People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

Britain In Flames

This quip about that which is fueling the flames of anarchy in London, from Say Uncle, reminded me of our not-so recent past:

"What’s the cause of the riot? I’m guessing lack of incoming fire."

Nothing is more of a downer when you're looting a KFC in Tottenham than to have bullets messing up your gangsta hoodie.

Here in the USA?

Who can forget the Rodney King riots?

More to the point, who remembers those neighborhoods of Los Angeles where the rioters weren't?

For those who can't make it out, those are Korean-Americans, heavily armed, on guard on the rooftop to protect their place of business from being looted by assholes who don't fear the police but steer clear of resolute citizens who are prepared to meet rock-throwers with hot lead.  No prior warnings.  No cease and desist order.  No rubber bullets.  No requests for us to all get along.  Just the guarantee to ruin the rest of your days.  Is that bottle of Thunderbird worth it, Cleavon?

As one might surmise, and as history will reflect, in 1992 those areas of Los Angeles in which the police chose to maintain order burned to the ground; those areas where the community came together to protect loved ones and personal property, order was maintained.

Too bad the British citizenry didn't learn our lesson.

But then again, too many politicians in this country learned nothing about those who don't give a damn about law or order either.

There's nothing like a clear and concise message to fend off bad guys intent on mayhem:

Click on the images to enlarge them.

Uh, Well, Actually There Is a Question

Look, nobody in this country is more full of sorrow over the destruction that Barack Obama has wrought than I am. And nobody wants him sent to wherever Jimmy Carter was banished after his failed presidency quicker than I do. But I'm able to put my anger and remorse in perspective.  And keep my eye on that which is most important.

Unlike some congressmen from Texas:
Impeach Obama, says Michael Burgess
By Reid J. Epstein, Politico

Impeaching President Barack Obama “needs to happen,” Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told a local tea party group, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported Tuesday.

Burgess spoke, the paper said, in response to an attendee’s suggestion that the GOP-controlled House use impeachment to stop Obama from “pushing his agenda.”

“It needs to happen, and I agree with you it would tie things up,” Burgess reportedly responded. “No question about that.” [link]
No question?  Well, I have a question.  In fact, two.

(1) Shouldn't our main focus be on jobs

And (2), do you really want to spend the next two years going through a protracted battle with the Democrats and the liberal news media  - one that you'll lose - over impeachment proceedings and fail to create conditions such that jobs return to this tortured land?

Bemoan the fact that America elected this man.  (But, with calls for us to be stifled, celebrate the fact that we're still allowed to elect anyone.)  Grieve for America.  Long for the day when socialists like Obama are returned to their netherworld, from which they'll hopefully never return to plague us.  Get mad.  Steel your resolve.

And target November 6, 2012 as get-even day.

But for now, do your level best to free us from the heavy yoke of government.  Reduce our taxes.  Eliminate the mountain of government mandates and restrictions that burden us.  Get government out of our path.  Allow us to be competitive again.  (And repeal ObamaCare.)


There'll be no need.  You come to our aid ...

... and we'll handle Obama.

A Broken Record

So, let's see. The title of the Wall Street Journal op/ed piece this morning is "How to Close the Skills Gap."  The premise?  "There is a widening 'skills gap' that prevents many Americans from filling the jobs of the 21st century economy."  The gap?  Three million.

That's the number of positions that are going unfilled in this country because employers can't find skilled help to fill them.  Supposedly.

Is that plausible?  Who knows.

But, okay.  Let's go with it.

So how do we close that "skills gap"?  (More on that "we" in a second.)

Before I looked for an answer, I then glanced at the names of the authors.

Mary Landrieu, Democrat, senator from Lousisiana.
Patty Murray, Democrat, senator from Washington.

Do we really need to go any further to know what the answer is to the vexing question that plagues those businesspersons out there who wait for Democrats in D.C. to find skilled workers for them?


These two Democrats want to (a) double down on their failures of the past, and (b) spend a whole lot more of our hard-earned income to do for business what business should do for itself.  They'll never learn:
As we work to create jobs and get our economy back on track, closing this skills gap needs to be a top priority. A critical first step: reauthorizing and reforming the Workforce Investment Act [i.e., spend more money], our nation's foundational federal work-force development policy. We also need to expand [i.e., spend more money] innovative approaches that have produced results, such as career pathways programs that provide labor-market information to students and job seekers about in-demand jobs, and the skills and education necessary to get them.

Other important elements of tackling this problem include integrating education and work-based learning [that will require spending more money], and supporting strategies that allow learners to work while receiving training (also known as "earn and learn" strategies) [also known as "workfare"]. We should also support public–private partnerships that draw on the expertise of successful members of the business community to help provide assistance and job-preparation advice to our work force.[that's harmless].
Yeah, whatever.

A few quick questions for these two Democrats: If the purpose of the Workforce Investment Act is to eliminate any gap that may exist between the number of job openings in this country and skilled bodies to fill them, if that 3 million number is to be believed, why is there is a huge gap today, and doesn't that make the Workforce Investment Act an abject failure?  (Before you try to tie the gap to the current unemployment problem, remember, our economic woes didn't make anyone de-skilled.)

And why does the federal government need to be involved in a process that a good businessman should be handling on his own?

And where does that money come from that you're going to use to pay workers while they learn a new skill set?

I'll answer that one for you: From the same freaking businessmen and women you think you're helping.

So you want to take their money, skim off a handful for the bureaucracy, and hand the remainder back to them, with a neat brochure and a pat on the back, and great things are supposed to happen?

Wouldn't the more healthy approach be to expect America's business people to solve their problems on their own?  And let them keep their cash?

I know.  I know.  China is kicking our ass.  American business can't survive without government help in that global competitive marketplace.

So who do you think is thriving in China today?  In part it's former American businessmen and women who have taken their wealth to a place where their dollars (and yuan) aren't confiscated by a government and wasted on goofy programs that amount to nothing and prove to be mere annoyances that get in the way of doing business.

I have a better idea.  Give the money you two confiscated from us back to us and let us seek out, find, hire, and train our own employees.

Any businessman who can't accomplish that without outside help is a loser anyway, and no amount of federal assistance is going to help that dude. (Maybe you should create a federal workfare program for failed business people who lack the skills and know-how to (a) determine what needs to be done and (b) do it on their own without waiting for some government drone to come and hand it all to them.)

Mary Landrieu and Patty Murray - Democrats both - would have thrived in the Soviet Union.  But then wasn't it government types like Landrieu and Murray who killed off the Soviet Union?