in Search

Ghost of Sam Post

November 2008 - Posts

  • Some Thoughts on a Solution

    While it is good to illuminate problems so that the apathetic public can recognize them, it is even better to propose some possible solutions. Let us look at the current state of affairs. The redistribution of wealth that the liberals are always so keen on enacting is fairly easy to remedy. According to them, everyone is equal and deserving of an equal share of "the pie". No one likes to see one person getting the advantage over another, so maybe we can help out this liberal agenda just a little.

    The liberal leaders always speak about the downtrodden, the poor, and the destitute. They say that everyone ought to have whatever they want. Okay, where do we get the money to distribute to the poor? The liberals would have the common people taxed to get the needed money, but I have a better idea. Let us start with the liberal leaders themselves. Why, for example, do these politicians have salaries and benefits that reach into the millions? Congress simply votes to increase their income and it becomes so. I can't do that; I have to work if I want more money. How about we compromise on a set income, say $75,000, which would be the top pay for anyone, including the President? Think of all the extra money we would have to give to the poor. Next, how about the sports figures and the movie stars? They can live very nicely on $75,000 per year too. Some of these people might spend $75,000 a day on lunch. But, how many peanut butter and jelly sandwiches can a person consume? People do not need wheelbarrows full of money to live a normal, healthy life. And, do not try to tell me that they "earn" these exorbitant amounts of money. Who puts in a tougher workday, a politician or a ditch-digger? Who is more important, a doctor or the guy who picks up the trash? Who is more necessary to you, the plumber fixing your broken water line, or your manicurist? Aren't they all the same? Don't they all work very hard? Don't they all deserve the same pay? Don't they all deserve equal respect?

    There is, however, another problem. The liberals do not want to have everyone working. Instead, the liberal agenda promotes infantilization of the population to the point that more people are encouraged to accept welfare than to maintain their integrity as human beings. The dumbing down of the population is well known, just ask any teacher. (For those who like reference materials, see the documentary, "Declining by Degrees", also read the book, "The Liberal Mind" by Lyle Rossiter). Therefore, the people who produce things are seen as the "bad guys", the ones who garner all the goodies for themselves (the selfish bastards) while the poor are kept, well, poor. The "good guys" are the downtrodden (poor fellows) who just want to eat a sandwich and to see the sun shine. Maybe if all the politicians, doctors, lawyers, and movie stars stop being so selfish and accept only $75,000 per year in salary (out of which they would pay for their own benefits) then all of the population could achieve that free sandwich and a look at the sun shining. Aren't we all "entitled" to that?

    I am sure that there are many more solutions to this overall problem. I look forward, though, to the news that all the politicians, lawyers, doctors, sports figures, and movie stars are cutting their incomes to $75,000 (or less) before I believe that our "leaders" have anybody else's (except their own) interests in mind. Said another way, "Don't pee down my back and tell me that it's raining".  So says Sam Post.

    Posted Nov 25 2008, 07:28 PM by Sam Post with no comments
    Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web
  • State of the Economy

    I guess it is okay to say the “R” word now. You know, “recession” because we are hip deep in it. Actually, we are in (or about to be in) a depression. There is no way around it. We, as a nation, have been so irresponsible for so long with our policies and money mismanagement that it was inevitable that the house of cards should fall. And to add insult to injury, the powers that be in Washington (or wherever else they may be hiding) have said that they have no idea on how to fix things. Add to that they are trying to blame Alan Greenspan for some of the mess. How could that be? He was doing very well for so long; his predictions were the benchmark for guiding us through many prosperous years. I guess that is the American Way, look to blame someone when things go wrong. There is a great line in the movie Rising Sun where Sean Connery explains to Wesley Snipes the difference between the United States and Japan. He says that, “In the United States, when something goes wrong, we look to blame somebody. In Japan, when something goes wrong, they fix the problem; nobody gets blamed. Their way is better.” I agree. Wouldn’t it be better to address the problem of this pecuniary mess by fixing the problems instead of trying to find ways to work around them?

    One possible solution (the only one, I think) is to attack the problem with a two-pronged approach. First, the entire system needs to be trashed and a new system, set up by the best economists the world has to offer, needs to be put in place. No small task. The system that we have doesn’t work; why do we seek to patch something with “chewing gum” when that can’t fix the leak? Second, there needs to be a massive education program for the entire population to explain that over-indulgence and the waste of money and resources is part of the problem. To really do the job well, we would have to teach the population that maturity is the key. This means that people will have to mature (not just get older). Toys are for little children, not for adults. America has become a nation of immature children who think that this country is just a large playpen filled with toys.

    Another step in the right direction would be to find some leaders who (1) are mature, (2) understand that they are leaders, not older children who promise “candy” to the whiney masses, and (3) who have a sense of morality. Of course we need many more items on our list of cures, but this would be a decent start in what promises to be a very long, drawn out economic depression. So says Sam Post.

    Posted Nov 24 2008, 09:43 PM by Sam Post with no comments
    Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web
  • The Concept of Team

    For a group of people to be a real team, they would have to desire a common goal, they would work hard to realize the goal, and they would work together voluntarily. In addition, these folks would help each other so that the overall effect would be a group accomplishing something that an individual would not or could not do alone. If we think of a football team we see a group of players working together to get one little ball over the goal line. We look at this example and say, “right, that is a team effort”. But upon closer scrutiny we will discover that the players are acting in a highly directed manner. There is very little voluntary thinking occurring on the field. Actually, there is only one thinker, the coach, who directs everything. In football, this may be okay; in other areas of life this method doesn’t work very well.

    For example, in the world of business, a cooperative effort by competent people (a team) is a force to be reckoned with. Each member of the group is an intelligent, thinking, contributing member. The team is stronger because of the quality of its members. Take away one member, and you have a weaker team. Add another competent member, and you have a stronger team. The salient feature in this example is the competence in each person; there is no “dead wood”. There is, however, another very important ingredient. It is the voluntary aspect incorporated into every decision made by the team. There is no “coach” but there is a facilitator. The facilitator makes it easier for the team to operate. He (or she) must encourage the team members, but never coerce them with threats, or prizes. A team works because each member voluntarily desires to help the other members; the team goal is the individual goal. If there is coercion in any form (incentives or punishments) there is no team. What you will have is a bunch of automatons that will only do what they are told because they are getting paid, or to keep their job. Automatons are cattle; they don’t think, they only move when prodded.

    In our society, these days, the government would prefer to have everyone become a “cow” because cows are easy to maneuver. All forms of government hate real teams because competent team members need no coercion to operate; they see what needs to be done and they do it. They voluntarily cooperate with each other, they feel the pride of a job well done, and they become better citizens. On the other hand, if a person is doing their assigned task and a supervisor comes over and demands that the person “do their job” (which they are already doing), what do you think that worker would feel? Yes, the worker would feel embarrassed, humiliated, hurt, and unappreciated. This scenario goes on all too frequently. The upshot is that the worker will not do anything until told to do so. Stress and fear are heightened in everyone. Certainly there is no “team spirit”; rather there is paranoia.

    Teams are competent people working together for the right reasons. If there is any coercion involved, there is no team. Competition will develop in the absence of cooperation. Nothing will dismember a company faster than competition. Stress in the workers follows competition and fear escalates. Isn’t a real “team” a better way to go? So says Sam Post.
    Posted Nov 12 2008, 08:44 AM by Sam Post with 1 comment(s)
    Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web
  • The Election Is Upon Us

    There’s only a day or so to decide whom we will vote for in the presidential election. This particular election seems to be more difficult to decide than others and I believe this is because of the candidates that we have to choose from. Usually, we have a Democrat and a Republican running against each other and each candidate stood for their party’s agenda. In times past voters could pick the agenda they liked and the candidate sort of “went along” with the choice. It was assumed that the candidates represented their party’s thoughts on how to best run the country. Today, however, there seems to be little correlation between the individual candidate and his party. Or, should I say that each candidate represents only the radical part of his or her party?

    From my point of view, Obama seems to support such a radical position that if he were to implement some of his ideas, they would cause this country to internally hemorrhage. It is so difficult to find anything in the man’s speeches that speaks to common sense. He (according to interviews) doesn’t know if he is Christian or Muslim. He speaks about sweeping tax changes, but they don’t lead anywhere except to punish those small businesses that work hard to make more money. It would seem that Obama wants (almost) everyone to remain, or become, poor. Then when people struggle to makes ends meet, he wants to put them on welfare. Where does the welfare money come from? It comes from the taxpayers. Pretty soon, everyone will be on welfare and then there will be no workers to pay taxes. Something doesn’t work here.

    On the other side of the street we have McCain/Palin. I include Palin because she appears to have more toughness, level headedness, and common sense than all of the other candidates combined. From what I have read, she is a breath of fresh air in the political arena. Her track record as governor speaks of honesty, integrity, and kowtowing to no one. This is someone we need in this world of chaos. Her running mate is older, very experienced, and he has served his country on the front lines. Anyone who has not served cannot know what it is like. Reading a book about reality is no substitute for reality. You have to experience it to know it. For his experience and his war record, this man has stood up to be counted. The fact that all of these candidates are politicians is to their detriment; I don’t know if being in the political arena has destroyed their ability to think. As I have said, this particular election will be extremely difficult to fathom. So says Sam Post.

    Posted Nov 04 2008, 04:25 PM by Sam Post with 1 comment(s)
    Add to Bloglines Add to Del.icio.us Add to digg Add to Facebook Add to Google Bookmarks Add to Newsvine Add to reddit Add to Stumble Upon Add to Shoutwire Add to Squidoo Add to Technorati Add to Yahoo My Web