When I was younger, I didn't really pay much attention to politics. Right, Left, Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat - none of those labels meant a whole lot to me.
Until my mid-twenties, I generally thought of myself as moderate. I followed the popular notion that it was best to vote for the best person, not the party.
Today I can't tell for certain whether that philosophy was a good one, because I was mostly ignorant about the important issues of the day.
It was when I began to be responsible for myself and my family and understood how government policies can impact my life directly that I gradually became aware. And the more I learned, the more I found myself identifying with conservatives.
Today the choices could not be more stark.
Clearly, the Democrats have slid close to the extreme left of the spectrum. Every solution they push to implement requires government intervention and control.
In the meantime, we find that a frigheningly declining proportion of producers are seeing their wealth confiscated to prop up the political class and the consumers.
We've reached the tipping point, where it appears we now don't have enough producers with wealth to raid to keep the government class and their consuming consituents solvent.
The party in power wants to take more from the producers to reduce the alarming deficits, but have no realistic plan to reverse the trend. How can they not be aware that producers will change their behavior to protect themselves to whatever extent they can?
Wherever Obama's cap settles in, defining the cutoff point for the "rich", his plan is to take everything earned by the producers in excess of that number. Producers in turn will simply cut back their income to fall just below that line. Which means more jobs lost, more businesses shutting down, and more suffering across the board.
On the other hand, I am not encouraged that the conservatives will have the will or the courage to do what must be done to reverse the trend. While November's elections might help a bit, without leadership and a clear sales job to the masses, the problems aren't likely to be solved.
When we live in a world where expression of common sense ideas means volunteering to become a target for personal destruction, totalitarian rule cannot be far behind.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
My Delta Story
I long for the good old days before Delta swallowed Northwest. It's never been more painfully evident than my experience with this week's trip.
In general, since Delta absorbed Northwest, I've seen a number of changes, all of them for the worse.
Delta uses more commuter flights, even on routes like Indy to Atlanta. Those small planes mostly don't have a first class, and those that do have a very limited number of seats and they're not that much better than the coach seats.
All of a sudden the status level I had achieved as a frequent flyer on Northwest seems to be no big deal on Delta. With Northwest, when the flight had a first class cabin, I always got upgraded. Well, maybe not always, but I can't tell you the last time I was on a Northwest flight where I qualified for an upgrade and didn't get it.
With Delta, it happens about half of the time. Partly because of the little commuter planes and partly because the combined pool of frequent flyers are competing for fewer seats.
Then there's the customer service. Northwest had a labor issue before the merger, so there were a lot of bitter and unhappy flight attendants. But the old Northwest beats Delta in customer service hands-down and across the board. In every conceivable customer-facing experience I can report.
So that brings me to this week's trip.
Took off from Indy on time in the little commuter plane with no first class that was overbooked. Northwest used to run the route with a slightly larger plane and guaranteed first class upgrade. OK, that's just me bellyaching.
Got to the intermediate airport, and found out as I approached the gate for my next flight that it had been cancelled.
Waited about 20 minutes to talk to an agent, who couldn't help me. Apparently all of the flights to my destination the rest of the day, including those that connect through other cities, were oversold. There was no way I could get to that airport until the next day.
But the agent suggested that if I wanted to switch my destination to another city nearby, that could still get me there in the same day. So I called my client to confirm I could get picked up at that airport, then used my cell to call the booking line to avoid having to stand in line another 20 minutes for an agent.
Booking line said, sure, if you head for gate 25 now, you can hop on the flight to the nearby destination. She told me she had me rebooked, and all I had to do was get the boarding pass from the gate agent.
Well, I got to the gate, and the gate agent was flustered. See, she had about a dozen of us who were trying to catch this same flight, because we all were on the original flight that got cancelled. And she could not get the computer to process our rebookings. And she could not figure out why.
So she had us each give her our original boarding passes, and two of the passengers worked! So she gave them boarding passes and sent them to the plane. The rest of us she still tried various things to get ours rebooked, but the system just refused to work with her.
She somehow managed to get one more passenger cleared and sent him through the gate. He came back 2 minutes later to tell her they'd already closed the door and wouldn't let him on.
So she finally gave up, and told the rest of us to try the booking line.
I called them again, and they rebooked me for the next flight to the alternate city, leaving about 4 and a half hours later. I asked about my bag, can they make sure it follows me?
She said, "No problem, that's automatic". Right.
I get on that flight, arrive at the destination, and you guessed it - no bag.
So of course I went to the agent, who was the only agent taking care of all 8 of us (the same group of folks from the original cancelled flight), but was also the only agent on duty and had to check in folks arriving for other flights. So it took awhile.
Then, she couldn't get the computer to accept our baggage claims. She was puzzled by that, but actually was the first person who was able to get somewhat creative. She gave us all her direct number, took down our information, and promised she'd get our claims in the system just as soon as she could.
From the hotel, I called her. She confirmed that the claim had been filed, but so far nobody had updated anything. I asked if the bag was still in Memphis, or maybe had it been sent to the original destination? She didn't know. Could I call the other airport to find out if it was there? No, the system doesn't allow for that.
So I waited a couple of hours and called the 800 baggage number. The person who took my call also told me that so far there was no information about the bag. She couldn't give me any information, because nobody had updated the record in the system yet. Again I asked if there was a way to track it down by calling somebody and got the same answer as before.
She clearly didn't care in the slightest whether I ever got my bag.
I went to work the next day in my shorts and golf shirt. The client was great about it.
The bag showed up at my hotel late the next night, about 36 hours after my flight arrived.
I would bet that the other 8 who got re-routed with me had a very similar experience. Of course, I already know they all didn't get their bags rerouted with them.
So we're down to Delta, United, American. All three have no apparent interest in or understanding of the concept of customer service.
I want to start a new airline. I could do a better job running mine than whoever's running those big three. But then again, it's not like that would be very hard.
In general, since Delta absorbed Northwest, I've seen a number of changes, all of them for the worse.
Delta uses more commuter flights, even on routes like Indy to Atlanta. Those small planes mostly don't have a first class, and those that do have a very limited number of seats and they're not that much better than the coach seats.
All of a sudden the status level I had achieved as a frequent flyer on Northwest seems to be no big deal on Delta. With Northwest, when the flight had a first class cabin, I always got upgraded. Well, maybe not always, but I can't tell you the last time I was on a Northwest flight where I qualified for an upgrade and didn't get it.
With Delta, it happens about half of the time. Partly because of the little commuter planes and partly because the combined pool of frequent flyers are competing for fewer seats.
Then there's the customer service. Northwest had a labor issue before the merger, so there were a lot of bitter and unhappy flight attendants. But the old Northwest beats Delta in customer service hands-down and across the board. In every conceivable customer-facing experience I can report.
So that brings me to this week's trip.
Took off from Indy on time in the little commuter plane with no first class that was overbooked. Northwest used to run the route with a slightly larger plane and guaranteed first class upgrade. OK, that's just me bellyaching.
Got to the intermediate airport, and found out as I approached the gate for my next flight that it had been cancelled.
Waited about 20 minutes to talk to an agent, who couldn't help me. Apparently all of the flights to my destination the rest of the day, including those that connect through other cities, were oversold. There was no way I could get to that airport until the next day.
But the agent suggested that if I wanted to switch my destination to another city nearby, that could still get me there in the same day. So I called my client to confirm I could get picked up at that airport, then used my cell to call the booking line to avoid having to stand in line another 20 minutes for an agent.
Booking line said, sure, if you head for gate 25 now, you can hop on the flight to the nearby destination. She told me she had me rebooked, and all I had to do was get the boarding pass from the gate agent.
Well, I got to the gate, and the gate agent was flustered. See, she had about a dozen of us who were trying to catch this same flight, because we all were on the original flight that got cancelled. And she could not get the computer to process our rebookings. And she could not figure out why.
So she had us each give her our original boarding passes, and two of the passengers worked! So she gave them boarding passes and sent them to the plane. The rest of us she still tried various things to get ours rebooked, but the system just refused to work with her.
She somehow managed to get one more passenger cleared and sent him through the gate. He came back 2 minutes later to tell her they'd already closed the door and wouldn't let him on.
So she finally gave up, and told the rest of us to try the booking line.
I called them again, and they rebooked me for the next flight to the alternate city, leaving about 4 and a half hours later. I asked about my bag, can they make sure it follows me?
She said, "No problem, that's automatic". Right.
I get on that flight, arrive at the destination, and you guessed it - no bag.
So of course I went to the agent, who was the only agent taking care of all 8 of us (the same group of folks from the original cancelled flight), but was also the only agent on duty and had to check in folks arriving for other flights. So it took awhile.
Then, she couldn't get the computer to accept our baggage claims. She was puzzled by that, but actually was the first person who was able to get somewhat creative. She gave us all her direct number, took down our information, and promised she'd get our claims in the system just as soon as she could.
From the hotel, I called her. She confirmed that the claim had been filed, but so far nobody had updated anything. I asked if the bag was still in Memphis, or maybe had it been sent to the original destination? She didn't know. Could I call the other airport to find out if it was there? No, the system doesn't allow for that.
So I waited a couple of hours and called the 800 baggage number. The person who took my call also told me that so far there was no information about the bag. She couldn't give me any information, because nobody had updated the record in the system yet. Again I asked if there was a way to track it down by calling somebody and got the same answer as before.
She clearly didn't care in the slightest whether I ever got my bag.
I went to work the next day in my shorts and golf shirt. The client was great about it.
The bag showed up at my hotel late the next night, about 36 hours after my flight arrived.
I would bet that the other 8 who got re-routed with me had a very similar experience. Of course, I already know they all didn't get their bags rerouted with them.
So we're down to Delta, United, American. All three have no apparent interest in or understanding of the concept of customer service.
I want to start a new airline. I could do a better job running mine than whoever's running those big three. But then again, it's not like that would be very hard.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Defining Leadership
The conversation about the gulf oil disaster has been centered on Obama, and whether or not he's shown leadership in dealing with the disaster.
If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.
Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.
Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.
So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.
A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.
A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.
Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.
Obama did none of that.
The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.
The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".
A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.
When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?
What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.
If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.
If you read me much, you probably already guessed my answer. So instead of the direct answer, let me go directly into definitions of leadership.
Leadership is about getting things done and solving problems.
Obama is about getting political power done and solving problems of recalcitrant democrats who might hold up his political priorities.
So when a real-world problem arises, such as the collapse of the economy, various terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, or the oil disaster Obama's version of leadership is to try to turn the problem into impetus to accelerate his political agenda.
A leader faced with the Gulf disaster would first of all have made sure the department charged with inspecting and regulating offshore oil rigs was doing its job. Failing that, a great leader would have sprung into action decisively and directly as soon as the rig explosion occurred.
A great leader would have immediately called together a team to assess the accident, find out what impact it might have, and begin developing recommendations for solutions. He would have met with BP executives and engineers, along with any experts he can recruit from the industry, to talk about the problem and possible solutions.
Then he would have recruited all available resources, whether from BP, the military, or other Oil Company engineers and experts to work together aggressively toward stopping the oil. In a parallel effort, he would work with the gulf coast state governors to take all possible steps to protect the coastline from the oil.
Obama did none of that.
The economic problem that met him when he entered office was clearly defined by his chief of staff, who wanted to make sure they didn't let a good disaster go to waste. Thus came the "bailouts" and rush to pay off everyone in the left-wing constituency with public funds.
The current oil crisis is another disaster too good to waste. Obama's instincts lead him into a two-pronged response: First, destroy British Petroleum. Second, use the disaster to push through a massive redistributionist policy called "Cap and Trade".
A thinking person would need only a moment to understand that Cap and Trade has nothing to do with what its' sponsors promise (reducing dependence on foreign oil, moving us into a "clean energy" economy). It is designed simply to drive all "dirty" energy costs through the roof, make a select group of Democrats led by Al Gore (and Obama himself) richer and more powerful than Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and redistribute some of the money to pay energy bills for poor countries, and if they are lucky, maybe a few poor Americans.
When will enough people wake up and realize what's happening? When will the poor finally realize that the party in power won't help them get out of poverty, but make sure they stay there? When will the middle class realize that the current power brokers in Washington are remaking America into one where the priviledged elite are simply shifted from the Corporate barons to the politically connected, all at the expense of the middle class? When will all of us realize that we're all on the brink of permanently losing our standard of living, lowering the bar for everyone from the most wealthy to the poorest?
What I actually find shocking isn't that the president's 46 percent approval rating is so low, but that it's still so high. Unfortunately, that means there are still nearly half of the people that still haven't figured it out.
If they don't figure it out by November, I think we're toast.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
So Many Thoughts
Religion and Politics.
A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.
If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.
Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.
Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.
Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.
Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.
Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.
Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.
Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?
I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.
It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.
Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.
Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.
A common bit of advice heard often in my lifetime was that these two topics should be avoided in social conversation. Basically because they're the two subjects that engender the greatest amount of passion among people.
If you want to win friends and influence people, stick to topics like sports, the weather, family, friends, vacations.
Lately I'm wondering whether it's such good advice after all.
Religious conversation used to consist of arguments about Catholics vs. Protestants, or Baptists vs. Lutherans. Whether salvation is through grace or works, how the Virgin Mary should or should not be revered, stuff like that.
Now religious conversations are nothing like that; instead, they're mostly about attacks from the atheists and the "social justice" crowd, who either reject the faith entirely or would reframe it to fit their "modern" worldview.
Should one avoid the topic if the arguers are misrepresenting and/or demonizing the faith held so dearly? Perhaps it's the duty of a person of faith to speak up, not stridently or argumentatively, but patiently and gently to point out the fallacy of the anti-Christian argument.
Political conversation has always been about degree. Degree of socialism vs degree of free-market capitalism. Degree of government regulation vs. laissez-faire policy.
Now the conversation seems more about personalities than policy. Both sides seem to enjoy calling the other fascist, which has lost all meaning in the process. Therefore, if someone uses "Socialist" or "Marxist" to label the current government leaders, the terms are discarded by those who they would hope to convince as nothing but more name-calling.
Perhaps rather than avoiding the subject, political discussions should be focused on fact rather than personality. Rather than denouncing the president, his cabinet, and the leaders in congress generally, how about talking about what new laws and regulations they are intent on pushing through and whether or not they are good for the nation as a whole?
I get a bit weary hearing the back-and-forth between the representatives of the Left and Right. If the Right throws in Harry Reid, the Left comes back with Newt Gingerich. Nancy Pelosi countered with Sarah Palin. Barack Obama with George W Bush.
It seems the Left has no particular issue with Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but hold a visceral hatred of Gingerich, Palin, and Bush. The Right are appalled by Reid, Pelosi, and Obama, but don't see a problem with Gingerich, Palin, and Bush.
Stop focusing on the standard-bearers of the parties, and start focusing on what the country needs during this terrible time of economic and moral decline and corruption.
Simply stated, there has never been an example where government-imposed redistribution of wealth led to widespread prosperity. Conversely, prosperity unprecedented in the history of the world came about courtesy of the grand experiment called the United States of America.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Any Sane People Out There?
More and more I'm not so sure.
Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.
Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?
The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?
The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?
The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?
A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?
The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?
The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?
Oh yeah, see the first example.
Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?
Let's see if I can catalog some of the latest examples of mass insanity.
Finding out more than half of babies born in the county last year were paid for by Medicaid. Am I the only one who draws a logical and extremely disturbing conclusion about what that says about the state of our society?
The country's rulers are favoring Israel's enemies, who happen to also be our own enemies. Am I the only one who sees the inevitable outcome as a smoking hole in the ground that was once a country called Israel?
The American rulers are hammering Arizona for trying to do something about illegal immigration. Where did I miss the part about it being a fundamental human right to live in America, whether invited or not?
The American rulers are pushing ahead with their ingenious plan to decide for every citizen how big their "carbon footprint" is allowed to be. If you want more energy than you are allocated, you have to "buy" the rights to that energy from people who don't use their share (read: poor), with the well-connected folks with names like Obama and Gore pocketing a commission on each transaction. Who exactly thinks this sounds like a great idea, other than those well-connected leaders who get to pocket the commissions?
A deep-sea oil well explodes, the rulers ignore it for a month, then tell everyone they've been "in charge since day one". The only visible action they've taken is to threaten the oil company, shut down all offshore drilling, and build a small army of lawyers to figure out all the ways the oil company can be sued. This is what they call leadership?
The rulers made sure to push through a huge new healthcare entitlement that is paid for by borrowing from China. Only the self-employed and the unemployed actually have trouble getting health insurance, and nobody is denied care. And even those folks can still sign up for insurance through a hodgepodge of state and federal programs. Am I getting the message right, "you may not have a job, but you will eventually have health insurance"?
The president is the first leader of the country I know of who said, (paraphrasing) "if my daughter makes a mistake, I don't want her to be punished with a baby". Children are now mistakes for which women are punished? When did that happen?
Oh yeah, see the first example.
Either the world has gone insane or I need to be committed to a mental health facility for treatment. Hmm, weren't those also called "re-education camps"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)