So I’m bored this evening at work (11PM to 7AM; the Graveyard Shift, so named because if you pull it long enough YOU WILL FUCKING PERISH) and started reading back over some of my old blog posts.  Mostly correcting spelling errors (of which I’m not proud; I prefer all my drafts to be FINAL drafts), but also reassessing my views at the time of writing and reconciling them with the information at my disposal now.  For example, I’m gonna have to write a “Taking Hostages, Part 3″ article pretty soon about how, although I grudgingly supported the original Auto Industry Bailout, I now believe we should NOT give the Big 3 ANOTHER bailout because they claim the first one wasn’t big enough.  If those incompetent assclowns are now asking for an additional $21 billion while simultaneously complaining about the oversight measures that come along with the “Ok, We’ll Save Your Incompetent Clown Asses” funds… look, I’m sorry, I’m just strongly philosophically opposed to the attempt to legislate competition-crushing business acumen.  If you’re refereeing a rugby game and one side is losing big time because they’re having barbecues and doing kegstands and shit instead of playing the damn game, you don’t pause the game, issue Mk 19′s and pillboxes to the entire losing team (“because if we don’t bail them out, they might LOSE!”), and then call “time-in” as if you have a fair game going on now.

I’m actually rather fond of that last metaphor.  It’s not entirely coherent, perhaps I could have gone with something more pertinant to the idea of giving a company enough funds to crowd their successful competitors out of the market… but I really, really like the idea of a rugby team trying to run against a platoon of emplaced machine-gun grenade launchers.  Somehow, I see a solution to our overcrowded-prisons-problem in that metaphor, as well.  Someone oughta make a movie.  Anyways.

IF I ever do make some kind of effort to actually get elected President, integrity is going to be my primary qualification.  I’m not going to have many others of a governmental bent.  The best course might be to go for something more local, like a Senate seat or something, do that gig for a while, and then try for the Presidency with the qualifications of both integrity and having not fucked up while in the Senate, which appears to be extremely difficult and should thus be pretty damn laudable nowadays.  The Bill Janklow one there is my favorite: how, exactly, does one manage to get away with 100 days in jail and three years probation after running a stop sign and fucking killing someone?  Wait, wait, what? Fucking hypoglycemia, are you fucking kidding me?  Are you telling me that if I give myself Type II Diabetes by eating horrible shit food every day for years and then starve myself a bit before I go shoot up a daycare then I, too, can receive a punishment far out of proportion to my crime?  Or do I have to be a FUCKING CONGRESSMAN FIRST?!?

But I digress.  The point here (I THINK I’ve been aiming at one… maybe this is one of my rare “venting” articles) is that a big part of my decisionmaking process with respect to a given issue involves the assimilation and application of new data into my baseline for that issue.  There’s a cool decisionmaking cycle I found in a sniper training manual called OODA, for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; the cycle derives best possible action from constant reevaluation of baseline.  “Baseline” is a concept that encompasses one’s sum total understanding of a situation; for a sniper, it involves facets of both enemy, ROE, terrain, mission, and what one had for breakfast; for me, all the data/facts surrounding an issue combined with my ethical/philosophical derivation from those data/facts could be said to compose my baseline.  For a person, especially a leader or lawmaker, to adopt a position or platform and then fail to abandon – or at least revise – that position upon receiving information that invalidates that position… such a thing denotes a lack of integrity, and a lack of integrity renders that person unfit to lead.  I am undoubtedly biased in this respect, but I don’t particularly give a shit what career qualifications a person who would lead possesses; I am much more concerned with a person’s ability to attempt to determine the course of action in any given situation that is “best” for the people dependant upon him for leadership.  I realize that the value of “best” is debatable from differeing ethical value systems (thus the constant conflict between (D) and (R) in whatever sphere you care to name); I contend that only value systems derived from reality (and not wishful thinking (the D’s), a lack of intercultural competence (the R’s), or a gross misunderstanding of human nature (both)) are valid benchmarks for determining “best” in any given context; I further contend that only a philosophy that is based in observable data and is in a constant state of reevaluation of its own precepts in the light of new data can be considered “derived from reality”.

My final contention, indeed the postulate of my entire personal philosophy, is that only true, unbiased open-mindedness enables an entity (person, group, government, etc.) sufficient susceptibility to new data to form responsible opinions and courses of action.  Admittedly, that last sentence there is a mouthful, and is likely to be interrupted with spurious cries of “nuh-uh!” (or your local equivalent; I’m paraphrasing here) before it can be successfully posited.  Therefore, I choose to give a name to this philosophy, so that it may be introduced with the maximum of alacrity and a minimum of jackassus interruptus potential:  I choose to call this the Sentient philosophy.

The entire force of moral righteousness (though I cringe a bit to use such a term) of the Sentient philosophy derives from this ridiculously high degree of intellectual integrity.  The reasoning behind the bizarre title of this article (look, I know YOU might not find much funny about Rock beating his wife Scissors and the beaten Scissors going on to take out her rage at society upon fellow convict Paper as they cross the prison yard in April of 2013 (thus completing the traditional Rochambeau cycle and proving forever that you give what you get) but it did give me a chuckle as Paper eventually recovered from her injuries, became a model inmate, left prison on good behavior and went on to become a Congressperson… and we all know those guys defeat Integrity on a regular basis, so there.  Satire!) is that the platforms of the Democrats and Republicans are just that: platforms.  Having a combined set of unshakable beliefs/values gives the members of the respective parties a strong (ok, maybe not “strong”, but at least definite; “We very definitely believe in the stupid shit we believe in, regardless of its utility to society or its grounding in the real world we all theoretically inhabit”) foundation from which to speak… and when challenged with fact, the platform serves as a Rock (rather like faith, amusingly enough) to which the challenged can retreat and stand upon confidently and throw poo at the assailant.  But if, as I think I’ve tentatively established, the Rock of conviction is seated upon sand… upon a set of supporting ideas that cannot be said to be truly derived from the Real, but rather more from expediency and prejudice and blind idealism… then exactly how strong is the Rock of conviction?  It seems, from both an ethical, philosophical, and intellectual point of view, that Integrity (and, by association, the Sentient philosophy) can much more successfully provide what is “best”, or at least what is effective.  Integrity does, indeed, cover Rock.  IF, that is, the American People give a shit about improving their lot.  Such remains to be seen.

…Comma Bitches.

So now the government has a choice (or at least a “choice”): as per Capitalist doctrine, allow the Auto Industry to fail, lose an awful lot of American jobs, and hope that the Big 3 either figure out what they’re doing wrong or at least spawn some smaller, hopefully more efficient new car companies; OR, “protect” those jobs the Big 3 are so vocally holding hostage by writing another gigantic, taxpayer-funded check to keep the Big 3 afloat.  While a bailing out is not (technically, but who’s counting) a Socialist tactic, it is definitely an Anti-Capitalist one.

The choice/”choice” is obviously not an easy one.  It becomes a question of stability versus principle, one which has plenty of adherents on both sides.  What’s odd about this situation is that, in opposition to the traditional Republican=Stability/Democrat=Principle dichotomy, this time the DEMOCRATS are favoring a move that would protect American jobs (and promote – at least in the short term – Stability) and the REBUBLICANS are insisting upon following the Capitalist playbook (thus advocating a loss of Stability in favor of the clean white light of Principle).  And within the context of this “choice”, I once again feel that neither path is best for Americans.

Supposing the President does go ahead and do for the Auto Industry as was done for the Financial Industry (aside: remind me to do a piece on Industries later, and how they, too, are Anti-Capitalist).  It’s bad enough that a precedent was set with the initial TARP measures to prop up finance companies, let alone the reinforcement that precedent will receive with application of the same measures to auto companies.  The whole IDEA behind Capitalism is that the market will decide (ok, “decide”) which products and services are best by virtue of the company providing those products seeing profits from their work.  If a company (say, GM) is no longer able to see profits from their method of business, then GM must change the way they do business OR be rendered unable to support itself.  Such a failure will lead to job loss, but will also lead to market share being freed up for the advantage of other, more nimble, better run companies… who may them be able (finally) to expand their own business and create job opportunities for the very people whose jobs were lost by GM’s failure.  In probable accordance with some economic law I’ve never heard of:  the amount of jobs in a given industry will expand to fill all available space created by Demand for that industry.  Or is that Boyle’s Law.  I don’t fucking remember.  Anyways.

But what message does that send to other American Industries?  It would seem that, so long as your company (or conglomeration of companies: “The Industry”) has a sufficient number of employees to hold hostage (or simply has a large enough impact upon the economy, which is what a [sufficient number of employees] basically IS), you can engage in whatever retarded (literally slowed development, look it up) business practices you like and, when the billion dollar bill comes due, the government will step in to prop up an “industry vital to America”.  It’s the rough restaurant equivalent of you and two of your buddies (you call yourselves the “Big 3″ because you all think your penises are much larger than they actually are) going down to the nearest place with a bar (I like Rock Bottom Brewery, myself; corner of N. Carefree and Powers, Colorado Springs, CO; tell ‘em Darian sent ya), ordering the entire menu and a hottub’s worth of alcohol, and then, when the check comes ($12, 068.47, plus 3 restraining orders), realizing you’re all unemployed and have approximately $7.18 and a condom between you… but suddenly the President walks over (from the bar, where he was alternating between drinking extremely cheap Mexican beer (that he brought in with him; he likes the faint taste of urine) and playing Iraq Invasion DS, retail price $Eleventy Trillion) and pays off your entire bill (using his American Taxpayer Card, bonus rewards of $400,000 a year FOREVER) because, and I quote, “You guys are some really great guys.  Heh heh heh.”

As a brief aside: I apologize for the unnecessary number of hateful metaphors in the last paragraph.  It may give you the impression that I harbor some bitterness towards our government and our Commander-In-Chief; this is not the case, as under the provisions of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) I’m not allowed’s ta.  Besides, it’s more an “I could do a better job than these re-re’s” feeling than a disgruntlement feeling.  It depresses me to see my country suffer due to selfishness and stupidity.

But let’s say the President has a brain fart or something (let’s just say) and the Auto Industry DOESN’T get their bailout.  Such a thing, as was stated by President-Elect and Cool-Guy Barack Obama, would be very irresponsible of our government because it would lead to immense instability across our society.  The whole purpose of government is to promote and ensure stability; failing to do so would be a dereliction of duty.  But… there’s a disconnect here.  Government’s required response to this situation seems to be to prop up the Auto Industry, thus ensuring stability… but doing so will undermine the Capitalist system itself, necessitating further bailouts down the line and ultimately sacrificing future stability for the sake of present stability.  So… it appears there is NO effective way to extract ourselves from this situation.  And this appearance is, unfortunately, true… but only within the dichotomy set up by the bounds of the Capitalist system.

“Oh SHIT, Sean, you’re not about to suggest that CAPITALISM is the problem, are you?”  Well… yeah, a little.  The problem is that the American people (and, by inconvenient extension, the American Government) want stability from an economic system that is inherently unstable.  Capitalism is designed to be unstable; instability (especially in the form of competition) drives companies to constantly improve and streamline their operations so as to continue making a profit.  This ongoing stretch towards perfection ultimately improves conditions for the consumer, thus ensuring that the consumer/The American People don’t get fleeced at every turn.

The problem is not ultimately rooted in Capitalism; the problem derives from the emergence of Industries (big I) as the superseding form of organization within Capitalism.  The whole point of our government adopting antitrust laws was to prevent all companies within a given industry (little i) from collaborating to eliminate competition.  The de facto monopoly thus formed would have the effect of allowing companies to collectively go on metaphorical $12, 068.47 binges because, now that competition is eliminated, the American consumer has a choice between shit, crap, and shitcrap.  In theory, antitrust laws can keep this from happening… but once an entire industry starts working together, disguising collaboration becomes much, much easier… as anything that looks like an across-the-industry change, adopted by all companies simultaneously, is obviously a reaction to industry forces and is certainly not a new profit-making measure secured by company representatives over yesterday’s golf foursome.  (Why high-powered heterosexual males insist upon calling their golf teams foursomes is beyond me.  Probably because I’m straight.)

The result of collaboration too large to be seen is the new entity known as The Industry.  You can tell there’s SOME level of collaboration going on due to the existence of Industry lobbyists.  When a group of lawyers are paid morbidly obese amounts of cash to influence Congressmen and assorted other government officials to give special attention to the needs of an entire Industry, there has to have been at LEAST a Power Lunch to hammer out what the lobbyist is to say.  (I have no idea if Power Lunch is an actual corporate term; it just feels like the kind of self-fellatizing thing a small-fish tiny-pond executive would say)  You can name your Industry: I promise you there’s a group of lobbyists with VERY nice business cards for those guys, too.  Look, go read Jon Stewart’s America: The Book for a section on lobbyists that is MUCH more funny (and true!) than anything I’m capable of.

The point is that an entire Industry failing at once (you’ll notice that foreign companies within the Industry’s industry are doing just fine, thank you), especially TWO Industries, should indicate a problem with the Capitalist system in general.  I see two obvious solutions: either the government starts breaking up Industries like they give a shit about the American people (though I understand that WOULD cut into your reelection campaigns) and the Capitalist ideal we claim to love so much, OR we recognize that trying to squeeze stability from a system that thrives on instability is counterproductive and that our society, as it stands today, might be more responsibly served by incorporating some Socialist concepts into the way we do business, both within the economic and governmental spheres.  At the very LEAST we can provide some basic necessity infrastructure via governmental agency; at a further extreme, governmental ownership (or at least stockholder-ship) of business could provide some (relatively) impartial oversight upon Industry practices, and possibly reduce the tax burden upon the American people through government stock income.  Hell, the government already owns, what, like 80% of AIG now?  I could’ve sworn THAT’S Socialism right there.

So, look, here’s my conclusion, based on the information I have in my head right now:  bail out the Auto Industry.  But do so in the form of a stock buyout, so that (by Capitalism’s own rules) the government can be involved in the various companies’ dealings, ensure that business is being conducted responsibly, and start getting the taxpayers’ money back as business improves.  If a company really wants to get out from under government control somewhere down the line, let ‘em buy back up to 51% at either the initial government bailout purchase price OR current stock value, whichever is GREATER.  God dammit, if the American taxpayers are going to keep these Vital Industries from going under (and yes, saving some jobs in the process) we are GOING to make sure these companies actually DO make use of our investment… and get something back for our largess in the process.  Please, gentle reader:  let me know your thoughts on this, ESPECIALLY if you have some data or theory I missed that leads you to a different conclusion.  Integrity of thought is, as always, my number one motherfuckin’ priority.  Coincon 2020, bitches!

This was sent to me this morning by my beloved sister-in-law… I plan on doing a bigger piece on this subject later/when I have time, so for now, here’s what was sent to me.  You can see how it might give me ideas; as a brief preview: the entire point of Capitalism was that companies that saw successes or were useful to the American people (and thus saw successes) and could do either of these things WITHOUT the need for government intervention (aka Socialism) were able to survive and prosper in the general marketplace.  Those that could NOT either changed the way they did business OR were doomed to failure and dissolution.  Holding tens of thousands of American jobs hostage does not mean we should give the hostage taker what he wants; we should shoot his ass and free up his resources so that other, more honest businesses may flourish.

That’s right:  I’m back, bitches.

A Modern Parable

A Japanese company (Toyota) and an American company (Ford Motors) decided to have a canoe race on the Mississippi River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 7 people steering and 2 people rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.

They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team’s management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 2 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 2 people rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the “Rowing Team Quality First Program,” with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rowers. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses. The pension program was trimmed to “equal the competition” and some of the resultant savings were channeled into morale boosting programs and teamwork posters.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off one rower, halted development of a new canoe, sold all the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses.

The next year, try as he might, the lone designated rower was unable to even finish the race (having no paddles), so he was laid off for unacceptable performance. All canoe equipment was sold and the next year’s racing team was outsourced to India.

Sadly, the end.

Here’s something else to think about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving all its factories out of the US, claiming they can’t make money paying American wages. Toyota has spent the last thirty years building more than a dozen plants inside the US. The last quarter’s results:

Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked up 9 billion in losses.

IF THIS WEREN’T SO TRUE IT MIGHT BE FUNNY.