect as well.
   
   1. The implementation of Keynesian Economics relies on responsible central planning which requires "value judgments" void of individual or group self-interest.
      
      1. False premise as the DC "swamp rot" associated with lobbying, earmarks, and outright self-interest drives decision-making, not the good of the whole.
         
      2. This is also in conflict with unconstitutional campaign finance reform. Such limits to curb control are violations of freedom of speech and association and as has been determined in the court system.
         
   2. The second requirement for success in implementing a Keynesian economic structure is the theory that government is capable of improving on the free market. In practically the "government," as defined here, is not We The People rather the bureaucracies associated with implementing and enforcing policy.
      
      1. Anyone who's mailed a letter, filed their taxes, driven on a highway, or has been through airport security knows this is dramatically false. The government itself is removed from the equation of shareholder value.
         
      2. As far as improving on the free market, we could give countless examples of outsourcing and privatizing, which almost universally have been met with lower costs and greater efficiencies.
         
2. We know that the programs and spending associated with our current federal government are not supported by the Constitution. Eg, the Department of Education is not in the constitution and a clear violation of states' rights. We know the founders intended a small, almost non-existent federal government, loosely structured to empower free enterprise and protection.
   

So if you know your economic policies are failed and nothing you currently "believe" is supported by our Constitution, what do you want?! I will issue a few theories.

1. Ignorance.
   

   The sound bites associated with liberalism all sound good. Helping people. Saving old people. Safety nets. Social Security. Starting in the 1940s liberals did a much better job of framing the arguments for their cause and appealing to our inner angels to band together and help those less fortunate.
   

   I cannot think of a more disastrous example of the Theory of Unintended Consequences. These consequences are sometimes buried inside an avalanche of social reengineering, leaving enough "positive" results to point to some level of success regardless of the true cause and the accurately defined effect.
   

   If the Federalist Papers point to one clear area of importance it was the fact that without morality laws and a republican form of government are irrelevant. Many in the left lack moral foundation in their personal lives. It is no coincidence the number of agnostics, atheists, subjectivists, human secularists are liberals. The media and Hollywood and the areas they glorify are other examples of the symptoms of a cultural worldview missing any semblance of Judeo-Christendom. Much like the Soviets of the mid-twentieth century, big-government liberals want the State to be their God.
   

   Speaking of Federalist Papers, the history and education of the politic of America has been misrepresented or simply not taught. This leads to further ignorance on the part of some. Trying to explain to a friend that the Department of Education has only existed since 1979 doesn't compute. Well, how did we educate our kids before 1979? How is that possible?!
   

   Finally, many just do not accept the pure math involved in Keynesian and socialist economics. Liberals feel like there should be a balance, the emotional underpinnings of support for these policies, that for the collective good we can all do our part and come together to help those less fortunate. Reagan mentioned the slippery slope. I agree, how you define support or need and how I define support or need only leads to divisiveness.
   

   And tying this back to moral fortitude, if our Churches and Temples and Mosques supported their constituencies as directed by their respective holy scriptures, we wouldn't have needed to have outsourced our benevolence…
   

2. Totalitarianism.
   

   One theory I have heard tossed around recently is the idea of a ruling class that fears loss of power. This class lives in a world not understood by the likes of the proletariat. In an important effort to keep the barbarians at bay they toss out various social programs and agree to tax levels that seem "fair." If you look at our current tax structure, where 47% (more like 51% based on new numbers) pay no taxes whatsoever, thus building in an automatic constituency, it could point to this notion.
   

   Further, while dishing out cash and healthcare and other benefits while not taxing that same group, you rob a people of their independence and self-efficacy. The longer you are lazy, the harder it will be for you to break out of that laziness. And if you are being well cared for, relatively speaking, what is the incentive to break this cycle of co-dependency? Thus, if I am a politician, what better way to get your vote than to give you stuff for free, rob you of your capabilities over time, and then take your liberties while I'm at it?
   

   This theory uses the ignorant previously outlined against themselves and for the totalitarians.
   

   I do not know that even the Wasp is this cynical. People with wealth and even the gentry class of America understands the simple principle of money multiplication. There can be enough money for everyone to be successful; money is not a zero-sum game. A dollar into my pocket does not come out of someone else's pocket, we both get to keep our dollars when the economy grows and we as a nation prosper.
   

   Now some on the left may not understand this policy, based on the way they talk and the ideas they espouse. After all, this theory may have to do more with power than money.
   

   So there may be more merit to this idea than at first blush...
   

3. Punishment.
   

   The whispered undertones from words such as "fairness," "equality," and "rights" is the fact that those that succeed must have stolen, raped or pillaged, therefore deserve punishment for their success. This was the cornerstone of Marx's Manifesto. And from the USSR, the Khmer Rouge, China, through to Cuba the actual reason for these revelations was to take from the haves and give to the have-nots. American leftists may not wear red bandanas, march their doctors into rice fields at the end of an AK-47, but the message in from Sacramento to Madison to Washington is the same: give us your money. The concept of someone actually earning what they have, doing the hard work associated with that windfall, is completely foreign to nanny-state raised adult babies (ABs). See Obama talking to Joe the Plummer on YouTube if you want to have the classic Class Envy video evidence.
   

   Blame is a key motivator in all human interactions. Since Adam blamed "the woman YOU gave me" for his sin when confronted by God in the garden, it's been a constant game of hot-potato to not get caught holding blame. Responsibility, accountability, character, these are all just corporate lingo words now by The Man trying to make the people feel bad about their failings.
   

So how do you respond now that we have boiled it down to two scenarios: liberals believe what they believe out of ignorance, a blatant desire for control, or simply to punish those that have succeeded by people who have not. I think the answer is simple. Continue to educate the ignorant and not waste time on the totalitarians. Once the ignorant are enlightened they will rebel against their totalitarian masters, rise up and demand the liberties they previously squandered! So keep educating! Keep posting! Keep blogging! Shine light in a world of darkness!

Nerd Fight!

Recent nerd fight between GetKempt (http://getkempt.com/dept-of-corrections/drop-the-phone.php) and TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/phones-at-dinner/) regarding use of cell phones in public in general and restaurants in particular. The Wasp Sting has clear and concise rules around this behavior that should be implemented universally.

First, profiles. If you have a smart phone you have the ability to use profiles. The profiles I use:

- Meeting profile (when calendar is set to busy status):
> Alarms silent
> Emails silent
> Phone vibrate
> Txt vibrate
- Nights profile (10pm-7am nightly):
> Alarms silent
> Emails silent
> Phone ring
> Txt silent
- Normal profile (not in a meeting, not at night):
> Alarms ring and vibrate
> Emails silent
> Phone ring and vibrate
> Txt ring and vibrate

It is important to communicate your profile to your spousal unit, friends, coworkers, boss, etc. Under this profile if it is urgent, call. If it is important but not urgent, txt. All alerting on operational systems and incident management systems set to txt as well. Email is a non-realtime communication medium and as such should be checked only at specific times and only when not interrupting other parental, work, or other duties.

Therefore, by this process, if I get a txt at dinner, I know it's either an alert from an incident management system notifying me of an operational issue that more than likely requires my attention, a family member in some level of crises, or a coworker needing my input for an issue they are urgently dealing with. Obviously, if someone calls and it is work-related or a kid or spousal unit, I answer that call 24/7. Period.

If anyone in my cadre of influence violates any of the aforementioned guidelines, they are warned and reminded of the expectations around these guidelines. Continued abuse will result in other profiles set to ignore said caller or txt. (Hasn't happened yet, BTW.)

Obviously the sending or receiving of social media updates are strictly prohibited, especially any cell phone photograph of anything on your plate or table. If you are going to "check in" to alert the burglars on your FB profile you are in Manhattan, do it in the lobby or bar before seated.

I think if most people adopted something similar to this then it would ease the awkwardness of responding to a txt at dinner.

Honoring the American Worker

I love the new Jeep commercials. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0SbrrGaiw America, the commercial goes, has always been a country of craftsmen, builders. It is a great vision of an historic America. But how accurate is it a picture of today's America?

Starting with the traditional Department of Labor "American Worker" http://newsok.com/article/3492012 speech, which this year for the first time ever was delivered in Spanish and English. Signpost 1: no shock to anyone but the American Worker is diverse. The diversity of the American workforce is nothing new. Immigrants during the Industrial Revolution helped fuel what the Jeep commercial touts as American ingenuity and craftsmanship. Today is no different. Our immigrant make up has changed, no doubt, but the American Worker, when he works with diligence and dedication and assimilates himself and his family finds success regardless of ethnicity.

Also indicative of the image of the American Worker in 2010, the speech diverted form its traditional "State of the American Worker" and became a "what we're doing for the American Worker speech" since clearly the state of the American Worker is something 1 of 10, and more like 2 of 10 when we count underemployed, don't care to talk about this holiday. Signpost 2: So the state of the American Worker is underemployed or unemployed.

According to a recent AP study our economy has taken a permanent shift. We as the American Worker, and what the Secretary of Labor will not tell you is that if you have a specialized skill or education, you will continue to enjoy opportunities in America.

Secondarily, if you are the lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs you will continue to see growth in this area. Healthcare workers, waitresses, waiters, service-industry and service focused roles will always have a need at least through the next generation. We need our lawns mowed and our suits tailored and our nails manicured.

Those in the middle, well, it will not fare well for you. Your choice, like so many American’s today, is one of choosing a lower income job or retooling your skills, getting a degree or an advanced certification, specializing further into a field such as software, healthcare, or science.

Reminds of me an interesting conversation with a neighbor and good friend. He sells journals. The big, heavy, professional, leather-bound with cotton rag paper journals you used to see across the back of a desk, or on a bookshelf in a doctor or lawyer’s office. I told him he’s at a crossroads. How, in reality, can he expect with iPads and iPods and smart phones and tablets out the wazzoo, how could he expect in reality any of the students today in law school or medical school would ever even crack one of those open when in two flicks of their iPad they can have each reference to their topic of choice downloaded across every journal ever published?

Similarly, it is time to evaluate your skills, your job, your role. The value you are driving into your organization, your company, your market sector. Not the sweetest lesson we can have on Labor Day, but perhaps today, more than ever, it is the most needed.

The question is leadership

Leadership can be defined by many ways. Like “love” or “responsibility”, leadership evokes an emotional response. “We know it when we see it” is an oft heard descriptor. For the purposes of this conversation, let us look at the DDI study on global management.

In their survey of 412 executives published in 2008, they found a number of priorities related to leadership. Among their priorities, ranking first was the leader’s ability to motivate. Further, working well across disparate cultures, making tough decisions, strategy and execution were among the top priorities.

This treatise is not a comprehensive analysis of policy decisions, macro and microeconomics impacts of taxes, not a discussion of race or religion or moral capacity or lack thereof, etc. We as a people need to go to the basic core of what leadership is and what we want it to be. In the political realm, we need to decide, is President Obama hitting the mark or not w/ one criterion: leadership.

Before we use DDI’s priorities of leadership, let’s start by also pointing out leaders have followers; a simple precept of leadership, really. If you are leading, and no one’s following, guess what, you’re not leading.

Who is following Barak Obama? According to Peter Brown at the WSJ, no one. At least, not as many as were one year ago. His support is at an all-time low, 41-44% depending on which survey you look to. Most importantly, his support across all demographics has dwindled. Only 19% of WASPs support Obama, down from 35%; only 12% of Republicans (more later on that); 38% of independents support the president.

What about the key liberal demographic, the wheelhouse of his support? Consistently liberals are abandoning him as well. It’s slowed less than other demographics, many of the liberal organizations moving against Obama. Friends of the Earth in March 2010 ran ads denouncing Obama’s environmental policies.

Without followers, how does anyone claim to be a leader? Perhaps I can end my analysis here…

But let’s look at DDI’s list and analyze the facts about the President Obama’s leadership abilities. Clearly the president is struggling when it comes to motivation. Influencing the electorate is playing out to one of the worst political slaughters our nation’s history, if current polling data holds from now until November. With control of the Congress, White House, and Courts, Obama was barely able to eke out one legislative “victory” in his healthcare bill. An extremely watered down (thankfully) version of his original vision passed by the skin of his teeth.

How about Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia? Has the president been able to influence the electorate enough to continue his agenda? What other major motivations has Obama been able to achieve? How’s North Korea reacted to his pursuits? How about Iran? How much did his numerous apology tours net the people of the United States?

What about making those tough decisions all leaders are faced to make? Formulating stagey and executing on that strategy? This isn’t a critique of actual decisions or even strategy, policy decisions are what they are. While we might not always agree on leaders’ decisions or strategies, do they at least make decisions or have any kind of strategic vision? If we look at the process used and timing on making decisions we have a clearer understanding of basic leadership and management skills.

Example 1: Afghanistan. Obama’s polices on Afghanistan have changed three times. Within the first 30 days of his presidency Obama announced a winding down and adding 17,000 troops for the purpose of “stabilizing” Afghanistan. 40-days later he unveiled another shift with the purpose of counterinsurgency, appointing Richard Holbrooke as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. May 2009 saw Gen Stanley McChrystal taking command in Afghanistan, in alignment w/ the new counterinsurgency strategy. But then by October 2009 all actions put on hold as VP Joe Biden argues the mission is changing again moving from counterinsurgency and to counterterrorism. Since then the strategy has shifted again, there’s talk of another shift, and a major shakeup in the military leadership with General David Petraeus taking over for McChrystal.

Example 2: The BP oil spill. Just one article in the WSJ has outlined just the highest level missteps by the Obama administration during the BP oil spill debacle. According to author Paul Rubin, the EPA refused to modify regulations around the amount of oil permissible in the discharged water. This would have allowed the literal dozens of skimmers available to be more useful and involved much earlier and kept thousands of gallons of oil off the shores in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.

Further, the Jones Act we heard so much about could have been waived. Bush did this immediately during Katrina, an oft and ill-used example of Presidential mismanagement. This one response from Obama would have allowed foreign vessels to operate in US coastal waters to help assist with the cleanup. As Rubin points out, the failure of Obama to act on these two items alone cost the use of one Taiwanese ship that could have dispersed roughly 500,000 barrels of oil – per day.

Additionally, Obama could have ordered the freeing of American-based skimmers. Of the 2000 skimmers in the US only 400 were deployed to the gulf. The other skimmers sit in reserve only awaiting another potential spill. What spill could take place that had the potential of being this large as to require 5 times the amount of skimmers used in the Gulf?!

This is probably the most egregious misfeasance ever documented in any national or international tragedy. Ever.

Clearly Obama is in over his head. He lacks the basic leadership skills we demand from our line bosses or managers. He does not have the building blocks in place, regardless of political philosophy or ideology, to lead a team, let alone a nation. President Obama, for his loquaciousness, his charm, his charisma, but for his lack of leadership is his undoing.

New rules of IT

Recently IT has adopted a variety of sweeping changes in how they support, respond, and fix equipment and the related services. IT took the best practices of industries and the government and applied to respective changes after diligent research.

Below are samples of these changes:

1) Network access will be on a first-come, first-serve basis from this point forward. Modeled after America's large cities' traffic and road infrastructures, we don't design roads to actually hold the cars that need to use them, we adopted the same philosophy in our network infrastructure. "Oh, you mean ALL 800 of your employees need to get on the network starting between 8 and 9? Sorry, we'll take 1/4. The rest need to either get in earlier or come in later."

2) Based on best practices of public works departments, after hour change windows are canceled immediately. Our people will actually do the work when it's convenient for them, not the end users. This applies to applications and all systems. Additionally, changes to these systems will be performed without communicating when or if the changes will take place or how long they will take.

3) Based on our exemplary airline industry, meetings and project timelines or anything with dates or timed delivery are eliminated. The amount of overhead we can remove from actually planning, scheduling, then trying to keep that schedule will be astounding. We will, however, give you general guidelines and estimated timetables. We would ask that all employees attempting to meet with IT staff please arrive two hours ahead of time.

4) Based on traffic speed limits, network thresholds will be scaled back and limited. Some of you are going too fast across our network and being too productive. We should all strive to have the same level of productivity and work at the same pace regardless of how powerful your computer is or your proficiency in using that computer.

Finally, 5) Alternate routing of network/Internet traffic will be eliminated. Also, features of network traffic that retransmit packet failures will be eliminated. If an email fails to reach its destination, for example, it is now the sender's responsibility to find an alternate route to deliver that message.

It's amazing the ridiculous inconveniences we put up with everyday that we wouldn't stand for for one minute in our IT infrastructure!

Feel free to cut and past this and forward, maybe even forward to your favorite IT professional.

I have had the "opportunity" to travel quite frequently for business and pleasure over the years. I could fill a book with stories and experiences I have had on and in and around planes.

No experience comes close to what I had this past week. When I checked in the seat next to me, in the exit row, was blocked. It is a fairly common occurrence, one of the few benefits of frequent travel. After boarding, however, I noticed an obviously Middle-Eastern young man, probably 25 at the most, who was confused about the seating arrangements, what aisle was where, where the lettered seats were. Eventually he figures out he’s in the seat next to me. "Hmmm, last minute purchase," I think to myself.

And then the series of events continues… A phone call is made. A conversation is initiated. Soon I realize this is not so much a conversation, but a monotone statement, almost being read or recited, and in Arabic. This continues. Four minutes. Five minutes. “Sir, will you please turn off your cell phone?” Six minutes. “Sir, we are trying to take off.” We are taxing now. Abruptly, in the middle of his sentence, he turns the phone off.

I am not going to lie, at this point I am nervous. I eyeball our row-mate, on the window. We immediately read each other’s minds. I turn and lock eyes with the men across the aisle from me, both of which were already looking our way, intrigued to say the least. Again, minds’ were read.

At that moment, the prayers started. Now I’m a little more than nervous. We have mumbling prayers, bowing at the waist, starting after straightening of the clothes, squaring himself and his feet with his body, and continued bowing at the waist, continued mumbling Arabic.

I play dumb and interrupt. “Excuse me, do you need something?” Young Arab continues to look straight ahead, praying, bowing. “Excuse me, are you OK?” No answer. After 2-3 minutes, he does look my direction as I am staring at him intently, and does speak. “I’m sorry, I was praying.” “Oh, really, OK, praying for good things, I hope?” “Oh yes, very good things.”

Yes, we made it to our destination safely. Yes, perhaps my nervousness was slightly unnecessary. But if you are Muslim in America, I’m sorry; your brothers have cost you the right to pray, out loud, bowing, in Arabic, on a plane. You lost that right on 9/12/2001. If you want to say your prayers in private, fine. If you want to pray to yourself, as I do on every flight, great!

Similarly, if you are Muslim in America you lost the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero. If you are a religion of peace, if the majority of hardworking, honest Muslims are peaceful and seek to be good neighbors, would a good neighbor cause such an outrage?

Ask yourself, would the Nazi Party build a historical center at Auschwitz? It is equally offensive that we, now as the assimilationists, as the democrats, as the most forbearing people ever assembled, must now push our tolerance to this level.

I trust the people of New York and the processes in place will put an end to this affront.