And I Quote

Joblessness: The Real Culprit

2009-10-31T20:26:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press: Obama tempers economic news with caution on jobs: "'Economic growth is no substitute for job growth'"

Honestly, I wish folks would stop skirting the issues and just identify the real culprit in the employment slump: the employers.

Here's the reality of the situation -- and, mind you, I've not heard this anywhere else, so this could be a "breaking news" item for the rest of the world:

Long before the markets collapsed, industries in general were feeling a great pinch right around the lungs area, literally sucking the air and life out of every business. That great pinch was "too many employees". As business grew, they hired more people. As the economy started to slow, businesses were reluctant to lay people off, so they started making up flimsy excuses for "downsizing" and "rightsizing" and "excessing" employees. They would force managers to read verbatim to their soon-to-be-dismissed employees the protective legalese jargon that would ultimately protect the employers from being sued. Fear of litigation kept employers from reducing their staffs to meet the reduced demand for their products.

Along came the recession/depression, with its predictions of mass layoffs. This was a godsend to employers who were desperate for an excuse to let people go without justification. As more and more companies fell in lockstep with this self-fullfilling proclamation of joblessness, everyone who ever wanted to trim their payrolls did just that. The year was 2009.

So here we are, on the cusp of recovery and we still have a joblessness problem. Why? Two main reasons: First, employers are only starting to turn profits and they need to see at least a couple of consecutive quarters of positive numbers before they start into new growth cycles. Second, downsized companies who are making a profit are actually benefiting from more productive, smaller staffs. There's no compelling incentive to hire more people if the current staffing can handle the load. Only when productivity is exceeded by demand will these employers start replenishing their ranks.

In short, joblessness is the fault of the employers. Well, sort of. It's really the responsibility of the individual to recognize the supply-and-demand nature of the jobs marketplace and adjust by retraining. It's painful and not always successful, by necessary for survival.

I don't take issue with the employers -- the culprits of joblessness. I take issue with everyone who keeps pointing their fingers at everyone else.

Collapse of the American auto industry may not be the worst possible thing

2008-11-13T11:50:00.000-08:00

I wonder if the otherwise sensible Congressman Barney Frank is speaking out of genuine concern or out of political correctness. I quote from today's news:

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide: "A collapse of the American automobile industry would be the worst possible thing that could happen at a time when we are already weakened,'' [Barney] Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television."

Here's the thing: The fact that the American automotive industry is headed off a cliff -- a long, bumpy journey down a steep hill, followed by a recent sudden drop off a sheer precipice -- does not herald the end of the automotive industry as a whole. The fact of the matter is that many other automakers remain profitable and successful, albeit to a lesser degree during our current recession. Many of those automakers even continue to manufacturer vehicles in the United States.

So what's the problem? It's threefold.
1. The American auto industry is a revered institution.
2. The American auto worker is also a revered institution.
3. There is a pronounced trickle-down effect, should the industry collapse.

I've listed these problems in the politically significant order of precedence. However, only the third problem should carry weight in the government's decision to bail out (or not to bail out) GM, Ford and Chrysler. As for the first problem, well, so be it. These manufacturers have refused to read the writing on the wall regarding our oil-dependence and have continued to throw all of their money into building muscle cars for the muscle heads that insist on driving them. They've been catering to consumer demands without paying attention to market fundamentals. Nissan's been paying attention. Honda's been paying attention. Even Hundai gets what the "Big 3" don't. What we want and what we can afford are two different things.

And the second problem -- the auto workers. I have an idea. Why doesn't the government throw incentives at the successful auto manufacturers? The ones from Japan and Germany and Korea who have set up shop in the U.S. and are now employing American workers to build foreign cars. Why not incentivize them to expand operations? Why not subsidize auto workers to relocate from Detroit to Alabama and Ketucky, to the automotive jobs at companies that actually doing well and make good products and can stabilize their American operations with operations abroad?

One reason: It would be politically incorrect.

Palin redraws military air routes

2008-09-25T14:45:00.000-07:00

This from the Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin. Governor Palin responds to the foreign policy experience question yet again:

Palin defends Alaska-Russia foreign policy remark - Yahoo! News: "'It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where — where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."

Hmmm...where do they go? Do Russian air forces take a direct route over the North Pole and then through Canada or Greenland, into the economic and political heart of our country? Or do they fly due east through Alaska then make a right turn at Nome and head south?

With the price of jet fuel these days, I would say that it's a stretch to assume that enemy planes -- which is what I suppose Governor Palin expects from Russia -- would bother taking the scenic route over the Bering Strait. It's not like anyone wants to bomb Alaska.

McCain tells us the real meaning of "fundamentals"; CNN bites

2008-09-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

McCain: Economic 'strength' is with workers - CNN.com

So nice of CNN (et al.) to give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt in his latest "misstatement".

And I quote:

McCain softened his earlier comments that "the fundamentals of the American economy are strong."
"What I obviously was saying, and I believe, is the American workers, the most productive and the most innovative -- they are the fundamentals of our economy and the strength of it and the reason why we will rebound," he said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

If McCain knew anything at all about the economy and how it works, he'd know that "the fundamentals" are actually key indicators that help us track, regulate and prepare for economic changes. They are quantifiable financial and statistical entities that exist is every basic text on economics.

To imply that what he meant was the strength and innovation of the American worker not only doesn't make any sense -- how, after all, can American worker exercise their productivity when they're unemployed? -- but further emphasizes McCain's lack of knowledge in the subject matter, i.e. the economy.

The fact that every spokesperson for McCain miraculously knew what he meant after the fact -- while, apparently, nobody else did -- is a clear indication that behind closed doors the McCain camp scrambled to fix yet another of the Senator's randomly contrived and grossly uninformed bits of feel-good rhetoric.

FOXNews.com - Residents Report Mysterious Red Light Sightings in Skies Over Phoenix - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

2008-04-22T15:52:00.001-07:00

FOXNews.com - Residents Report Mysterious Red Light Sightings in Skies Over Phoenix - Science News Science & Technology Technology News: Normally I reserve commentary for the patently ridiculous comments of people who are revered as experts. In this case, I'm taking a pro-active stance against those soon-to-emerge UFO experts who will explain the subject phenomenon.

Just based on the footage readily available on the internet, the three-to-four-light UFO appears to be a single craft with lights fore and aft, and on the left and right wing. The "wing" lights are both on either the top or bottom of the craft.

As the craft turns, the lights appear to change configuration, as if they are flying in formation. But the formation is too precise. For instance, the far right light in a sharp left turn should lag at least a bit, as it needs to accelerate into a much higher speed maneuver. There is no lag, as these lights are all attached to a single craft.

It is reported that a light will "fade", then reappear. This is simply one wing light disappearing in a banking maneuver. In one photo (on the FOXNews.com page that this blog references) shows two of the lights right next to each other. As I said, the wing lights are either both on top or on the bottom, so they can both be seen at this angle. The thickness of the craft (top surface to belly) can be roughly determined by the location of the fourth light when it disappears and reappears. This is a roll maneuver.

If I were more technically inclined, I would create a 3D model of this phenomenon just to prove that the lights can be aligned as I've suggested to match all of the available video footage. That said, this only proves that it is a single craft. But what KIND of craft? I cannot say, but I CAN say that no super-intelligent life form (i.e. one far more tech-savvy than we are) would need to blast colored lights out of their vehicles and call attention to themselves. They would probably have a radar- and infared-based system of navigation to be totally undetectable. I mean, seriously, this is not a stretch based on what we are capable of today.

Is it a UFO? Of course! At least until it's identified. It's definitely a flying object. Something to worry about? Not hardly. Just something to break the monotony of our dreary lives.

Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com

2007-11-03T09:21:00.000-07:00

Tim Russert, I used to respect you. You gravely disappoint me with your "would you pledge" question at the recent Democratic debat in Philadelphia.

Oct. 30 Democratic debate transcript - The Debates - MSNBC.com: "...would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?"

This is a nasty trick that the news media seems to love to play on candidates, in effect, holding them against the wall by the throat demanding a definitive answer to a hypothetical but volatile question.

SHAME ON YOU! And shame on James Varner for pulling a similar nasty trick on Senator Kerry back in 2004. (Read my "Johnny On The Spot" blog.)

Do you know who would make such a pledge? George W. Bush, that's who -- because Bush is a megalomaniac who truly believes that he can do whatever he wants to whomever he wants. Last time I checked, the United States did not run the planet.

Oh yes, Adolph Hitler would also make that pledge.

Harris Interactive | The Harris Poll - Fifty Percent of U.S. Adults Would Not Vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Candidate for President

2007-11-03T08:45:00.000-07:00

If you're following the primary races, you probably have heard this: "Fifty Percent of U.S. Adults Would Not Vote for Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Candidate for President"

Political pundits and opposing Dem candidates are quoting this Harris Poll stat about Sen. Clinton. I have just one question: Is there ANY candidate -- Democrat or Republican -- who could surmount this 50% hurdle? If not, then it's a moot point.

C'mon, Harris Poll, learn to generate MEANINGFUL statistics or get out of the polling business and go into politics!

The ONLY Solution to School Massacres

2007-04-23T17:00:00.000-07:00

This is wholely my opinion, but not without historical precedent: There is no way to determine what college, what high school, what mall, what office building will be the site of the next mass killing in the United States. Therefore, unless we intend to arm and train every last citizen in the art of self-defense -- unless we intend to erect all manners of security devices in every nook and cranny of these United States -- there is only ONE, yes ONE, way of stopping the madness.

We must teach our children to be nice to each other. And we must practice what we preach.

It's not too late to heal the festering wounds of the next potential mass murderer...before he snaps.

Bush flexes his 500 word vocabulary at all the right opportunities

2007-04-23T16:41:00.000-07:00

Democrats challenge Bush on Iraq bill - Yahoo! News: "Bush, confident of enough votes to sustain his veto, was unambiguous in his response. 'I will strongly reject an artificial timetable (for) withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job,' he told reporters in the Oval Office..." -- Yahoo! News

I will say this for President Bush: He knows the difference between a lawmaker (any Republican in the House or Senate) and a politician (any non-Republican, esp. Democrat). Lawmakers make the rules -- the highest lawmaker, being "The Decider" -- and politicians overstep their bounds.

Lawmakers, for instance, can make moral decisions and tell Terri Schiavo's family that they cannot terminate her vegetative existence. Politicians cannot make legislative decisions by expressing the opinions and desires of their constituencies nor can they be good stewards of tax monies.

Welcome to The United States of George Dubya. Did someone say "Ba'ath Party"?

Bush criticizes Democrats over war funds - Yahoo! News

2007-04-03T09:00:00.000-07:00

Bush criticizes Democrats over war funds - Yahoo! News: "'Congress' failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,' Bush said. 'Others could see their loved ones heading back to the war sooner than they need to.'"

Hmm, longer deployments and shorter time at home before redeployment? It's interesting that this is already happening, and frightening that the President doesn't already know this. Unless, of course, it's part of the White House plan to pin more of the war's negative effect on Congress.

For years, Mssrs. Bush and Cheney would berate the opposition for "sending a bad message to the troops". In fact, this whole second term of Bush's presidency has been underscored by the assertion that his detractors "do not support the troops". If there was only one way to show support, then this might be a valid arguement. But clearly that's not the case. We continue to allow Bush to undermine our ability to seek better alternatives by not questioning the logic of his rhetoric.

As Long As It Makes Sense in HIS Mind

2006-01-26T08:49:00.000-08:00

Bush Confident Warrantless Wiretaps Legal - Yahoo! News: "President Bush defended anew his program of warrantless surveillance Thursday, saying 'there's no doubt in my mind it is legal.' "

When there's no doubt in the mind of the perpetrator of an offense, then it's reasonable to conclude that that individual is mentally impaired. How long will it be before we come to that conclusion in the case of George W. Bush?

In a White House press conference this morning, President Bush refused to acknowledge that he was "circumventing" the law in authorizing warrantless surveillance. He then went on to explain that, in his discussions with his advisors, it was determined that the FISA law (1978) is "outdated" and not applicable to current circumstances and, therefore, cannot be applied.

Hmm. We can't apply a law from 1978, so we ignore it. (Didn't Saddam Hussein use that argument recently?) Sounds like circumventing to me. Oh, and by the way, that might also explain why Mr. Bush continues to ignore a host of other laws that were enacted to limit Executive Branch power. They must be outdated! Let the lawyers fight that fight, to paraphrase the President. Let the lawyers(!) determine what's unconstitutional or not. (Kill me, now!)

I look for to the day when this President is brought down and ousted -- for no other reason than to bring the Constitution of the United States of America back as our governing doctrine. I so desperately want to start loving my country again.

How do YOU make chocolate?

2006-01-23T08:34:00.000-08:00

In defense of his self-serving "chocolate New Orleans" comments, N.O. Mayor Ray Nagin tried to defend his ill-chosen remarks by giving us a lesson in kitchen chemistry.

Ref: CNN.com - Nagin apologizes for 'chocolate' city comments - Jan 17, 2006: "How do you make chocolate?"

"You take dark chocolate, you mix it with white milk, and it becomes a delicious drink."

Really?

How do you make chocolate? Last time I checked, you don't add white milk. That would be...chocolate milk. Is that what Nagin meant to say? That we need a "chocolate milk New Orleans"?

I don't think so.

Next time, Ray, stick with unambiguous metaphors and avoid food analogies, which have long been a source of negative racial epithets.

This sensational bit of backpedaling earns Nagin a place of honor in the annuls of political history. However, it will also earn him the title of "also ran" in New Orleans' next mayoral election race.

Johnny On The Spot...but Off the Mark (part 2)

2004-10-09T10:26:00.000-07:00

I'll make this one brief.

James Varner to Senator Kerry:

"Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?"

Nice. Very nice.

Mr. Varner, I'm sure you plan the next four years of your family's life well in advance and then execute your plan flawlessly, but sensible and responsible people set goals then do their darnedest to achieve them -- sometimes, with mixed results. We can't expect more than that from our leader unless we intend to install a dictator or monarch.

To challenge the Senator to make such a pledge directly into the camera was misguided at best and manipulatively selfish at worst. I hope you and your beer buddies had a good laugh afterwards.

Johnny On The Spot...but Off the Mark (part 1)

2004-10-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

A doe-eyed and woefully countenanced Sarah Degenhart posed the following question to Senator Kerry during Presidential Debate #2:

"Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?"

Gulp!

Having been put on the proverbial "spot", the Senator did his politically-correct best to respond honestly without upsetting the pro-life/pro-choice applecart. But in doing so, he may have inadvertently advanced the President's argument that Kerry is a career "waffler".

It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an answer to such questions after all these years. Government should do an excellent job of protecting you from others but it should be up to you to protect you from yourself.

The government was forced into the abortion debate for one simple reason: people are irresponsible. If the only unwanted babies were the result of rapes, I suspect we wouldn't have such divisiveness. We might actually have the resources to deal with all rape pregnancies in a way that we all could agree upon.

But the reality is that rape pregnancies account for such a small portion of the incidences of unwanted pregnancies. Rape victims are the minority in this debate. As a democratic society, we must consider and address any and all unwanted pregnancies, and we must do it in the worst possible way: by addressing the lowest common denominator, which happens to be whether or not the fetus has rights.

So guess who suffers? The woman carrying the fetus.

Unfortunately, no Presidential candidate will stand up in front of his or her potential voters and tell them that they need to be more responsible and stop expecting the government to fix their problems for them.

Wanna Buy Some Wood?

2004-10-09T08:58:00.000-07:00

At one point during the Bush-Kerry debate #2, Senator Kerry suggested that even the President can be considered a "small business", as evidenced by nominal payments that Bush has received from a large timber company. President Bush showed his own inability to comprehend basic business principles by donning his trademark "Dopey face" and musing ""I own a timber company? That's news to me."

Then after a pregnant pause in which he slowly walked the stage, mugging to the audience (oh, how adorable you are, Mr. President!) , he asked, "Need some wood?"

That line made me imagine that Bush was considering subdividing the real estate that is his own head and selling it off to the highest bidder.

Many large -- indeed, oftentimes humongous -- businesses create tiny entities which are corporations and LLCs in their own right. The sheer purpose, and a totally legal and ethical one at that, is to allocate and separate funds and resources to a particular function without interfering with any other part of the greater business entity. Each of these individual entities counts as a small business when viewed from the perspective of the state commissions that license them.

The suggestion that President Bush owns one or more of these small businesses and that one of them is receiving dividends or other payments from a timber company should be no surprise to Bush, nor should it be a hard concept for the President of the United States to understand.

...unless his head was made out of wood.

Synch or Swim

2004-08-14T19:37:00.000-07:00

I just watched my first -- and probably my last -- synchronized diving event. My wife made me do it. I only stayed for the Romanian team. I think they were Romanian. Hard to tell when everyone is wearing Speedos. (Hey, we may be onto something here along the lines of a classless, Speedo-clad society.)

Anyway, I didn't want to watch in the first place for a very simple reason: You take something that's boring and stupid -- say, water ballet, for instance -- and you put two people together doing the same boring, stupid thing at the exact same time, and all of a sudden it's an Olympic event? What's up with that? Wasn't one person doing it boring enough?

I have a good mind to picket the Olympics until they add some new, challenging competitions like Poker Playing or Surfing.

Trump Plays The Snub Card

2004-08-14T08:51:00.000-07:00

Surely you must have heard about it and are still gloating over "The Donald's" recent pie in the face:

Trump Hotels tells Donald Trump: 'You're fired!' - Aug. 10, 2004

What galls me -- though it doesn't surprise me -- is his response, that the casino business is just one of the many companies he owns.

Excuse me? Is that in the prospectus? "We may or may not decide to get off our fat-cat butts and try to turn a profit, depending on how insignificant this business is to Mr. Trump's empire."

Pretty insensitive (and self-serving) to respond to a credibility question by making it seem like Trump Hotels really didn't matter much to him in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure investors were counting on him to do his best to make it successful.

Atlantic City real estate should be a no-brainer for Trump. Several Indian tribes out my way are having no problems serving up gambling, entertainment and comfortable rooms, AND turning a tidy profit. All you need is the real estate and someone willing build and manage the place for you. (Can you say "Harrah's"?) Not that I'm accusing Mr. Trump of mismanagement. I'm only accusing him of arrogance.

Monsoon Dreading

2004-07-12T19:27:00.000-07:00

The other morning, on the local news, one of the anchors casually commented that she could hardly wait until monsoon season arrives, knowing that with it would surely come a welcome period of cooling rain.

Well, monsoon season is here and you'd think -- by the news coverage it's getting -- that the polar ice caps were melting or a meteor was heading our way. "Monsoon 2004: Preparing Arizona" emblazoned across the TV screen like an evacuation alert, interrupting TV shows with mock urgency.

If this was India or China where a monsoon could wipe out an entire population, I'd be worried. But in Arizona, the monsoon season is just another word for double-digit humidity. A rarity, but by no means a catastrophe.

It amazes me how attitudes on the anchor desk change so drastically in just a matter of days. Well, actually, no it doesn't. I've come to expect this kind of blatant manipulation in the name of market share. But couldn't they find a more compelling topic?

Hey Mr. News Producer: Didn't anyone ever tell you that the weather is something you talk about when you've got nothing interesting to say?

If by "symbol" you mean target...?

2004-07-05T21:41:00.000-07:00

In a CNN story yesterday, New York's Governor Pataki stated "Today, we lay the cornerstone for a new symbol of this city and this country and of our resolve in the face of terror."

Do they really want to erect an even bigger target?

I'm not trying to knock the Big Apple. I was born there, not five miles from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. I watched helplessly as the North Tower burned, only to witness a second jet plane slam into the South Tower.

I was happy to hear that a magnificent memorial and park was to be erected on the spot, rather than a new skyscraper. But, of course, grander ideas took hold. And now we have the Freedom Tower.

It makes me shudder.

Not that I would wish any bad fortune on the owners of this new obelisk (-- I assume it will be Larry Silverstein, who reaped a 3.5 billion dollar insurance award for the World Trade Center catastrophe --). But would you go to work in a 1,776 foot tower that was built on the site of the World Trade Center? I wouldn't. Not for any amount of money. And I'd be surprised if Mr. Silverstein would have an office much higher than the 6th floor.

My prediction is that the Freedom Tower will suffer from low occupancy and high insurance premiums. Not just for the building, but for every single person who works in that building. Employees who are forced to relocate to the building will sue their companies for stress-related illnesses and injuries. The building will eventually become a cash drain and Silverstein (or his heirs) will run screaming to City Hall for subsidies to keep the Freedom Tower from becoming an abandoned shell.

You heard it here first, and you can quote me.

Mass Appeal

2004-07-04T19:26:00.000-07:00

I'm way behind on my scientific journal magazine reading. So I really missed the boat -- or rock -- on this one:

Asteroid Scare Prompts NASA to Formalize Response

But it made me think about when I was in college, taking a course on Astrophysics. Apparently, the instructor was also an amateur theologian of sorts. One day, he claimed that the laws of physics do not dispute the Biblical assertion that the Sun rotates around the Earth. He then proceeded to draw me a simplified diagram of the path of travel of both bodies, clearly showing that a Sun-around-Earth argument would certainly be as valid as the accepted Earth-around-Sun scenario.

To both, I say "poppycock and balderdash"!

The Earth and the Sun are entwined in a gravitational dance that keeps them weaving to and fro in a fairly consistent pattern (and lucky for us!). But because the Earth is so much smaller than the Sun, it gives the impression that one or the other is the dominant body. Sure, the Sun is bigger, but the Earth is faster!

I'd like to think that I don't have to propose an argument against the Sun rotating around the Earth. That's just silly! But for those of you Earth-bound observers who still subscribe to the Copernical view...

Picture a large man walking a tiny poodle in a wide circle. A leash tethers the poodle to the man's right side and they're walking to the left. (This would be highly irregular in some countries of the world. Don't ask me why.) The poodle scampers as quickly as his little legs can carry him while the man walks at a comfortable gait. They're clearly walking side by side, but to the casual observer, the poodle is traveling around the man.

Now picture the same scenario, only this time, they're walking around the perimeter of, say, Chicago. Is the dog still traveling around the man? For those of you who say "well, technically...", I respond "oh, give it up!"

And you can quote me on that.

Have I been "put in a box"?

2004-07-04T10:46:00.000-07:00

I just noticed that all of the Google ads that appear with my blogs have something to do with Italian restaurants. Is it because my nickname "Papa Joe" sounds like something you'd see on a pizza box?

But enough about me.

Pet-ophiles beware? Oh, bite me!

2004-07-04T10:33:00.000-07:00

Before you pet that friendly-looking pup, you had better scan him first.

USA Today reports that a new Colorado state law "requires implanting a microchip in dogs that injure someone". Such dogs also are entered into a statewide registry.

That's all well and good, but unless there's a supermarket checkout counter really close by, how the hell am I supposed to know if this dog's a repeat offender? Will he wait around while I boot up my laptop?

In the old days, all you had to do was check for foam around the mouth.

For lack of a better (expletive)

2004-07-04T10:20:00.000-07:00

In a story in today's Arizona Republic, a man is quoted as screaming "I'm going to kill you, you son of a (expletive)."

Unless I'm mistaken, "bitch" isn't an expletive, even when used in the heat of the moment. Yes, yes, I know that many words in certain contexts are deemed "objectionable" and editors have a right to show their discretion, but has it occurred to anyone that the reason some words are considered profane is because we shroud them in whispers, bleeps and parenthetics?

I, for one, would rather my child said "you son of a bitch" than "I'm going to kill you".

Cut off my nose to spite your face?

2004-07-04T10:06:00.000-07:00

A report by the Boston Consulting Group indicates that the only way for U.S. companies to survive is to move their operations offshore to "LCCs", or "low cost countries". If I left it at that, it would be enough of a forehead-slapper for me. Every time corporate America invents a new acronym, it's to disguise something that they don't want you or me to notice. But anyway, I digress...

According to the Washington Post, the report goes on to say that there's "a view among U.S. executives that the quality of American workers is deteriorating." Hmm. I see. Since we Americans are a bunch of lazy incompetents, it would be in everyone's best interest if you laid us all off and gave our jobs to more able workers in China and India. Good thinking, corporate execs! Cut the legs out from under the largest consumers of American products so that you can lower your costs and sell more stuff to...whom??

How about this idea? Let's start by trimming the ranks of upper management. After all, if I save the jobs of 100 staff workers at $50K/year by laying off one VP at $5M/year, wouldn't I be making less of an impact on the U.S. economy? We would continue to sell tons of consumer goods to the worker bees and Cartier's will sell one less piece of fine jewelry to Mr. ex-VP. It all works out.

Maybe if management did a better job of training, motivating and mobilizing U.S. workers, instead of hiding in conference rooms trying to save their own jobs, the American workforce wouldn't be in the sad state it's in. Sure, I admit we're not as productive as we could be. But that doesn't mean we can't do better. It just means that we know we're being taken advantage of, and we don't like it.

The nose is in your court.

Well, considering the alternatives...

2004-07-03T23:03:00.000-07:00

I don't mean to be callous here. Really, I don't. But I'm tired of hearing statistics like this one, which I quote from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

"...drowning remains the second most common cause of accident-related deaths for children between the ages of 1 and 14."

Okay. Here's the thing. If you were a child between the ages of 1 and 14, what's the most likely way that you might die? If you live in a house with a pool, there aren't many other more likely alternatives, now are there?

I realize that the emphasis is on pool safety but ideally, parents should take precautions to protect their children from all accidents. If, hope of all hopes, child mortality was reduced to the very minutest number, don't you think that the statistical percentage for the few remaining accidental deaths would be the same?

I'm not being a stickler. I'm just afraid that meaningless statistics like this will reduce credibility and make people apathetic to the real issue. If you're saying to yourself "aw, no one pays much attention to that stuff," then it just proves my point.