In a WSJ article about the MGM casino breakup and sale, Dennis Forst, KeyBanc Capital Markets, Inc. said “These casinos are underwater, much like our country’s homeowners.  But casinos aren’t very sympathetic figures so no one is going to ride in with a bailout.”

Damn straight, they aren’t.

Sunday’s Wall Street Journal noted that AIG will pay $619 million in retention payments to 4,200 employees (ranging from $92,500 to $4 million).  As the business world awakes this morning, the howling grows louder.

The rub is that $121.5 million for 2008 bonuses will go to 6,400 of 116,000 employees (some no longer with the company); 40 “high-ranking” executives will get their bonuses based on performance in meeting certain goals, such as implementing the restructuring as announced in early March. 

I’m sorry?  The U.S. government, meaning you and me, now own nearly 80% of this company. The company fell apart because of the actions of these people, so how can any bonus or retention agreement remain legally binding?  What happened to agreements of ethics and morality?

AIG’s CEO Edward Liddy said they “cannot attract and retain the best and brightest talent…if employees believe that their compenstation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”

Well, Mr. Liddy, I don’t call the actions taken by those “best and brightest” anything to write home about.  They put AIG in the toilet, then flushed.  Leaving American taxpayers to clean up the mess that overflowed.  Frankly, they are lucky to have a job at all and I don’t understand why they remain employed, to be honest.  Other companies are struggling to stay on some semblance of productive course, others are struggling to stay alive.  Workers everywhere are taking pay cuts in order to help their company remain solvent, grateful to continue to have a job at all.

And those workers, even while taking home less money, are still sending money to the government in the form of taxes.

Taxes that continue to be used to reward this kind of bad behavior.  Rather like paying our elected representatives…or union dues…heh….  Taxes that are being used to force idiots to do the right thing.  That, Mr. Liddy, no matter what your highly-paid “outside counsel” says, is what is really distasteful here.

In yet another demonstration of that change for which the world has been waiting, the Obama administration continues on its quest for enemies at whom they can kick sand, looking for all the world like a rather grotesque and very long-in-the-tooth group of enfant terribles.  I guess they figure that if they can fling enough of…anything…in the air, it will distract us from seeing they’ve resoundingly succeeded in rising above their level of incompetence.

With an attention span more often seen in very small children, the ineffective flailings against Rush Limbaugh are now being set aside in favor of what they see as perhaps as softer target:  House Minority Whip Eric Cantor.  In what is little more than a fluffy campaign piece in the Washington Post opinion section last week, President Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, fulfills his job responsibilities by calling him the “new Republican quarterback” . 

The non-profit, Americans United for Change, (an organization that counts labor unions and liberal groups such as Moveon.org among its PAC coalition), is bankrolling television commercials against saying “no” to the administration’s spendthrift ways.  Of course, such action begs the question:  are these ads considered charitable, educational, or recreational*? 

Oh, wait.  They promote social welfare.

 

 

 

 

* – 501(c)(4)  Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

“Good” is the mortal enemy of “great.”

So says Jim Collins, author of “GOOD TO GREAT: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … And Others Don’t”. And I happen to agree with him.

While certainly none of us are superheroes and able to consistently leap tall buildings in a single bound, at the end of the day can you honestly say that when you decided to do something, you gave it your all?  Or did you make the choice to do just enough to get by?  Or less?

Unfortunately, “good enough”, that one-size-fits-all garden-variety mediocrity seems to have entrenched itself in our society.  It runs the gamut from children think getting a “C” is good enough (when they are capable of doing better) to workers putting in their 8 hours and not a moment more, even if that means they walk out on a crisis (which I have, unfortunately, personally witnessed; and I mean before the Obama administration took office).

I don’t get it.  That wasn’t how I was raised and while, sure, there are plenty of things I no longer care if I do well (like cooking, since I “eat to live” instead of “living to eat”), when it comes to my real job – whether corporate, volunteer, or avocation – I continually strive to not only give it my very best but to also try to do better every day.  I don’t really expect to beat out all the competition all the time, but when I lay down my head I’m satisfied that my striving has at least resulted in personal growth.

I’ve learned to give up chasing the dreams of others for which I am not suited and instead to follow those that are truly fulfilling to me, as an individual.  Therefore, my success is not measured by the amount of money I make, it is not measured by the type of home in which I live, nor am I defined by my job title.  I know what I know and, much more importantly, I now know how much I don’t know.  And I no longer try to fake it just so someone else will have a higher opinion of who they think I am.

So it is with sad interest that I watch our government go about its business.  Allowing the misguided, the incapable, and the downright incompetent a place at a table at which they have no business and allowing things like pieces of paper or, now, even skin color to create some hateful class divide that separates the “knows” and the “don’t knows”, that separates the “rich” from the “middle class” from the “deserving poor”.

Frankly, I don’t see people as pieces of paper, nor do I see them defined by their color.  What I do see, however, are stupid people.  And I find it offensive that there are those who would force me to look at the world on those terms.  That there are those who would measure my self-worth by such useless definitions and to then find me lacking.

Sorry, big O., I’m not stupid.  I really don’t mean to make you feel feel insecure, but I’m quite sure that my IQ is far higher than yours.  And I’m quite sure that I have far better manners than you do, as witnessed by your glaringly rude treatment of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.  But the difference is that I don’t hold your ignorance against you.  Nor do I think any less or any more of you because your race is different than mine.  When you peel away everything, humans are simply humans and though I find most of what comes out of your mouth to range from abhorrent to horrifying, because I am an American, I will defend to the death your right to state your opinion.  And I will defend your right to look like a fool.

But because I am an American, I will also fight to the death to retain the right to state my opinion.  And I will fight to put you back down to the level of incompetance at which you, and others like you, really belong.  Because to serve the American people is a privilege.   And because your “good” is the mortal enemy of the greatness upon which this country was founded.

While eating a late lunch today, a mandatedly-inexpensive lunch, mind you, due to the MIA invitation to dine at the Orchid office, I read a nice little article at the National Review.  One man’s thoughts about various and sundry things about the current state of our dissed-graced nation.

While nodding my head in agreement at his points, a little ball dropped into a little hole, followed by a little “click!” and a realization:

Today’s most vehement Demon-crats hate Rush Limbaugh because he is SUCCESSFUL.

Not only is he successful, but he is successful without being beholden to anyone, let alone to the government (read:  favors from politicians), for his success.  One of those self-made men.  You know, kinda like our Founding Fathers.

Ok, so some of you may have already come to this realization on your own, but I find it explains a great deal about what’s going on in and around the White House. 

Anyway, scary idea, that of independent thinkers, when what you need is utter dependency from the masses in order to put your personal vision, your “great plan” in place.  Worse is when you have an independent thinker with a big mouth exercising our basic right of free access to a microphone and saying things that apparently, at least according to the ratings, an awful lot of people want to hear.

I said before that I’d never listened to Rush Limbaugh until his address to the CPAC.  Frankly, main-stream media-driven curiosity is what drove me to park my butt in the den in front of the television, but in all honesty, it was his words that kept me there.  Words that rang clear and true and – much to my surprise – matched the very same things I’ve been saying for a long time.

And I realized that all along, regardless the stated political affiliation of the candidate I checked off on a voting ballot, I’ve always been a conservative. 

Gosh, it’s so nice to be out of the closet.

And it’s even nicer to find that there are more and more and – much to the vehement Demon-crats chagrin and despite the ever-increasing pace of their tap-dancing spin machine – even more people who think like me.  People who are looking at this country and looking even more closely at our elected representatives and wondering just what the hell is going on.  People standing up and questioning the blatant hypocrisy and the sheer stupidity that belches out from both ends of the Beltway like a drunk after a big Mexican dinner.

The bad news, the sad news, is that we put those idiots there.  But the good news is, like Bill Cosby once told his kids, we can take them out and replace them.

Every single one of them.  Donkey’s asses and elephants alike.

In the meantime, speaking of donkey’s asses, I’ve heard tell about a statement that, “Rush Limbaugh is no Bill Buckley.”  I went a’searching and can’t help but wonder what those brayers are smoking?  The National Review’s cover story for September 6, 1993 was all about Rush and about former President Ronald Reagan gladly passing on the torch to Rush as the “Number One voice for conservatism in our Country”.  Rush Limbaugh was a regular contributor to the National Review.  Which was founded by…?  I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count.

William F. Buckley.  Who liked Rush Limbaugh.

Most interestingly (meaning, most ironically, considering current circumstances) I came across this tidibit about good old William F.:

Buckley appeared in a series of televised debates with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Democratic Party convention.  In their penultimate debate on August 28 of that year, the two disagreed over the actions of the Chicago police and the protesters at the ongoing Democratic Convention in Chicago.  After Buckley responded to Vidal’s argument by stating that Vidal’s position was “so naive” and saying of the protesters “some people were pro-Nazi”, Vidal called Buckley a “Crypto-Nazi”, to which Buckley replied, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered.”  (Wikipedia)

Any wonder Rush considers him a mentor, may the gods rest his Conservative soul?

People are such fascinating critters.  After an evening out and about doing those terribly normal “middle class” things that we “middle class” do, I came home and opened the online news.  I tell you, it’s a big night when forced to choose between reading an awful lot of people whining about the “surprise ending” of the…ahem…reality…ahem…television show, “The Bachelor”, and reading an awful lot of people still whining about Rush Limbaugh.

What did Rush do now?  Well, apparently he was a little disrespectful to Senator Ted Kennedy.  Something about naming the national health care plan as a memorial to the man.

Guess we shouldn’t confess that we used to fondly call old Teddie the “swimmer”, but have recently changed his nickname to “bob”?

Heh….

Ok, so we still think Ted Kennedy is a heartless, lying, murdering bastard for his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.  But that pales in newsworthiness comparison to a slam-dunk of his most popular pew-warmer by none other than the righteous Reverend Wright when he apparently had a hallucinogenic flash of truthfulness:  “Barack’s name ain’t Jesus.”  Well, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!  We have ourselves a weiner here.  Welcome to reality, Reverend.  We hope you enjoyed your stay here.  Come back again sometime.

Then there’s Hilary Clinton’s attempt to top her boss in diplomatic gift-giving stupidity.  Perezagruzka?  Peregruzka?  What’s an opechatka between friends?  Of course, those are our hard-earned tax dollars at inept work.  Would someone please remind Mrs. Clinton that what we’ve been trying to do for years is to keep Russia from pushing the button?

An amusing, though sadly rhetorical question was posed by Noel Sheppard in a Foxnew blog:  “Do you think media would have tried to capture former President Bush’s image without a pane of glass blocking his face if he brought a teleprompter everywhere he went? Or would they have done their best to make him look foolish for doing so?”  Guess that Ivy League education continues to pay off.  At least we know the President is comfortable around technology.  So does this remind me of Pigpen and his blanket?

Speaking of pigpens…seems that when Senator Harry Reid failed to get the short bus…errr…failed to shove the Omnibus bill through a smaller-than-anticipated hole in the Senate, he ended up in Nancy Pelosi’s office and things became rather “ugly” as they argued about what to do next.  They were so loud that staff members, relegated to the hall, could hear them. 

If the President and his press secretary arguing with a radio show host, and the Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader swearing at each other in the middle of the night in front of the staff after just the first 47 days is any indication, the next 1,415 days ought to be quite amusing.

But eventually this glam news becomes tiring and it’s off to something with a bit more substance.  I’d say with a bit more bite, but prefer to not be reminded of the austerity that grips this particular small residence as tightly as it is gripping the residences of millions of other Americans.  Michelle Malkin outlines the current state of this austerity, aka non-spending, quite nicely.  Though of course such outlining must, in all fairness – since all of us are about fairness and balance – show the other side.  That is, the cocktail parties and Wagyu beef being served up under the auspices of the perennially-summertime Orchid office.  Paid for by our hard-earned tax money, of course.

I tell ya, it’s so hard to keep up with all this change.