An Open Letter to Conservatives

The Republicans seem posed at this writing to take a number of seats in the House and Senate in the 2010 elections. It might not happen, but I have a question. Are you sure you want this? Are you really getting what you think you are getting?

I’m not saying that it is a bad thing to take more seats even to win control. But please examine what the outcome may be. Conservatives, Tea Partiers and the like think that by taking control they will take back America. A number of my conservative friends say that President Obama is bad and President Bush was just as bad as a big spending, favor the special interest and the wealthy. Much of the Tea Party literature talks about returning to the Reagan type conservative government.

However, let’s look at what is happening. Lots of money is pouring into these races. Lots of money. And look where that money is coming from, Crossroads and a few others are the main concentration of funding for these new candidates. However, the man behind all this is Karl Rove. Mr. Rove was the architect of the George Bush Presidency. He was the one who started the big spending programs.

And when the candidates he backs get into office, he will be asking for favors, big favors, like vote for the bills I want you to vote for or kiss that seat goodbye.

In other words, G. W. Bush is back. Except he isn’t in an elected office. He is sitting in an office, telling his new candidates what to do. And if they don’t? They will be shunned and renounced as traitors and they will never get elected again.

Take back the Republican Party for the Conservatives. But please don’t return to the last eight years of spending, giveaways to special interests groups that will give money to the new shadow government and keep running up the deficit. I can accept a good conservative approach to government, but I can’t take more of the last eight years of spend, spend , spend.

The Indentured Servitude of HIB visa holders

Every so often, I read in the paper about the need for skilled workers and the only place to get them is from overseas, especially from India. Now I have a lot of friends who are here because of HIB visas and I don’t think the people that come here are not good workers, but I think there is fault in the corporate thinking why they need these people.

One of the first arguments offered is the lack of skilled workers. Oh? Let’s see, all those gray-temple workers at Home Depot or running the local Mail Boxes places probably aren’t there because they love working for $10/hour or the allure of working the plumbing row. No, most of them (and for honesty, me) are not in the high tech world because there aren’t any jobs offered to them. They have skills, but because corporations didn’t pay to have these people trained in the newest stuff and because it is costly to retrain yourself, these people are considered “not mainstream”. And why aren’t they trained? Because the companies need them to work on the old junk that is keeping their company running and know that if you train people on the latest stuff and they will likely leave. Or ask for more money. Or crab at the managers about not using their new skills. So they get your older (not old, just older) employees to work on legacy projects. Now I know the equipment and software used on the legacy systems were at one time the latest and greatest. But over time, that skill set moves from latest and greatest to hot to mainstream to passé to finally obsolete. And once you convert that project to the latest newest stuff, those legacy people can be let go. I believe there are a lot of skilled people out there who are underemployed or have move out of the skilled employment area because no one wants their skills.

Most hiring is done via a resume into the resume hopper of a human resource department at a large corporation. Most human resource people working in high tech only need to know the buzzwords. They are not skilled people so if you say you need C++ experience and someone comes in with C experience, they are rejected because they don’t fit the criteria. The only way to get that experience is to work in a place that will allow you to learn C++, but few companies will hire you because there are college kids coming out of college with that experience who will work for a lot less and less headaches. And then there are the H1B’s. I know a number of H1B visa holders. They are smart, well educated and eager. In a different setting, I would say they were the perfect employee. But there are some parts of the H1B system that must be understood.

As an employer of an H1B person, I have to agree to give that person a job and “sponsor” them. In so many words, I am responsible for them. Many employers look at this as the end of their job. There are many other employers who view these people are either manipulatible or in the extreme conditions treated like dirt. The problem is that the H1B person has no recourse, unlike the American worker. If it were me, I could complain, not do the jobs assigned and get fired or outright quit. An HIB cannot do anything. If an HIB is fired for any reason, they can be and probably will never get to return. Keeping the job here until they get a Green Card is more important than the job itself. If they complain, the less than scrupulous employer can fire them. If they don’t do the work, they can be fired. And if they quit, they strongly run the risk of deportation since they don’t have another job. Also to qualify for a green card, you must have held the same job for a period of time. So if the boss tells you to work Sunday on a project, you’re only answer is, yes sir. To take on more work, yes sir. To mop the floor, yes sir. Also add to the equation is that the cultural background of the typical H1B visa holder is deferential to the boss. So if I want to, I the employer can get an employee who is smart, well trained, deferential to me, willing to do anything I want, probably will make less than the American worker and won’t quit for a period of time. Or I can hire the smart, but less trained, typical American worker who needs time off for soccer games, wants a raise and can quit in the drop of a hat.

So what is wrong with this? It is the millions of people that are under employed that would love to go back to what they love doing, but can’t because employers have found a cheaper and perhaps better resource. If the worker is a commodity, then H1B visa holders are the cheaper overseas connection. And the people that are here on H1B’s are in many ways indentured servants of the company, working hard to gain their freedom of a green card. And someday to become that American worker.

Voting for the Candidates, not the Party

I'm sorry, I'm not one for parties. I don't like parties, like office type etc unless I know most of the people. I like small groups of people who I know. I don't have to agree with them all, but I always am more comfortable in familiar settings. That said, the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarian and Green Parties seem a collection of people that may on a few ideas totally agree. So far, Republicans seem to agree they hate President Obama, Democrats agree they can't agree on anything, Libertarians hope a party will get them better dope and the Greens are so clueless about how to compete.

So I hate to affiliate myself with any party because frankly none of them would really want me. I ask way too many questions and have way too strong opinions. I am not a good soldier. That said, there is an election. Given those too strong opinions and with time since the economy from about the end of Clinton on has sucked for me, I get to ask a lot of questions.

So as an intelligent voter, you need to do some reflection time. What matters the most to you? What hot button do you have? Don't read the paper to have some pollster tell you what America's hot button is. You must have one. And then what is next. Get three or four hot buttons. Since this is private, some of them might not agree with the party you see yourself with. It's ok, you don't have to tell. Then research. Read the web pages and look for your hot buttons. Do they agree with you? And is what they say just to placate you or do they have solutions to the problems you find important? It doesn't matter what party they are with, if the candidate agrees with you on what you think is important, then vote for him or her.

Intelligent voters are not party voters. They may agree with a party and find that one party or another basically reflects their opinions, but frankly I'll vote for who I think is the best candidate to solve the problems I think the country needs. No talking head has to tell me what to think. I am an Intelligent Voter.

An Open Letter from a friend

A good friend has written an open letter to Rep. Judy Biggert, 13-IL about her problems and Ms. Biggert's lack of responses. I found it moving and so true. Please read and pass this along. Our district is so poorly represented because of big money or at least the perception of big money. Please follow this link to Gayl's Letter

vote early if you can, vote intelligently

Vote. Vote like it means something, it does. Vote Early and get it done with. Nothing irritates a phone bank caller than to say I already voted and I didn't vote for your candidate.

Vote intelligently

Vote, because they don't want you to vote

Friends, Internet and Politics

Years ago, when two high school friends met on the street after 40 years, they would just chat about jobs, marriages, kids etc. If they noticed each was wearing the political button of the other party, they probably wouldn’t say anything until they walked away and they would mutter under their breath, “what an idiot”.

Today, with the Internet, online social networking and other online systems, we are able to find people that we were friends with many years ago. I graduated from High School in 1971, which doesn’t seem that long ago to me, but I know it is almost 40 years. I also grew up in a small town in Northeast Missouri, but had a unique group of people since there was a university, an Osteopathic medical college as well as from farms and smaller towns. I had a wide range of friends and liked them all. But we all grow up from high school days and get different viewpoints based on jobs, marriages, kids, where we end up, who we make as friends as adults, military service or not, interact with foreign cultures, loose jobs, get new careers and the list goes on and on. Essentially, we grew up.

Now enter social media and the internet. I’ve been bombarded for years to go to a classmates site. I was curious about the people I knew and what happened to them. It was nice to find out who is doing what. Who was married, still married, remarried or widowed. Who has grandkids and who can post the most pictures of them. The internet and social media sites like Facebook have allowed us to reconnect with friends from 40 years ago as well as our current circle of acquaintances and friends. Since I don’t have to worry what an employer thinks anymore, I can say what is on my mind. My current friends know me and know where I stand. When a conservative minded friend would come to my house during the last election, they saw my Obama sign and bumper stickers on the refrigerator. On the other hand, my friends and I have more to talk about than just politics. I respect my friends and their opinions. We don’t discuss it, but will hint at it. I have one friend that is very conservative, we disagree about politics, but he can have my right kidney if he needs it. Frankly, all my friends can have my right kidney if they need it. But what about those friends whose views of me are frozen in 40 years of time? What do they think of this online me?

Recently, I have become more politically aware and active with the Coffee Party. This is a moderate group interested in rational discussions on politics and reestablishing civility in discussions. Because of Facebook is the primary discussion tool, many topics come forward that may be center to left in leanings and because of this stand, I will offer my opinion as a status or as a comment on another topic. My current friends seem to ignore these. I have one very Tea Party/Libertarian who I know reads what I post because we agreed on a topic. But in most cases, everyone ignores those topics. I don’t care who has found Jesus and I don’t need to argue with them about conservative values etc.

But I have one ‘friend’ who doesn’t quite get it. Perhaps he thinks he has to balance his conservative viewpoint against my more liberal view. Maybe he is argumentative. Maybe he has a chip on his shoulder about me and my life. Maybe he has a need to debate his viewpoints. Maybe he wants to talk to people and doesn’t have a lot of friends. But we are not the people we were in high school and we wouldn’t have that much in common anymore. The problem is that I hate to say, ‘see ya’ to him. On the other hand, I don’t need his comments on some topics.

So I wonder, do social media sites really help bring us closer or just show us the gaps that we all have between each other. There is a part of me that likes knowing about grandkids and vacations. I’ve been able to sort of reconnect with old friends. This reconnection is not the same as a real connection, but given that I probably wouldn’t have heard from these people, this lets me have some imaginary re-acquaintance. So maybe social media systems offer us this chance, but we all need to be aware that the person on the other end or the people reading the comment are probably not who you think they are and so we have to question the relevance of the comment before any of us hit send.

Organization of the Tea Party

There is a general impression that either the Tea Party is this monolithic organization, run by some nefarious gnomes or 10,000 individual groups with little interaction. I keep hearing that they are loonies or Libertarians, Republican operatives, Nazis, normal people etc. There are as many definition of a Tea Party member as there are groups.

I personally divide the Tea Party into six groups. I find the groups are the real Tea Party people, the Libertarian wing, social issues group, the RWANs (Republicans with another name), the fringe groups and the politicos. People will fit into one or more groups, but generally I think they break down like this.

The Tea Party generally goes with three philosophies: Fiscal Responsibility, Limited Government and Free Markets. It will depend on who is speaking as to they accept all three as well as interpretations of the philosophy. Some would say it is different emphasis rather than rejection of some, but in what I’ve seen, they are very different groups.

The original Tea Party people really take their beliefs in the fiscal responsibility and the Taxed Enough Already concept. They do believe in smaller government and free market, but as the rant by Santelli exclaimed that they were tired of paying for other people’s mistakes. These original Tea Party people are probably the majority of the movement. They are the angry voters that are tired of Bush and now Obama’s views of taxation or at least the perceived view of taxation. They are also the lesser known of the groups because they are not as visible or vocal and they also are more moderate than other groups in looking at the span of the different organizations. This group is not as active in social issues, like abortion and gay rights, and is more right of center than far right. They do not necessarily believe in a totally free market, but look at over-regulation as bad.

Libertarian wing of the Tea Party is to take the limited government and free markets as more important than fiscal responsibility. They want the government to ‘keep their hands off of my stack’ and stay out of their business. These people are the pro-legalization of marijuana, very very small government types. This group is very pro-individual freedom and for less is more. They would be necessarily pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-legalization of soft drugs, pro-immigration reform, anti-taxation and view fiscal responsibility as control of the size and scope of government. They are also less interested in military might and see a smaller military, since a draft and war usually mean that individual freedoms are compromised.

The social issues group is the anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-gays in the military, pro-Christian evangelicalism group. They are not as interested in the limited government as much as making the government do what they want to do, such as write laws to keep women from getting abortions. This group is more or less the Evangelical movement of the old Republican party. They have less interest in the size of government, but are interested in getting the government back to what it perceives as a Christian system. They view the role of the military much like the old Republican party, but want to choose which missions so that they can push their agendas.

RWANs are Republicans with another name. They are the right wing Republicans who worship Reagan and want to go back to those glory years. These are the old white rich people who were in power at one time and have seen their thinking moved on by the Neo-Cons and the moderates in the Republican party. They are for smaller government and fiscal responsibility by lowering the deficit as traditionally defined by the Republican Party. However, they believe in a strong military presence and are willing to wage war to keep America safe.

The fringe groups make up a small percentage, but are the ones most photographed. These are the birthers, the 10thers, the 14thers, racists, LaRouchies, probably a few neo-nazis and the like. These people see the chance to expand their base and get their message to the media in a way that is more mainstream than they could before. And as these people get their message out there, some people have picked up on it like Lou Dobbs and use it either as a way to create news or to push their message. They aren’t necessarily interested in taxation, social issues or limiting government. However, they make great television.

The politicos are the smallest group to me, but the most powerful. These are Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Jim DeMint, Dick Army and others. They are the ones that have seen a parade starting and have jumped in front, hoping to be the leader. There are other politicians that have tried to adapt, like John McCain. There are also the members of the Republican Party that are working with the groups like the Evangelicals to help craft a message. The Tea Party may not have a person deigned to be in charge, but as with any group or groups, there are people who are ‘helping’ craft the message, like Dick Army and Jim DeMint who I believe view the Tea Party as a chance to flex power by creating a voting bloc rather than accepting their message. Without a doubt, Fox News and Rupert Murdock have an interest in creating a voting bloc to push his agenda through. Politicos are more interested in leading than crafting the message. They follow the pack rather than leading it ideologically. However, since they have air time and are articulate, they can appear to be leading the ideology by playing up an idea to the base. They are not interested in fiscal responsibility, free markets, or limited government other than to morph themselves into the message.

People may belong to many groups. Some may even identify themselves as a Tea Party and not really be in any group, because they find a niche that appeals to them. However, to assume they are a unified group is wrong. Again, ask them about legalization of marijuana, reinstatement of the draft, or the role of the US as a world power. Unless they are all from the same church, the same Tea Party group, etc, I think you will get varied opinions.

An Explanation of Obama Poll Numbers

The pundits keep talking about President Obama’s polling numbers falling and make it seem like the end of the world for him. He was elected by a wide margin and was mostly from the independents, the moderates and the Democrats. In order to achieve any changes in Washington, he had to find some balance within the system and to do so means moving to a more centrist viewpoint. You cannot achieve when the very Democratic Congress isn’t behind him.

So as he continues on a more centrist path, those people who are left of his views are not happy with his performance, because they wanted single payer health care, out of Iraq and Afganistan and other programs. They hoped he would be able to convince people to their viewpoint. So when a pollster calls these people and asks their opinion on President Obama, they will respond that they are not happy with his performance. But when that same pollster calls a right of center voter, they too will say they are disappointed for very different reasons.

Is the left truly disappointed in his performance? No. They are disappointed in the Congress, the Republican monolith and the fact that he has to compromise to get anything done. They would like to have President Obama fulfill his promises, but to do that he needs a Democratic Congress to stand with him. But the Democratic Caucus of the Congress is made up of many factions and I doubt any of them can agree on anything except their individual needs to be elected. The Republican caucus stands united and I’m not 100% sure why they are. I think it is because they understand power better than the Democrats and realize as the minority party that standing together will achieve their goal of returning to power.

So I discount the polling numbers because they won’t ask the question I want to ask. Are you disappointed in President Obama or are you disappointed in that he can’t get things done because no one, neither Democrats or Republicans, are willing to work with him. And in answering this, we might find that the people who voted for Obama are really still in favor of him. But in fact they hate that the Democratic Party cannot stand behind him. But pollsters don’t want to ask hard questions that lead to other questions. They are paid by people to get the pulse of the people, but to get the pulse they want to hear. Even the independent polling groups want explainable numbers and trying to tell people that the left really likes President Obama, but doesn’t like the way laws are made especially now is too difficult a message to get out.

The Former Members of Congress say STOP

There is an open letter from the Former Members of Congress for Common Ground who want to stop the bickering and get Congress back to work. This is a wide range of Congress, from Republicans to Democrats. Their letter could have been written by Annabel Park of the Coffee Party. Why won't Congress do anything? Because it is all about power and control, not about ideologies.

Ask your Candidates if they want to be with their colleagues or against them.

Click here to see the letter

I Am No Longer a Liberal

Nor am I a conservative or a libertarian, a socialist, a communist, or an espouser of free radicals. These are labels, I am do not like being labeled. Because by picking a label, you now have to become all that that label thinks of itself and what everyone else thinks about you. In one sense, you must now stop thinking for yourself and I for one will never stop thinking for myself. I can sense that many reading this are saying, I’m liberal and I think for myself! Or I’m conservative and I think for myself! And you might. But the label you have chosen has certain beliefs that personally I may or may not agree with at this time. I like to think that my thinking is evolving and changing as I grow older and get some elder wisdom.

I happen to have some beliefs that do not fit into liberal or conservative. I am not for a smaller government or for a large government. I am for right sized government. I am not for no regulations for businesses nor am I for a lot of regulations to manage the businesses. I am for enough, but not too much. I am not for government to cut all spending nor am I for spending wildly, but to spend where it is necessary. Oh and this means then no earmarks. That is not spending as necessary, but making sure your constituents (and donors) get a little more than everyone else. I can not see the benefit of lobbyists. The job of informing politicians of their issues is one thing. Junkets, money, campaign contributions, etc isn’t teaching about the issues, it is bribery. I do not like debt, either to a bank or to a lobbyist.

I am for helping people who are in trouble. Like kids, sometimes you have to let them fall down, dust them off and have that talk about why what they did was harmful. But I don’t agree with letting them fall down over and over. Nor am I for putting them in a bubble. Here I’m thinking about the people who made very bad loan decisions as well as people who don’t want to get off welfare. People will make mistakes, but assuming someone will always be there to help you out is silly. So if you gamble your house and life on a chance to make it really big and lose, you should take it and deal with it. There shouldn’t be a bail out for stupidity.

I am for education. We cannot grow without a well-educated population. But again, our teachers are underpaid in the most part and everyone says we need more teachers. But try and get a teaching job. The jobs are held by under performing teachers who have union backing and tenure. As well as the bureaucracy that keeps the teachers, administrators and other staff insulated from reality.

I am for unions. But not for unions who do nothing for the workers except line their pockets with dues and are only the managers of another resource for the company, labor. I don’t mind union workers getting good wages, but there is a point where they are a second tier privileged class behind the over priced management. However, when workers are being exploited by management, then it is time to organize.

I am for business. But businesses forget that they are nothing without workers. And not workers in India, but the workers that live here. The people who buy the products. No one is worth making millions of dollars, unless you have some risk involved. And a golden parachute isn’t risking anything. And I am for right sized regulation. Hey, I don’t want you pouring your waste water into my drinking water, but I don’t think we need regulation to make sure you have enough left handed wrenches in case you hire some left handed workers.

I am for banks. But banks need to understand the risks and expect like all of us that if you take risks and fail, you will need to close. If I risked everything on a business venture and it failed, I would have to file for bankruptcy and start over with nothing. So management of risk is important to me and to the banks.

So when you spew some liberal or conservative mumbo-jumbo at me. I will read and nod politely. Because you have drunk your respective kool-aids, read the appropriate books and have stopped thinking for yourself. My label is I am me.