Massey Energy On Trial

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/massey-energy-trial-begins_n_1029434.html

This article strikes home, and while I am not from West Virginia, nor do I currently live in West Virginia, I lived in West Virginia when this happened and I saw the reactions from people who were not even connected to the tragedy. West Virginians are an extremely close knit group of people, and no that is not a incest joke.  People care for fellow West Virginians and if you show them even the least bit of kindness, they will adopt you in as if you were their own.  While living there, I was told that so long as you have bled in West Virginia, you were West Virginian. 


This trial is good for two reasons, maybe even three.  The first is that it is placing the blame where the blame is due.  The company knew that it is violating rules, all companies do.  If the CEO of the company is going to be paid like he does all the work, then it is only fair for him to take the blame like he did all the work.  Companies have a culture, all organizations do, that starts from the top and permeates down to the lowest rung.  If the big shot CEO wants to round corners then, the little guy will round corners too.  Massey was known far and wide for cutting corners from the top down. 


The second is the timing.  At first I felt it was too late, but on second thought it is fitting.  This delay will re-spark interest in mining and mining disasters..hopefully.. and keep people aware of the problems.  It is a disgrace that Massey would go as far as to order alerts when safety inspectors were coming. Rightfully they are on trial (at least publicly) now for not only the cover-ups for the disaster itself. In the future companies will think twice about looking the other way, or in this case looking in the right direction and then warning.


In addition to the re-introduction of the story, it comes at a time when Americans are already on the prowl for CEO that are not watching out for their workers or their best interests.  With the OWS movement going on it would be nice to see the serious examination of this trial.  What a good trial for the OWS movement to latch onto and hold on to.  If ever there was a case of the 1% not caring about the 99%.  Unfortunately the coal industry has long been a case of he haves and the have nots, but maybe now with a national movement aimed almost precisely at this style of problem, awareness could been raised and the coal industry put under the inspection class as it was in the 1920's, 30's and early 40's.

OSW Post

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/19/meet-the-1-percent.aspx

Again, I am late to the blogasphere about the Occupy Wall Street but I wanted to formulate a well rounded opinion about the subject and then weight in.  This and the fact that I am busy actually trying to teach people why/how all of the financial stuff happens.  As I have told my students many times “The problems out there can be fixed by 8th graders if people would only remember their 8^th grade economics classes.”

First. I agree whole heartedly with the protesters.  I feel as though they have every right in under the United States Constitution to be out in the streets demonstrating.  It is at the very least something citizens should feel a responsibility to do.  There could be a case made that it is a civic duty that citizens stand up for what they believe and let their voices be heard. 

My one concern, and this goes for my generation as a whole, is the lack of follow-up.  My one question of the OWS protesters would be “When was the last time you voted?” Understandably a good many may have voted in 2008, and of those an even large majority voted for President Obama.  I fault them not for voting for him, but I would question why they voted for him.  Was it because he promised change? Was it because he promised change and you presumed it would be over night?  If so it is easy to see their frustrations, but their frustrations are misguided. Do not blame President Obama for not bringing about change, and certainly do not blame him for not changing over night.  America is a slow changing beast by nature.  Our political system, thankfully, is not set up that way. Because he has not brought about the change quickly does not mean that he will not bring about change

This leads to the follow-through. I fear that many of the OWS movement believe their protest is all that is needed to change.  This is simply not the case.  My generation and those at the OWS need to go far beyond marching in the streets to bring about our voices being heard.  We need to communicate, civilly, with our elected officials.  We have that freedom in American like few other countries in the world.  We need to organize ourselves into a cohesive voting block, and vote. The best and brightest of our generation need to seek out public office and make changes from within the government.  It is one thing to march; it is another to be politically active. 

Enough though of the defending, I felt as though the article at the tope of this blog was well pointed and articulate.  Warren Buffett is correct in his understanding that the top paid executives have a vested interest in their company, and will do what they have to, to prop it up to make money.  Executives need to be moral in their dealings, they need to weigh decisions out not only with their interest in mind but the economic system as well.  

Finally I think Mr. Buffett is doing just that in his dealings.  Through his career he has made sound economic and business decisions and is now in a place where he can teach future generations a lesson on business.  He does this through his outspoken advice to the President, and he does it in quite was such as producing economic lessons for children called “The Secrete Millionaires Club.” Don’t get hung up on the name, it’s produced at an 8^th grade level…it has to be catchy

Applauding A Republican Candidate For Being Reasonable

I understand that I am late in responding to this on the blogasphere but I wanted to form my opinion, and think it through rather than just pop off with my thoughts.  In formulating my opinion of this I agree with Governor Perry on the basic principle of allowing immigrants (see appendix for a comment on immigrants) to utilize the in-state tuition breaks in Texas.  I do not however agree with the negative spin on which Governor Perry makes his comments.  I will write first on my agreement, second on my disagreement, and in the appendix weight in on immigration.

My agree with Governor Perry in that we do need to allow immigrants the ability to use the in-state tuition breaks offered to citizens in order to obtain an education.  I agree with Governor Perry that education is the key to success in our country, and I applaud him for taking the stance that he does on this issue. 

First, education is vital to success in this day and time in our country.  Immigrants, like it or not, are going to be playing a role in our country's economy, would it not be better to have them educated and taking full part in our economy?  Thomas Jefferson wrote about this extensively, and I have to feel as thought he would agree with Governor Perry's position. 

In a sense, as well, Governor Perry is not enacting anything that would/could no be utilized by ordinary citizens.  If I were to move to Texas, reside in the Republic for three years, I would be able to obtain in-state tuition.  This is NOT a policy that gives advantage to immigrants, unless you call someone who moves into a state, lives for three years, and decides to go to college an immigrant.  If this is the case, I am an immigrant to the Commonwealth of Virginia, one more year and under Governor Perry's plan I can got to UVA in-state..score

I do have one disagreement with Governor Perry's wording, and this is a petty one, but worth mentioning.  I am not sure if it is necessary to add the "they will become a drag on our economy" part at the end of the statement.  It is a proven fact that education has a direct correlation on the likelihood of contributing to the economy, and the betterment of society.  That fact goes without saying.  For once it would have been nice to hear a candidate own a policy and not have to put a negative spin on it. 

Appendix- Immigration.

I have to weight in on immigration due to this post. I am opposed (adamittely) to people limiting immigration, and policy that harms immigrants in anyway.  This opposition stems on two point in which I hold very seriously, and maybe more seriously than any other position I hold in the political realm..ok maybe not as much as my views on the Constitution but close.

1) They do not take jobs from Americans.  98% of the jobs that are done by immigrant labor are jobs that are no longer desired by Americans of Anglo or African descent.  When was the last time anyone saw anything but an immigrant picking fruit, changing sheets in motels/hotels, or any other hard labor?  Americans fear the threat of this "brown horde" of people stealing American jobs away from the unemployed white, but they forget/ do not even know where their food comes from, or how buildings get built.  Anyone who complains about immigrants taking jobs from Americans ought to go out and pick tomatoes in South Carolina, cotton in Texas, or apples in Franklin County, Virginia. No you do not want to, nor would you want your children to have to, so you have three option, grow your own food, let immigrant labor pick your food, or do without your food

2) Unless your family was here from the beginning of time, you are a the child of an immigrant. At no point in our American history has there been a time when people were not wanting to come to America.  First it was the those seeking fortune, then the religious descenders from Europe, then those who were starving in their home country, then those who fled upheaval in their country, and now we are see more people seeking fortune.  English, French, Irish, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Catholics, and all points in between have been dreaded and despised by those already here.  How soon those of Irish forget "IRISH NEED NOT APPLY" signs that appeared in the years leading to the Civil War, or the "DOGS AND JEWS NOT PERMITTED" banners that hung doorways of restaurants in the early 1900's.  This is what greeted my ancestors and I will be damned in I allow myself to do the same. 

A Contradiction

I was listening to talk radio on the way home from the YMCA this evening and the host had a guest who was overly critical of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates' opposition to the estate taxes.  The criticism generated from the idea that Gates and Buffett want to do with their money what they want.  The host and the guest were critical of this.  In listening I thought through the contraction in their statements. Here is what I came up with 1) Conservative (I thought) support the free market and despise the government (or anyone else for that matter) tell people what to do with their money 2) Conservatives support capitalism, and Buffett and Gates are the epitome of Capitalist.  Why then should they criticize their actions.

1) Conservative (I thought) support the free market and despise the government (or anyone else for that matter) tell people what to do with their money. If this person truly sees the world in a conservative light, would they not mind their own business when it comes to money.  I can see them applauding Gates and Buffett for opposing an estate tax, but not attacking them.  I think at time it is funny that Conservatives want government to just leave them alone when it comes to money, but they forget that when the government leaves them alone with their money, the government still as an influence. Is it not the case that to not influence is still and influence?

2) Conservatives support capitalism, and Buffett and Gates are the epitome of Capitalist.  Why then should they criticize their actions. Warren Buffett perhaps has the strongest case for capitalist of the year, so why then should he ever..ever come under attack from conservative radio host.  For one it just goes to show that they'll eat their own to fill air time or as Rodney Dangerfield said in Caddyshack "Now I know why lions eat their young." Conservatives, and Republicans alike are supposed to be the champions of capitalism.  I can't imagine why, oh wait it is because those capitalist have decided to use their money..wait for it..how they wish to use it, and for once it is to support a social program. Dare we forget what John D. Rockefeller (Capitalist Of The Year 1928,29,30,and 32) did during the Depression.  He nearly single handly pulled the country out of the depression.  He was lauded as the Capitalist of the Century

In closing I say shame on you radios host.  Shame on you for contradicting yourself and the principles I though all Conservatives, and Republican believed.  Maybe I've had it all wrong all these years, but maybe I have not.

Because I Am A Glutten For Punishment

Because I like political debate, and I like to hear lots of different arguments, and frankly I like to argue, I listened to talk radio's coverage of President Obama's speech this evening on the way back from an errand I had to run.  This blog is going to be more a response to the response I heard on the radio than it will be a response to the speech itself.  I missed most of it but what I did hear, I actually like.

I would like to preface too my response with an aside that for the better part of my trip out I listened to the same radio station which was at the time lauding Rick Perry for his stance on Social Security.  My response to anyone who complains about Social Security is simply return the check everyone, or hey do us all a favor and don't pay your taxes.

The radio host's major arguments consisted mostly around the idea that the speech tonight was a campaign speech and that President Obama did not say anything new.  To the commentator, it was simply thirty five minutes of neo-liberal stumping that was only applauded by the Democrats in the Joint Session.  Several times the announcer complained that Democratic Presidents are always trying to fix education, or the infrastructure of the country.  My rebuttal is that those areas need constant attention.  I for one grew up with the understanding that the government, federal-state-local, was designed to provide services that otherwise would not be provided. 

I am certain that a majority of the hosts on the radio station in question would agree that we need military spending, because lets face it, people of that political persuasion love military spending.  I am nearly certain that host would have little trouble with the federal government allocating money to the erecting of a 9/11 Memorial, because it is the patriotic thing to do.  Without a doubt the host would love for the government to grant tax breaks for big business so that businesses will in turn give breaks to the working people of this country (because we all no how well Trickle Down Economics really worked)

I can only rebut with the fact that by arguing against government spend, the host only showed his ignorance to the actual workings of the government.  I understand that it is a political philosophy to disagree with big government and over exerting governmental power, but at the same time the government has to operate! The host forgets the fact that by the very fact that he wakes up in the morning, the governmental funded military can be thanked. The fact that when he flips the light switch on, it turns on, the House Committee on Energy can be thanked.  When he drives his undoubtly expensive car on paved roads (safely I might add) the state department of transportation can be thanked.  I could continue but you get my point. 

To simply wrap you, and attempt to keep my argument concise, I will simply say this.  If you disagree with how you tax dollars are spent, live without all that stuff the government provides and see how you like it. 

I still can't believe I listened to that and in turned got bent out of shape about it. What a waste of my time and brain power