Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and HoHos

As usual, the conservative media has whipped their side into a frenzy about the Hostess company going out of business. Those evil, uncompromising labor unions have forced 18,000 people right out of a job! And the liberal media has stoked their side with the “facts” they’ve chosen to highlight. Those evil, money-grubbing executives awarded themselves millions in bonuses that forced an unprofitable company right out of the game! We seem to have these little Indignation Buttons the media is so adept at pushing.

Both sides are not doing any sort of intelligent, responsible analysis. Driving emotion is what it’s all about right now. Let’s think deeper about the few “facts” we can determine.

I read Hostess dealt with three labor unions (bakers, drivers, pencil-sharpeners, whatevers). We know labor unions were awesome in their 1920s beginnings – kept children from dying, hunched over their factory sewing machines, right? Over the years, they’ve negotiated comfortable working lives for their members with high wages, benefit packages, generous sick days, vacation, all sorts of protective rules about work conditions. That’s very nice, I think. However, when all those things have to factor into the price of goods, we’ve seen labor costs drive the price up to a point where it is not competitive in its market. (And we’ve seen the quality fall as companies struggle to find ways to reduce cost inputs by using cheaper materials.) So…the market rejects the crappy, high-priced American offering. They’re not selling the quantity projected to keep the boat afloat, the amount needed to hold this house of cards stable. I do wish there was a way that workers could be paid whatever random amount they demand…but the economy doesn’t work that way. People will only pay so much for a Twinkie, you see, and the market will demand and consume only so many Twinkies. Granted, you can tweak this a little with marketing, but not enough to compensate for inflated labor costs for very long.

The politicians see an opportunity to look like heroes, and “save” these failing companies with a Big Cash Gift from the taxpayers to further the goal of keeping American workers employed. But, they’re interfering with the free market and rewarding a Stoopid Company who makes crappy, high-priced products. The market is not going to change its stance; millions of consumers are not going to suddenly storm the grocery stores, clamoring to buy Devil Dogs and HoHos. So, we’re in the same position in one or two years. The government bailout didn’t work, and the money was wasted – money that could have been spent by the taxpayer-consumers themselves choosing the best goods and best companies who will get to survive. Instead, it propped up an unworthy company in a competitive environment for another year, after the politician’s reelection. His personal mission was accomplished.

Let’s look at that labor cost. I read one story that focused on a baker in the baker union. His dad was a baker, generations of union bakers we have here (therefore I expect to see some feelings of entitlement, that someone has taken away something the bakers had every right to expect to go on forever). They were able to raise big, happy families on their baker union wages. Which for this particular guy was $48,000 a year. (As a point of reference, I have an advanced college degree, and haven’t seen that amount at any point in the last 10 years. I know lawyers who don’t make that right now. But, then again, I’ve never had a union job, or a government job, I’m female, and I live in Oklahoma.)

Is the labor to make a Twinkie really worth $48,000? How much would you need to charge for a Twinkie in order to be profitable once you’ve factored in the union costs to make it, pack it, and transport it (remember the three different labor unions)? It’s not feasible. Unless they achieved Crazy Quantity.

So, why weren’t millions buying the Hostess product? Could it be consumers are becoming more aware that these delectable, yet toxic, chemical bombs are really not good for us? And the market IS actually making a statement? And the Hostess company ignored its market’s trends? And failed to change in an ever-changing environment? Why did those greedy executives take huge chunks of money and bail out? Because they could. And it was smart, I guess. I mean, how do you change a company that is really old and its very core identity is making toxic, chemical bombs marketed as nostalgic food? It IS their only gig, right?

We have some ideas about the marketing and management aspects of Hostess. Let’s pretend we’re MBA hotshots hired to analyze this company for a case study and to figure out a way to make it profitable. (Trust me, those executives have already done this.) The biggest piece of all is the finance – what did the debt look like? Oh. We see that Hostess has been in bankruptcy court a lot recently, been bought and sold and bought and sold…they’ve been a sinking ship for a while. Why did the workers cling to a sinking ship? Surely, they could SEE the mismanagement themselves and were completely free to take their labor elsewhere, to a better, smarter company with a future. Just how much validity is there to their claims of victimhood? I’m beginning to see a picture of a really, big Twinkie slowly submerging into a glass of milk, with little people all over it ripping chunks out of it (the management, the banks who financed the debt, the labor unions, the politicians, etc.). Everybody wants their piece of rubbery sponge cake…no one really wanted to fix the company, knowing it was unfixable. And we liberal and conservatives have lined up on the appropriate sides assigned to us.

The only thing I read that shocked me was a consumer who proclaimed, very upset at the company’s demise, “I love these things! I eat them every day! And I’m diabetic!” Well, maybe you’ll be less diabetic now. Maybe the entire country will be. And this leads us to the really tough questions.

Does the government have a valid role in rescuing companies that cannot compete on their own (whether due to mismanagement, crippling labor unions, a disinterested market, whatever) in order to keep Americans in work? If so, what happens when the government chooses what companies will be economic winners? And finally, does the government have a valid role in regulating what its citizens choose to eat, for the common good? I believe the answer is no on all accounts, because the market will speak if you let it. Smarter people will choose wisely what to eat…the others will eventually die from disease. We have to let Diabetes Guy eat Ding Dongs until he explodes. This is the way real life works. And the companies who make products the people want will survive. There is no need for a clumsy government “solution.” I know, you’re thinking I sound like a cruel-hearted Nazi…actually, I’m rooting for those displaced Twinkie-bakers to create their OWN company making healthy, responsible food that people actually want and need to buy. But the biggest point of all here is: if the government picks the companies who will win by adding directly to their profit line with a cash injection, then eventually there will only be companies who serve the interests of the government, NOT me and you. We’re handing over our ability to choose what products we want to BUY to the government.

And yeah, we ARE all paying for Diabetes Ding Dong’s stoopid behavior by subsidizing his healthcare costs. And the only way his behavior will change is when the government (you and I) are NOT subsidizing it. But, that’s another story in which I try to make a case against government intervention in that area, as well.

Who wouldn’t love a Twinkie right now, by golly!? Packed with all sorts of goodness: high fructose corn syrup (linked to cancer), bleached flour (hey, bleach is not poisonous, right?). Actually, there are 37 different ingredients in this concoction, many which are “more closely linked to rocks and petroleum than the four food groups,” according to one researcher. We’re talking about sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid, lime, ethylene. Yum. (It’s interesting that there are plenty of scientists with studies, funded by companies like Hostess, who assure us that the chemicals in a particular food are perfectly fine for us! I’d like to see a real-world study evaluating the effect of ALL the chemicals ingested every day all day long…with that sort of exposure from different products from different companies from different parts of the world, is it still perfectly fine? But, who would fund that research? Lol Uhhh, NOT Hostess who only wants their particular product cleared for takeoff.)

My point is: maybe the market is working! Or trying to work, anyway, if we will just let it.

The next thing I expect to happen is the brands themselves will be sold, for further scavenging. Some huge food conglomerate will buy the name Twinkie, and continue to produce them for the market, scooping up any remaining niche capacity. They can inflate the prices in the beginning due to the scarcity theory in economics. (I heard people were paying $10 for remaining Twinkies in the market at this time. ??) There’s still a few bucks to be made, obviously. There are already knock-off, no-name Twinkie wanna-bes on the shelf.

What about those 18,000 workers without their $48,000 salary paid them to stand and push buttons on big machines? They’ll receive government assistance, and maybe when it eventually runs out, they’ll be compelled to find another union or better yet, government job.

I want to look at that guy’s salary again, in terms of the Big Picture. What happens to the labor market when a baker makes $48,000 a year? Or a guy sweeping the factory floor for a car manufacturer? The company not only looks to China and Mexico for cheaper material inputs, but you see a weird flattening in all salaries as well. The engineer designing the new line is paid less, too (that money has to come from somewhere to pay the union guys), in exchange for his highly skilled labor (which he invested five years of his life and took on enormous student loan debt to acquire). Everybody’s making $48K, that’s good, right? Not really…why would anybody go to college, study their butt off, and incur that crazy debt when they can just be a baker and make $48K? We’re rewarding the wrong things and are forced to BECAUSE for a company, the money is an end-sum game. There is only so much, you see. So whose outrage do you respond to? The new college graduates realizing they’ve been screwed or the newly unemployed bakers realizing they’ve been screwed?

In a primitive environment, the smart and crafty are supposed to be able to breed and prosper. That’s not what’s been happening. What will Future America look like…maybe LOTS and LOTS of people standing around picketing and whining to be saved by an inept government desperately slapping at the levers and cranks of the Big Economic Machine, with NO clue about what they’re doing.

There is so much messed up in our economy right now due to government efforts “to fix it,” that I have no hope of the market righting itself to natural equilibriums in my lifetime. I’m supposed to get excited about snack cakes? I’m more worried about the Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and HoHos running the country right now.

Don't put that in your mouth, kid! Here, drink this bleach instead.

(Actually, this is the 5-year-old great-great-great-grandson of the man who started Hostess having his FIRST-ever Twinkie this week. The Ward family hasn't had any ties to the company in several decades.)

"Culture"

I turned on the TV the other day. Started with FOX. A handsome, young, black man was the guest of conservative political commentator Sean Hannity. He was identified as “Democrat Strategist.” Hannity was becoming rude and blustery, talking over the top of his guest. I actually wanted to hear what the Democrat Strategist had to say, but it was obvious that Hannity did not. I can’t abide people who interrupt and cut another off; it’s the equivalent of an emotional assault. Disgusted, I flipped.

On a liberal channel, political commentator Bill Mayer was snarling and launching F-bombs in every direction. I have no idea what his message was, as I could not separate it from the offensive language and manner. When did saying the F-word on TV become okay? Moving on.

Honey Boo-Boo’s obese mom was upset about the pet piglet squealing for breakfast at 5:30 a.m. Seriously – a pet PIG kept in a toddler’s playpen, in the house. Click. We have dirty, drunk rednecks making moonshine on some show about the hillbilly lifestyle. Click.

A man has brought his great-grandfather’s military uniform jacket to the pawn shop. An expert was brought in to analyze it – 1902, U.S. Army, a red stripe for artillery, a cream stripe for actual combat, expert surmised had to be the Philippines at the end of the Spanish-American War, insignia intact. The shop owner offered $200, and the other man’s face fell. The “pawn star” gave the man a combative, hard look, and said “it’s missing the belt.” Silently, I begged the other man to pick up the jacket of his forefather (who survived combat and was lucky enough to come home and have a family so the man could eventually be born and live his stoopid life) and walk out of the den of the mercenary merchants. I couldn’t bear to see the disappointing outcome. Click.

A show titled “Ridiculousness,” a montage of video clips of the stoopidest people alive smashing their faces into bicycle seats, fences, board ramps. Pregnant teenagers. Shrewish middle-aged women in jewels and thick makeup talking about sex. COPs chasing and busting druggies with fried brains driving haphazardly down the street. A skinny woman with blue hair pulls down her pants to bare her ass for the tattoo artist. The camera zooms in. There were drug interventions, alcohol interventions, over-eating interventions, hoarders, cheaters – everyone crying.

Please tell me when the rednecks, white trash, toothless hillbillies, shysters, mentally deficient, sex-obsessed, disgusting, drug-addled, criminal, and sick became the stars of TV? This is what we glorify and hold up as worthy of our attention, time, money? We don’t value the intelligent, the creative, the brave, honest, hard-working, MORAL – I guess that’s boring.

Do I need to connect the dots? Is our art reflecting us, or are we reflecting our art? Whichever, it’s apparent what we value. We love how sick we’ve become. I felt as if my soul had been sucked out of my body. How about some local news?

I guess another child committed suicide in my fair city today because I saw school administrators and fellow students insisting he was not bullied, representatives from parent grief groups, the suicide hotline people, a psychiatrist urging every parent to talk to his child tonight! I can only assume that a child committed suicide (the “real” news) based on all this other “coverage.” This is what the newspeople do when they’re not sure about the real news themselves.

Someday I wish to live in a house with no TV. I’ll cook and garden and dust, and the Anti-Culture will not be allowed in to poison my soul. No, I have a better wish! I get my own TV show, so I can have the forum to scream at the top of my lungs for everyone to STOP IT. “You, get yourself to rehab, and you, pull up your pants, and you! Read a book!” Truly I’ve never seen it so bad. Is this what the decay of society looks like?

World Piece

I went to a Town Hall lecture today, because I have season tickets. There were other speakers in coming months more exciting, frankly. This was Martha Raddatz, Senior Foreign Affairs Correspondent for ABC News, speaking on Hot Spots. Big Woop. I’m disappointed in the direction of TV journalism these days, not sure she has anything to say I have the time to listen to. Then she didn’t show up.

She sent her husband to us while she went to the Middle East. A Tom Gjelton, with NPR’s national security unit. Okay. Even better, ha. Hate NPR with their nasal, snotty British accents, it’s become an unbalanced forum for the whiny who want government to tell all of us what to do. Is he a real journalist or another emotionally-manipulating, personally biased, sensationalistic, primping poser?

I ended up enjoying his presentation immensely, and wanted to pass along the discussion points to friends. He never said the words Republican and Democrat, just laid out all the angles, and I think it was brilliant – the only way meaningful debate can happen without the gotcha-aha-inflammatory freak show.

I’m very concerned about the costly wars, and what we are trying to do “over there.” I am THE libertarian isolationist, screw ‘em all, I say. I appreciated that this guy brought some new information for me to consider.

Let’s Make Sense of the Middle East (Or Try)

Currently violent, anti-American demonstrations are popping up all over the region, starting with Libya on the 9/11 anniversary which resulted in the death of our ambassador, then Egypt and Tunisia, up to today when students stormed through barricades in Pakistan. Why?

The Obama administration and the UN lady Rice (UN = a very unfunny joke), insist that the anger is in response to some anti-Muslim video made by a Coptic Christian living in California (Coptic means Egyptian). (If he’s being described as “Coptic,” that means he’s from Egypt, happens to be a Christian, now lives in California? How did he get here? Never mind, don’t ask too many questions because actually, they’re irrelevant. We all know this video is a trigger, a tool, a whistle used to call the dogs to dinner…) (Can’t you just picture this guy, though? He’s dark-skinned, wearing Aviators, black greasy hair, throwing wads of cash around, speaking in a Borat dialect, “I to make my Epic Movie in Hollywood! Action!”)

Mr. Journalist says “Now it appears Al Qaeda was involved.” No way! Maybe all the everyday normal poor people of Libya do bring their personal RPGs to peaceful street demonstrations in front of the embassy…and then split into highly organized platoons to attack and run over the building. (Now there’s evidence of contact between the demonstrators and Al Qaeda.) (By the way, we will shelf my annoyance until later at Obama’s administration and its inability to be straight with us about anything, as if we don’t matter enough to be given information, insulting.) He continues “especially when you consider the context of the last two years.”

I licked my lips. Finally! Someone is going to explain Arab Spring to me, and what was reeeeally going on over there. He says governments fell, new governments fought for power, destabilizing an already unstable region. The people in that part of the world wanted to throw over their dictatorship governments. Yeah, yeah, go on.

Egypt
He described a group of soccer fans/hooligans who love any chance to rumble with the police. These are the same guys who knocked Mubarak (the former president now dying in the hospital) from power, BY fighting with his police force. Same haters, hating on each other, just a different week. They just LOVE to fight.

And remember when you thought all those people wanted to overthrow their evil despot governments so they could demand democracy, a government of the people, for the people, by the people? No. They have never wanted democracy. The overwhelming popular feeling is they want an ISLAMIC government, they’re just fussing over how MUCH of an Islamic government…well, that’s a kick in the pants, right? The radical Islamists want a whole bunch of Islam in their government; the moderate Islamists want just a dash. But, they are all Islamists. (There are a few pro-Western-Democracy proponents yelling “Help us!” They are NOT the majority.)

The moderates in this scenario are actually the Muslim Brotherhood (sinister name, regardless, these are the good guys or errrr, the better guys), and they were the winners in the power struggle after Mubarak stepped down. (Mubarak was sorta our buddy, his wife is pretty forward-thinking, comparatively speaking…deposing Mubarak was a DEFEAT for us, a blow against America.) Soooo, the radicals are ANXIOUS to attack the new government and the new president from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood for his “ties with America” because you know, Hate For America is the stick by which to measure all things Muslim.

Libya
Boy, were we excited when the people rose up to trash talk and shake their fist at Gaddafi, our longtime favorite Looney-tunes Middle East dictator. Well, he’s dead now, and the new government is too weak to deal with their crazies, and those crazies were an important part of the revolution. A lot of the crazies are in the hard-line militia (doesn’t that ring a bell – post World War I Germany), and they were behind the attack in Benghazi that took our ambassador’s life. He was killed by the crazies since he was working to help strengthen the weak government. It is amazing to me that this guy was only in his post 3 MONTHS…think about that. On the job for three months. What an unlucky SOB. Is a replacement in mind?

The question that begs to be asked is: Why the lack of security? Where was the breakdown? Did we trust some people we should not have trusted, eh? I’ve read we had a LIBYAN security team guarding the consulate. Hmm. And when Americans were moved to safer locations, the “demonstrators” knew the locations of the safe houses, and “demonstrated” there next. Hmm. And the rescue squad sent in to save the survivors consisted of EIGHT military and former military personnel. Eight? For a mob? Hmm. (Also, the fact that it happened in Benghazi has some significance, due to a previous occurrence during Arab Spring, it’s a statement full of political meaning.)

Moving on. Let’s examine this idea about “Muslim outrage in response to a cheap video.” High-ranking Muslims of the world insist that others respect their religion, demanding tolerance and sensitivity WHILE they say things like: Christianity is a reeking corpse, Jews are descendants of apes and pigs, Jews are responsible for all evil and harm in the world, if we could just wipe those Jews out, we would have peace, we need to spill their blood, praise jihad, blah-blah-blah. I think I see a double standard here. Maybe this is their idea of tolerance for other religions. And they’re pissed about a video?

Syria
On to that garden spot of the Mediterranean, Syria. Mr. Journalist described it as particularly vexing, lol. Here we have an uprising of the people to overthrow their government led by al-Assad (who looks exactly like I imagined a pencil-necked geek), who is quite willing to slaughter his own people revolting against him. The death count is up to 20,000. He’s committing all sorts of Crimes Against Humanity, and many demand we DO SOMETHING. (Because that’s what we do, we do something, and we have the notion that our humanity demands we do a lot of somethings. Can you turn your ahead away from atrocities?)

Many are trying to liken Syria to Bosnia in the 90s, in which the good guys and bad guys were very apparent. The bad guys were the ones doing the ethnic cleansing and systematic mass rape. Very clear, right. And the world stood by and did nothing. The point being, the bad guys and good guys are clearly delineated in Syria, and we should not stand by and do nothing while human depravation is happening.

Mr. Journalist disagrees. We don’t know enough about the Syrian rebels being mowed down by al-Assad. Actually, Al Qaeda is in with the rebels, identified by their trademark tactic – suicide bombers. He said this conflict is not about democracy, either. What is it about? It’s a fight between the two branches of Islam – the Sunnis and the Shiites. Oh, hell, here we go again. Remember the Sunnis are all about “our new leader can be a random dude in the tribe,” while the Shiites are like “no, our leader can only be from the family of the prophet Muhammad even if he is the nephew of the second cousin or whatever.” And we Americans are like “who gives a shit?” But, these people do, so much they have branched off like Baptists and Catholics under the big ol’ umbrella of Christianity. Who can drink? Who can dance? Who can drink while dancing? I digress.

So, this is the part that really blew my mind. The Sunnis on one side are: the Syrian rebels and Al Qaeda. The Shiites on the other side are: the Syrian government and IRAN. Well, we hate both Iran and Al Qaeda, so we’re really on the fence here. Who to root for? One thing I know is we cannot be sure what we’ll get in the end, and it will be, chances are great, worse. Mr. Journalist says that Syrian rebels are quite vocal about their desire to FORM A NEW COUNTRY by uniting Syria with IRAQ (woah, didn’t we just spend trillions helping those guys? we went deep in debt to bring the Beacon of Democracy there, right?) so they can together take on IRAN and ISRAEL. Who in their right mind lumps Iran with Israel? By the way, the existing Syrian government is using Iranian aircraft to mow down the rebels.

Obama is giving nonmilitary aid to the rebels, just communications equipment. Romney says he would supply the rebels with weapons. Imagine if the rebels win…maybe we could supply weapons for them to use against Iran, too. That’d be okay. But, why does everybody over there hate on our little brother, Israel?

What Should Our Stance Be?

Mr. Journalist suggested an approach of Lessons Learned from our recent endeavors in the region, a review if you will.

Iraq: We removed Hussein at astronomical cost to us in dollars and lives. Now, they want to throw us out, remove our entire presence from their country, and are allowing Iran to move weapons across Iraq to assist the Syrian government, daily.
Egypt: We allowed Mubarak to be deposed. Muslim Brotherhood takes over. Struggles to maintain power.
Libya: We overthrow Gaddafi, via NATO. The crazy-hardline-militia is winning by inciting violence. They just killed our ambassador.
Syria: We provide communications equipment, and let ‘em all duke it out. However, it looks like some of the players have some re-arranging of the map in mind, without our input.
Afghanistan: Well, you know we have to add that to the list. We’ve spent a second fortune propping up a drug-addled despot and guarding his brother’s poppy fields because the alternative (Taliban) is worse. Our soldiers and marines are being killed by performing their “joint” training patrols with Afghan soldiers and police who are turning their guns on them. All training has been called off now. I’ve never understood what we’re doing there – we were going after the terrorists living in the caves, but they all left town and fled over the border to Pakistan as soon as we got there. Yet we’re still there…sending drones over the border to pick off the terrorists. And the American people overwhelmingly want the 2014 withdraw.
Pakistan: We’re actually waging a war with people hiding out in Pakistan, in an area of Pakistan the Pakistan government cannot control, or so they say. Osama bin Laden found Pakistan quite comfortable for a very long time. Pakistan has nukes. Many believe our presence in Afghanistan brings stability to that Stan-area, keeps the nukes from falling into the terrorists’ hands and being aimed at us. Which brings us to…Iran.

The Iranian Problem

Bush refused to negotiate with terrorists. Obama opened negotiations with Iran. He got nothing. In response, he re-initiated and strengthened the sanctions against them. Obama responded to the world’s criticism of Bush for not being diplomatic enough by trying negotiation first. As a result, the entire world is supporting our sanctions against Iran now. No one is buying their oil (which is all they have). Iran exports have dropped by two-thirds. In July 2012, exports were 30 percent that of a year ago. In essence, we have cut 70 percent of their revenue in one year, and they are really hurting. Their monetary unit exchange rate previously was: 9000 whatevers to $1. Now it’s 25,000 whatevers to $1. It’s economic warfare, and we’re killing ‘em. However, they’re only a few months from having a nuclear weapon.

According to the most recent inspection report, Iran has a facility in Fordow so deep underground that it is impervious to attack. We cannot destroy it with bombs. Inside this facility is 2100 centrifuges spinning away enriching uranium. What’s enriched uranium used for? Nukes. But, it has to be 90 percent purity. 700 of these machines are getting 20 percent purity. It’s tough to get from zero to 20 percent, piece of cake to go from 20 to 90…so they’re stopping at 20 and crying “see, we’re only going to 20 percent, we don’t want to get to 90 and create a nuclear weapon!” Are you getting the picture in your mind? Can you see 2100 of these machines whirring away deep underground? IRAN is a FEW MONTHS away from having nuclear weapons. Yes, I said Iran. Let’s pause and ponder that for a moment.

They are also experimenting with explosives at other locations, refusing to allow inspectors entry. They’re busy covering everything with plastic sheeting. Inspectors are actually more concerned about this than the 2100 centrifuges deep in the ground at Fordow.

Israel is a little concerned, lol. The situation is rapidly reaching the point where they can no longer do anything to stop Iran from having nukes. And they need us to weigh in. They can’t afford to wait til after our election. They are pushing us for a “red line,” one of those lines drawn in the sand thing. On one hand, military and intelligence hates red lines. It challenges credibility and eliminates flexibility for them. (The president issuing threats to foreign counties tends to force our hand.) And if we get physical with them, our international support for the sanctions disappears. And, since when does Israel decide our war policy? On the other hand, our Jewish population probably won’t be too happy if we leave Israel swinging in the wind. Why in the heck did we ever think helping to set up Israel in its old stomping grounds in the wake of World War II was a good idea? It probably had something to do with all that holocaust stuff happening to them in other parts of the world. Yeah, having their own place seemed good at the time.

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, well not if, when, it’s a game changer for the world. And Israel is the one most at risk. Can you imagine the Jews being wiped out again with nuclear bombs? And these other guys really, really, really hate Jews. They have PROMISED total annihilation of Israel. And you will not be able to put any pressure on them, you will not be able to invade them, they will get away with whatever they WANT. It will certainly be a brave new world…a radioactive one. Uhm, should we stop them now?

Well, we have nukes, too, right? We had a whole mess of them under Reagan, that’s for sure. However, Obama has been busy negotiating with Russia to further reduce our stockpile of nukes. Just signed another treaty with them. And sigh, reviving and modernizing our nuke supply just sounds…expensive.

Meanwhile, those Iranian nuclear scientists are mysteriously dropping like flies. The families of five assassinated Iranian scientists have brought a lawsuit against the “Zionist occupying regime and the arrogant powers” (uh, that would be Israel, then us and our friends in the UK, lol). And a Super Computer Bug found its way into the computers controlling the Iranian centrifuges and screwed ‘em up in 2010. You have to admire Israel just for being the resourceful, scrappy little doo.

So, the next president of the United States gets to figure all this out. Mr. Journalist said a president has never faced such a challenging period of time.

What is the Role of Boy Scouts of America Today?

I would like to put some information out there for public consumption, as the mom of an Eagle Scout, which happens to be one of the things I’m most proud of. I had a front-row seat on this ride.

When we started in 1997-98, I was the single mom of two little cubs, super-excited about all that scouts offered them. Working on “belt-loops” in different categories (science, baseball, photography, computers, collections, etc.) consumed them as they earned as many shiny metal clips as possible to cover their entire belt. Each month at the pack meeting, they were called up, presented the coup they earned, and congratulated on their effort and determination by the many adult volunteers.

They made pinewood derby cars and regatta boats for racing, baked and decorated cakes for annual auctions, sang silly songs for nursing home residents, created elaborate art projects, had exciting field trips to fire stations and tv stations and museums, went to “day” camps where they fished, hiked, learned to build fires and cook meals and handle responsibly sharp tools and BB guns. They “scouted” for food, coats, and toys for charities. Along the way, they learned good sportsmanship, how to follow directions, how to cheer themselves and others, the joys of volunteering, how to act in public and function considerately in a group, self-reliance, and then, self-confidence. They sold popcorn to pay their own way to camp. They ran and played and got really grubby in the great outdoors, exercising and interacting with other boys and adults. They expressed themselves creatively in a multitude of projects.

Boys do all this with their parents as families, because you are told right up-front, BSA doesn’t stand for Baby Sitters of America. You’re not dropping your kid off for a few hours while you go shopping. You’re taking this journey with your boy. At each rank ceremony, you stand next to him, holding his old scarf as the new one is tied on.

I notice other children in their schools don’t behave the same way. They are more focused on themselves and instant gratification, have no idea how to act respectfully in public or around adults, seem to have less confidence and self-respect, act out for any attention, seem “helpless” when confronted with any small challenge. They’re darker, sadder. I notice other children in the neighborhood, absorbed in video games, who never exercise their bodies or social skills. None of them have a clue what to do with an American flag – a symbol many fellow Americans made the ultimate sacrifice for.

Scouting is year-round, year after year. It consumes your life – everything is a worthy activity, and you see your boys grow and develop skills before your eyes. They go from stars to rocks to insects…you become more involved to make sure the program is as strong as it can be. You understand that YOU are the program, not the few paid staff on-high.

We move up from the Cub Scout Pack to Boy Scout Troop, and my sons are no longer boisterous, happy-go-lucky boys wanting to try and do everything. Puberty is hard, but camping once a month with the troop is a respite from constant pressure to be cool, smart, and perfect. My youngest particularly finds his Zen in nature. They’re doing all the same things, per se, but on a much more sophisticated level.

The troop works differently from the pack. The boys are in charge. The adults are only there in the background to ensure a safe environment. Adults receive a LOT of training to learn how to develop young leaders by not jumping in and leading themselves. The boys learn how to solve their own problems using existing resources. There is a structure of patrols, patrol leaders, a patrol leader council, a senior patrol leader over all patrol leaders – all elected by the boys. They make mistakes, they fix them, they forget things, they find other things to use instead, they argue, they apologize, and they analyze everything with their leaders afterward. All the things they learn can’t even be articulated fully – patience, compassion, preparation, contribution, motivation, communication, teamwork, the power of humor. A patrol leader will discover a patrol member didn’t wash the pans at the end of the previous campout. The “grubmaster” forgot to buy milk at the store to go with the cereal. No one’s going to die over a weekend…but they learn. And get creative. And barter some sausage for some milk from another patrol. Or chop wood for another patrol’s milk.

Saturday nights on campout are “campfires,” where the boys take turns standing up near the campfire with everyone else gathered around sitting while they tell jokes, do skits, lead songs. Some are terrible! No one cares in this special, protected place where one can try his hand at performing in front of others. Sunday mornings are always “chapel” service on a mountaintop or near a waterfall, some amazing natural tribute to our maker. My oldest son was chaplain, and while not particularly religious, he loved putting on a moving service in this spectacular arena and getting to be in charge of this piece of the package, complete with scripture, songs, and sermons designed to embrace all beliefs.

Meanwhile, in the outer world, they are scorned for their patriotism, their attempt to live a life with goals and higher standards set forth in an “oath” and “law” and “motto,” their uniforms that identify them. What a bunch of dorks, the “cool” people exclaim. They just don’t get it. I believe some non-scout kids learn leadership and teamwork through sports and other organizations, but the majority sits on the couch playing video games and eating Ho-Hos. The BSA is the oldest, best, all-around, get-everything-here program for boys there’s ever been. They’ve been helping boys grow to strong, smart, confident, well-adjusted men (physically, mentally, AND spiritually) for a long time. And they’ve got it down.

Few public schools sponsor troops anymore, due to “separation” of church and state. The job has fallen to the community’s churches, and those that have stepped up most often are Mormon and Methodist. But troops are as different as you can imagine all over the country. Did you know there are troops of Muslim boys (BSA doesn’t care what religion you are, by the way, and includes all as equal) and troops of boys of incarcerated moms who meet at the jail so they can include their moms in the activities? BSA does a lot of things in its communities that most people don’t have a clue about. They try to heal families, help immigrants assimilate (many scouts wear certain patches which identify their skill in different languages and ability to translate for others), bring people of different religions together respectfully, and lead a HUGE amount of charity work. They are the Alternative to gangs and drugs and violence. They can definitely BE THE FORCE FOR SOCIAL GOOD in these ways right now.

You begin to study more the boys in the troop who have attained the highest rank of Eagle Scout. They are different than the other boys, the full embodiment, the final product, all the pieces came together. He laughs and jokes with boys and adults in freezing temperatures as he fries up the craziest gourmet-type meal over an open fire and offers some to everyone near. He ties up a tarp when it begins to rain, he breaks out in a funny song just when it becomes the most miserable, he knows he can handle anything life throws his way. And he is constantly teaching younger boys his skills informally by example and formally through presentations.

SIDE NOTE: You’ll never see an Eagle Scout standing in New Orleans as a hurricane sweeps in, wringing his hands, wondering what to do to save himself. It’s inconceivable.
ANOTHER SIDE NOTE: My youngest participated in a trip for older boys called “Kanik” during which he built a quinzee (it’s like an igloo out of snow) to sleep in while learning cold-weather survival skills in the Rocky Mountains of New Mexico one February.

I cried a lot when my youngest son made Eagle. I was so proud, just blown-away by his smarts, patience, and determination as he steadily plowed through his enormous Eagle Project. He designed 19 raccoon-proof trash cans for a city nature park, navigated bureaucratic approval processes for them with the park, city, troop and district, sought funding from businesses to pay for them, selected and purchased materials, and led building and installation teams, overcoming numerous challenges such as no electricity or vehicles inside the park. The installation teams wheel-barrowed the trashcans in for miles and used handsaws and battery-operated tools to install them to existing bases. He communicated by walkie-talkie with his teams who were given his hand-drawn maps to find their sites. He had to make a few adjustments for the park ranger to sign off during final inspection. Did I mention he was 14 years old when he did all this?

Did you know there have been military commanders in the past who requested they be given only men who were Eagle Scouts to accomplish certain missions? (Most astronauts have been Eagles. The guy who pioneered heart surgery – an Eagle.) How can you scorn that? Call them dorky and un-cool while Hollywood makes some lousy movie about the guys on their mission and leaves the Eagle Scout part out.

For those who make snarky comments about the BSA being the mini-military training ground for wanna-be soldiers. Screw you. These ARE the young men who someday fight for your right to be free, lazy, uninformed, and unappreciative. He may even die doing it. Shame on you. When did military aspirations become something to ridicule? Well, aren’t you just the coolest guys ever.

So, now that you know more about the experiences inside the BSA, you wonder why it won’t just succumb to outside pressure to FLAUNT gay leaders. (We all know the likelihood is great that there are already a few gay leaders who don’t advertise it to everybody. There are very different troop personalities all over the world, and I can maybe picture this in San Francisco or something.) Also, we all know that GOOD people are protected by others locally who really know the possibly gay person and the value he/she brings. Think about this: MILLIONS have been involved with scouts.

Can you really expect them to have any other “official” policy than what they have? Leaders are DADs and MOMs with SONs in the units now or in the near past. Leaders are not random-gay-dude with no skin in the game. It’s hard for me to imagine Random Gay Dude just by chance showing up at a troop meeting, announcing he’s gay and therefore has no son to join the troop but wants to be the Scoutmaster. The troop committee made up of active parents is not going to vote this guy as SM. Yeah, really, a committee of the parents chooses the leaders, not some arbitrary government law or agent. And get this, the choice is based on level of training, previous experience, and proven ABILITY. Nobody gets this job just because the government says so. You can’t make parents trust their kids to someone, no matter what YOU legislate. The program fails, and the idea is to get as many kids in a successful, strong program as possible, right? But you’ve forced “tolerance” on BSA policy by being intolerant of their policy…and as a result, BSA fails its mission, most parents keep their kids away, and we have an entire country of stoopid people wringing their hands waiting for someone to come save them when they get wet. No, the world is not a better place without the BSA doing what it can.

Furthermore, troops reflect their sponsor organization. Period. Most are LDS and Methodist churches. One could even surmise that they’re the only organizations who CARE about scouts and make sure this option is available for families in their neighborhoods. I don’t think anyone else has the right to tell them what to do.

BSA does not receive public funding. (I’ve read some pretty amusing essays online stretching waaaaaay out there to try to find some connection to public funds.) An annual fundraising campaign brings donations from former scouts, businessmen, idealists, church people, people who love this program and know what it does for communities. Since there is no public funding, they don’t HAVE to be politically correct. They do want to be successful and serve as many families as possible, and that means being politically incorrect for now.

BSA is one of the greatest programs ever conceived. And they will continue to respond to needs in their society and evolve. (Yeah, they really do that, too. Adding women leaders, improving trainings, updating merit badges, facing unique social challenges, including girls in the Venture crew program…) (Yes, many girls can’t wait until they’re old enough to join Boy Scout Venture Crews and find the “high-adventure” physical challenges they’ve been looking for, e.g. rappelling mountains or white-water rafting.) This is the way it has to be right now. Believe it or not, the BSA still actually deserves your support, no matter what your personal feelings are about the 2-3% of gays in America, for its steadfast commitment to continue to churn out strong young Americans with some idea about values who can lead this country into the future.

Me and my baby when he was just a cub...

Ready to climb over anything that stands in their way...

Kanik, Rocky Mountains, Alex in green coat...

Alex today, senior photo, waiting for his time slot for US Army basic training...

Cock Fight

When asked, the CEO of the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain shares his anti-gay-marriage views during an interview with a religious media outlet. He’s a religious man…his views are uhm, based on his religion. What a surprise. This is America where people can be religious, whatever religion, and it’s a protected right. This interview occurred in early July, by the way. I listened to the man’s comment, and I heard not scorn, or hate, or name-calling. He sounded rather humble, actually. He said something along the lines of “I don’t think we should shake our fist at God and tell Him we know better than Him what constitutes marriage.” Interesting that his position is based on a supplicant attitude to his God…this is not a militant, loud-mouthed, offensive man forcing his views into public space. But, now it’s been blown into another skirmish in the war between liberals and conservatives.

Boston and Chicago mayors have threatened to not approve permits in their towns for Chick-fil-A restaurants to operate, to punish the company’s CEO for his religious views. Huckabee has organized a Chick-fil-A Day for conservatives to eat at the restaurants this Wednesday, while liberals are organizing donations to pro-gay-marriage groups the same day.

Where does someone like me, socially liberal yet fiscally conservative (in other words, libertarian before Ron Paul came along and made it cool), line up in this particular fight? I’ll be frank with you – I do not understand the gay marriage thing and why it is an issue. They should be allowed to marry and be as miserable as all the heterosexuals, in my opinion. Seriously, why do I care what other people are doing? I suspect that it is all about money…and benefits…and insurance coverage…and if that is the case, then why hasn’t a market solution developed? Surely there are insurance companies who recognize gay spouses. I suggest gay couples use their services. Oh, you’re talking about the millions of government jobs with government benefits that involve insurance companies that don’t recognize gay spouses? My immediate reaction to that, with no firsthand knowledge or facts, is so what? Government employees tend to be overcompensated compared to the private sector any way. It’s hard to get sympathy from me as a government employee who wants more of my tax money. Adding gay spouses sounds like more of my tax money would have to be collected for that additional coverage. I’m not going to support that. Meanwhile, marry in your churches, have fights, break up, get divorces, move on, like everybody else. Knock yourself out. I’m not saying gays should not marry. I’m saying no, you can’t have more of my tax money as a result. I don’t think it’s worth borrowing from China to fund. I don’t think anything is worth borrowing money from China to fund, though.

I really don’t believe in the government telling people what they can or cannot do. I don’t see where the government needs to become involved in creating policy for gay marriage. It should be silent on this issue. It should be silent on a million other things, as well, that it has not been.

Although, I do not agree with the CEO’s stance with the reasoning he uses, I do plan to participate in Huckabee’s Chick-fil-A Day, because I do believe using government to punish someone for their views is egregious. What would liberals think about cities in the South refusing permits to gay-owned businesses? Discrimination, right? Outrageous? You bet. So, why would it be okay for cities in the North to discriminate against religious business owners? It’s not.

And, in the meantime, the media will froth at the mouth to cover Wednesday’s make-believe, contrived “event” and report the results back to us…while the debt continues to grow in the background, casting an enormous shadow across the country, engulfing everyone and generations yet born…and the people and media bicker about gay marriage and abortion and the definition of free speech.

It's a Win-Win-Win

After watching the Arizona Republican Debate, this is my bottom line: I would be pleased to have Romney, Gingrich, or Paul as the presidential candidate. They’re all very different, but all acceptable as the next president in my eyes.

Santorum: Bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight

Who the hell voted for this idiot? Did the states he has carried in the past few weeks have open primaries – where they let just anybody vote in the R primary, including mischievous Democrats? He is a valiant defender of the status-quo, weak, flustered, compromise-oriented, proud of his wheeler-dealer ways. I can’t stand guys like that. He’s boring, trite (repeating what the other guys say), too young – sort of like the Republican version of Obama. His wife is wearing a ponytail as if she was headed to the grocery store and not a televised debate with millions of viewers. A ponytail? Hint: Have everybody on the team “dress for the job they want.” Take notes from that Callista Gingrich, every hair shellacked in place. First impression of Santorum: his eyes are too close together. This guy was seriously outgunned by Newt’s brain, Ron’s heart, and Mitt’s hair.

Newt Gingrich: That’s Mighty Bold Talk for a White-Haired Fat Man

Newt is a lot like Rooster Cogburn, as bold as the day is long, and I love it. I can imagine him telling a gang of 10 bad guys that he only needs to arrest the leader, the rest are free to go, he has no business with them today. He is America to me – confident, cocky, smart, aggressive, he bows before no one. He has a specific plan of action for everything. Country’s broke? Drill half of the 69 percent of federal land in Alaska, and we can tell the Middle East to have at each other. That deals with two problems actually…foreign wars and poor economy. Repeal the 130-year-old civil service laws, too, while you’re at it. Love the purple tie (Callista surely dressed him).

I’m puzzled by the press’ assertion that he has given up, his heart not in it. He looked to me like he was having a great time, doing exactly what I would have in the situation – smartass answers to stupid questions, answering the audience member’s question posed instead of the moron mediator’s, the “oh, it’s my turn finally” look.

I would love to see this strong-minded man as president. He resonates with me. My favorite line: Not taking control of the border is a failure of will. Yeah, he’s a tough son-of-a-bitch, and I love him.

I grinned when at the end of a perfectly delivered rebuttal of Romney’s (earnest gaze right into the camera, his beautiful, rich voice deepened for emphasis on the last syllable), Newt, sitting next to him, smiled at him and said, “Good job.” Wherever Newt is, he’s the smartest guy in the room, and he knows he was sitting next to the guy who looks like he was born for the part.

It would have been really good if the camera had caught Romney’s expression in reaction to Newt’s comment…was there surprise, amusement, pride? Do we have a ticket forming here, with Newt as Mitt’s vice president?

Mitt Romney: Mr. Smooth

I thought what an anal-retentive, tight-ass, little walk he has, as he entered the stage. I’ve read Lincoln had a funny walk, too, though, very gangly.

I realized a couple of weeks ago that I had a prejudice, and I needed to check myself. I had ignored Mitt because he was too handsome, slick, white-bread, yuppy-looking. By God, I prefer an ugly president – give me some guy with a mashed-in mug and character written in every crevice.

I realized this was reverse-discrimination (although I swear he looks like an actor responding to a casting call for a new Hollywood movie about a presidential election), and began reading up on him. Mormon? Well, I don’t see a lot of future drunken bashes in the White House, and that’s not a bad thing, people. He’s marketed as the “CEO President.” Well, I’m all over that – I was with Perot 20 years ago and would have voted for Trump to finally get it. His resume impresses me, with a lot of solid business successes. He can close the deals.

I was anxious to get a looky-loo at him in action. I was not disappointed in the debate. His business experience stands out from other candidates, regarding bailouts, budgets…I believe him when he says he will look at every single government program and ask “is this worth borrowing from China to pay for?”

He is a terrific choice. He is beginning to look less “perfect” to me…and more “presidential.” I notice less the prefect hair, teeth, face and more the poise and determination.

Ron Paul: The Defender of Liberty

Ron Paul has been my favorite all along despite the media’s insistence that he can’t win and thus ignored, despite fellow Rs’ insistence that his foreign policy is looney and that it’s too late for isolationism.

I think Dr. Paul made the best points of the night.

1. Communism fell because we spent them under the table. Now we are going to fall because we’re broke and can’t stop spending ourselves under the table. He’s right. Having troops all over the world fighting wars with no clear vision of success is killing us from the inside, threatening our financial security.
2. What’s wrong with having an anti-war president? This only means we won’t have a president surreptitiously sending troops into undeclared war situations (advising, training, escorting, you know). This president will not declare war, and folks, that’s the way it’s supposed to be. War is supposed to be declared by the legislature, by the true representatives of the people. But, this isn’t what’s been happening lately (since Korea, Viet Nam, et al). We’ve become so immune to all sorts of bounds-overstepping that we don’t even realize it anymore.
3. Earmarks. Dr. Paul nailed it. If the federal government wouldn’t suck up the states’ money and give it to foreign countries in aid, then states wouldn’t have to come begging for earmarks to fix their roads. I still believe earmarks are evil, as they are attached to other bills, without a straight-up solo vote on the merit of the earmark, which creates a situation where deals can be made and votes bought. The true picture is every state needs their roads and bridges fixed, their guys look bad when they negotiate for money to go back to their state to do this, I get angry because I think MY money is going to fix stuff in Alaska when I need it in Oklahoma and will never use the road in Alaska in my lifetime…and while we’re all fussing about it, that fat-cat federal government is sucking all the resources up, insisting it has the right and authority to spend it on More Important Things like foreign aid.

I believe Ron Paul can win the Big Show if the diehard Rs would just trust in him during the primaries. He can draw the young, the moderate, the disillusioned Democrat, the Independent, the Tea Party, the Libertarian. (And when I say Tea Party, I don’t mean the fake Tea Partiers trying to hijack the movement, talking about abortion, militias, and what-not. The Tea Party is about the lack of fiscal responsibility and overstepping bounds, nothing more.)

But, they’re mortified that he might be able to enact his “radical” agenda of personal liberty (so crazy that following the Constitution is considered “radical” these days). Frankly, I see that never happening, but with his stance of “no, we shouldn’t be involved with that at all” we may actually end up back in the middle as a country.

I love when the business-as-usual politicians dicker over whether we should be in favor of something 25 percent of 50 percent. Ron Paul is the guy in the room who keeps saying “Zero percent! We don’t have the right to do this!” I like that the negotiations start at zero percent on our side, for a change. (Contrast that with Santorum’s explanation that politics is a team sport, and sometimes you’ve got to take one for the team. He stammers that he voted for things that he didn’t personally believe in. He is a person who does not vote his conscience, he lacks the will power to stand up for what he believes in, and he has no innovative thinking to offer.)

Loved it when Santorum tried to say Paul wasn’t conservative enough in his record, and he retorted something like, “well, hell no I didn’t vote for it if it cost money or overstepped our bounds.” It’s like dealing with an idiot child, that Santorum. Dr. Paul doesn’t spend money we don’t have to pander for anyone’s vote. Period.

Dr. Paul is old, but feisty. He’s like an old piece of gristle that just won’t go away! And you keep chewing and chewing, and he keeps warning of us things that will happen, and they keep coming true…it’s not going away, though. We’re spending ourselves into oblivion.

I’d really like to see him as president because Americans need to be taught what America is supposed to be – every day for four years, until we understand and remember it. It’s not supposed to be like this, in that anything you may want to do is somehow regulated and overseen by some aspect of government.

The Final Analysis

The candidates were asked to describe themselves with one word. They said:
Mitt = resolute
Ron = consistent
Newt = cheerful (smartass!)
Rick = courage (dumbass, that’s not an adjective)

I asked my husband to do the same out of curiosity:
Mitt = polished
Ron = idealistic
Newt = logical
Rick = spastic

When I vote on Super Tuesday, I’m going for the Whole Enchilada, the ideals, the dreams of what it could be like…Ron Paul. I refuse to let the media choose my presidential candidate for me, by casting Ron Paul as the looney whackadoodle that could never win so they barely let him speak or write down what he says. I may be wasting my vote, but everyone needs to vote their conscience. I may strike out, but I trust the rest of my fellow Rs will still get us on base with Mitt or Newt. With any of these three, it’s a win.

Side Notes: BTW, this wasn’t a debate. It was an interview of four people simultaneously by a media person. And the seconds leading up to it thoroughly disgusted me, during which the media person was touted by another media person, like the smack talk leading up to a professional wrestling match. Blech.


I think this is the ticket, folks.