The Bain Solution

Before I was a lawyer, I was a computer guy whose "big idea" launched a company which forever changed the way the world entered information into computer systems.  In those halcyon days, virtually every bit of information entered in a computer got there by way of a keypuched IBM card.  Tens of millions of IBM cards were punched each and every day, world-wide.  There was no other way.  Today, many people would look at you blankly were you to ask them about an IBM card, much less a keypunch.

The details are unnecessary here but available to anyone interested; just ask me.  Our company's main selling point was this: entering data this new way increased the productivity of each data entry operator by at least 33%.  That meant a company could FIRE 33% of its operators by using our equipment rather than IBM's equipment.  It was demonstrably true, easy to validate and we sold hundreds of millions of dollars worth of our computer equipment plus our competitors sold hundreds of millions of dollars more.  In those days, hundreds of millions was a lot of money.

Thus, we caused thousands and thousands of people to be FIRED which resulted in the enrichment of the three founders, our investors and our shareholders.  And nobody took us to the woodshed for it.  Indeed, we were lauded for being prescient.  Merrill Lynch, then the Holy Grail of the investment banking business, took us public after much vetting.

Enter, Willard Romney.

Bain's business was basically the same: make a business more efficient.  Often, that means saving labor costs for customers or labor costs for the company.

Here's the debate and marketing pitch: It's only the government which is indifferent to saving labor costs.  The government does not need to make a profit, it can print or borrow money easily, tax its citizens without firing anybody and the Obama democrats simply do not give a damn.  In fact, they love it; it's in their DNA.

If, for example, the government had been in the telephone business, we'd still have telephone operators for long-distance calls; direct-dial would cause government employyees to be fired.  That philosophy is exactly why there are still hundreds of thousands of Postal Service employees who are unnecessary when FedEx or others would gladly replace them were the government to end its monopoly on delivery into mailboxes.

So, soon-to-be Mr. rather than President Obama, are you in favor of the inefficient keypuch operators or the unneeded telephone operators?  If you are, then you're in favor of continuing the waste of government (taxpayer) money.  If you are not, then you are in the same business as Bain: making government, business, people, everthing work smarter, better and more effectively.

Where's your beef with that Hussein?

A Dumb Jew and a Dumb Idea

A fellow Ashkenazic, Glenn Greenwald over at Salon magazine, is running against type.  Ashkenazic Jews, such as Greenwald and I, are lucky members of the world's highest IQ class.  Even so, Greenwald writes some dumb stuff.  Consider.

Greenwald asserts that by killing Iranian nuclear scientists, Isreal and/or the U.S. are "terrorists".  For a Jew to think that by killing Iranian nuclear experts, Israel becomes a terrorist nation is more than a stretch: it is simply dumb.

Few know whether either country or even any country is really behind the rash of assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists.  Either way, I'm delighted.  We should do a lot more of that stuff.  Kill the bastards before they kill us is the best way to avoid wars and avoiding the deaths of American military men.  Unlike some, I would make deals with the devil if it's beneficial to the U.S.  I've always thought both Bushes made a big mistake with Saddam Hussein.  We should have made a deal with him for cheap oil and military bases in Iraq in return for protection for his government.  In that sense, The Donald and I agree even though I don't think he's Ashkenazic.

Were I president of the U.S., I'd be less concerned about other country's citizens problems and very concerend about American citizen's problems.  I'd resolve the latter and leave the others to Allah.

The Hispanic Panderer

Hussein Obama, the guy whose wife hates powerful 'Irish Catholic families", has instructed his immigration department to "temporarily" cease and desist from deporting the over 200,000 El Salvadorans illegally in our country.  This 18 month freeze is great for El Salvador because the Yankee dollars sent there by its illegals keeps that hell-hole of a country afloat economically.  Hussein does not give one thought to the over 200,000 Amaericans who are either not working or not supported by a working American as a result of these illegal aliens in our country.

Hussein only cares about reelection.  He's a socialist you see and they only care about power.  Americans?  You can't be serious.

Flying Elephants

I almost never read the New York Times on politics which is, frankly, a mess of lies and lying political writers.  Maureen Dowdy is one such; another is a guy named Friedman.  He was a major proponent of the Arab Spring baloney alleging that Egypt, after Tahir Square, would be a fledgeling liberal democracy.  Well, well.  What those mostly illiterate Egyptians voted for was more Muslim Mullahs.  So Friedman writes a column about flying elephants comparing that feat to predicting the fluid Middle East.  He's excusing himself much as many Democrats now see Hussein Obama differently.  There is something Friedman forgot though: one elephant did fly.

Dumbo.

Romney's Electability II

Following last night's Iowa caucus it is abundantly clear that Willard Romney lost and that he lost big-time. 

When 75% of your fellow Republicans vote against you after your having spent $10,000,000 to persuade them to vote for you, you have lost.  If 8 votes better than Rick Santorum is the best he can do among his putative friends, how do you think he will fare among Democrats and independent voters?

The Romney we see on television is an unlikeable, plastic, cold repeater of cliched phrases.  Despite his advertising, being governor of Massachussets is not much of a recommendation for the presidency.  It's a small state, not known for much other than Harvard and corrupt Democrats being imprisoned.  Frankly, nobody pays much attention to what Deval Patrick does.  (Who is Deval Patrick?)

As for Willard's managerial skills, L.A. ran a better Olympics than Willard did in Salt Lake and nobody touted the L.A. managers for the presidency based on their managerial skills.  Few can even name those good folks.

And, as for Bain Capital, it's a financial consulting, venture capital firm that buys, strips and sells businesses, assets and bets with other people's money.  It manages nothing.  Neither has Willard.  His expertise is in stripping companies of their assets, shuffling them and betting that the company's management can make the business model work.  I don't recall him being CEO of any operating company.  My view is that he's another Harvard MBA wonder boy: a numbers manipulator.  We have thousands of them in D.C.  We do not need another computer plan; we need a leader.  The key ingredient of a leader is that his followers like him and when he says "Go", all move together.  Too few folks like Willard.  Mostly sycophants follow him.

So, when I look at it all in all, Willard the Wonder Boy does not have "it".  Obama will beat him handily as the Democrats will turn out the vote.  Willard will not as 3 of 4 Republicans don't want him.

Karl Rove is wrong - again.  Romney is unelectable.  He is unlikeable.  It's that simple.

Unfortunately.

Ann Coulter

A veritable icon of the right, Ann Coulter is hustling votes for Willard Romney, recently re-named "McCain with Hair".  Coulter, now well ensconced in childless spinsterhood, is laying the groundwork for a personal renaissance after marginalizing herself by years of practicing the professional recklessness which she posits as Newt Gingrich's principal failure.  Her relentless style has, I think, worn thin.  As she moves into AARP territory, Ann seeks to re-position herself so as to rescue her career from irrelevancy.

If you're conservative, it's difficult not to like Ann.  She's bright as can be, speaks well, has facts at her fingertips, is unafraid of debate and comes across as a believer in what she says.  In that sense at least, she is, in fact, Newt in a skirt.  Alas, this New Ann is an obvious licker of Establishment boots who wishes to rejoin the Party's mainstream leaders.  It is an unattractive flip-flop but not inconsistent with her new main man, Willard the Wonder.  It may work for him but, for her, she'll be useful and used by the elites.  Nothing more.

2012 Wish

Like most seasoned citizens, my 2012 wish for myself is 2013.  I wish the same for all my readers.  If granted, I will pray for a renewal of my corporeal subscription immediately.

Enjoy the rest of your life.

Tick Tock;  Tick Tock.