Finally Exposed

Anyone with an IQ above Nancy Pelosi (or John Boehner for that matter) would have come to this conclusion the first time Obama opened his mouth on his presidential campaign. In fact before that. Still, we've gotten to the point that it's become a bad joke like the uncle that does a combover and thinks he looks young and sexy. There's no use defending it, there's no use hiding the elephant in the room. No amount of camouflage can cover the incompetence that lunks in the White House, no matter how hard Obama's lackeys in the main stream media ignore it or try to paint a happy face.

The last straw as it were is the situation in Libya. Obama has built his presidency on the premise that he is not like the previous president in that he will not invade countries, preemptively. Up to this point he has kept his word, but now we find ourselves involved with Libya in a half-assed fashion. We can argue whether or not we should be in Libya, but that is not my fight here, but I will say that Qaddafi is responsible for the murder of how many Americans from the bombing in Germany and flight 103? He should have been made room temperature a long time ago, but I am digressing.

Obama numbers have been down for awhile. Not good for any politician who is coming up to an election year. In the one chance he has to be presidential, meaning decisive, commanding, confident, and successful, he falls back to his pusillanimous  nature and fails miserably. The rebels in Libya were pushing Qaddafi's forces back, winning, but couldn't hold the line for long. They asked for American intervention. Instead of acting decisively, he waited for consensus with his "European partners" of how they would procede. If history is any indicator of future actions, studying the martial habits of the wine drinking and cheese eating dilettantes should indicate whatever happens, it will be tepid, half-assed and ineffective at best. In the meantime, Qaddafi spends some gelt and buys mercenaries from Chad, Niger and  Mali. Now the rebels are pushed back by Qaddafi's refreshed forces and the rebels are on their heels. At this point, Obama gets involved, because he and his "European Partners" have come to consensus. Understand, that like a child that takes the keys to the car without his parents permission, Obama never sought congressional approval in this adventure and furthermore does not ask for forgiveness either.

So now, we are left to wonder, what gives? I think we have a few forces at work here. One, we have a feckless person in the office of president, one that probably was pushed around as a child and needs the support of others to act. This man is not a natural leader in the sense of taking control and being decisive, even with evidence and information in hand (can we say the Gulf Oil Spill?). The second part is that he doesn't like being responsible for things that go badly. I suppose who does, but true leaders, great leaders take the good with the bad, brickbats along with adulation. In all his political life, he's never been in an office long enough for accountability to catch up with him. Now that he's reached the top, there really is nowhere to hide, no one to blame. He's elected himself into a box where he cannot extricate himself into a new and higher political position. He does have the personal tools to get elected, the smile, some charisma, the reparte that seems to go over. On the other hand, he hasn't shown the skills to deliver the goods. He's feckless. Three, he doesn't believe that America is even a first among equals, let alone the preeminent country in the world. Furthermore, he believe's it is his mission, to bring us down to the level of just another socialist democracy as we have with European countries. I am not a very religious person, but hearing this passage of scripture (KJV Matthew 18:8-9) over the weekend drew some comparisons with Obama:

 ⁸Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
 ⁹And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Now, I think Obama sees capitalism and the success of America as the hand, foot or eye. His template is to reverse everything that has been done, a Mr Opposite if you will. But underlying it all, is the cleansing of the sins of the white man, of everything that has made America great. Juxtapose this template with the personality traits I have discussed, and we have what we have: The worst president in American history and while this will be unpopular but true, he is the spawn, the penultimate fruit of affirmative action. Before all the left wing malcontents throw brickbats at me, let me say that affirmative action is counter intuitive if not counter factual to the mantra of the civil rights movement and it master progenitor that fomented the possibility of affirmative action: A person should be judged by the content of his or her character, not the color of his or her skin. To put it plainly,  two wrongs have never made anything right. Now we have the product of that faulty thinking and it is the worst president extant.

So here we are, wondering, how did we get here? As with most elections, there is always a divide between right and left in this country and the deciding factor is ofter the mushy moronic masses that occupy the middle. Swayed not by ideology, but by feelings. They felt they should give Obama a chance, inaugurating a new age in American politics with the election of our first black president. Now that even the monkey with the white flag knows what a feckless mound of walking protoplasm Obama is, will this mush in the middle of moronic excellence give the mountebank in chief a second chance? As sure as Obama says he won't give up his Nobel Peace Prize for things he hadn't done yet (Rewarding forward, do you see a trend here?), he certainly won't give up the office of president without a fight. The question is, will the M&M's believe in his promise and give him a chance, even after being exposed at last as a mountebank, a feckless failure and dilettante, a product of affirmative action and marxist indoctrination? It remains to be seen. Never underestimate the idiocy of the American voter. All I hope for is that we have someone on the right that is not only good, but a slam dunk. Right now I have my doubts.

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Peter Principle? The Saturday Morning Ponderance

The definition of The Peter Principle from Wikipedia:


The Peter Principle is the principle that "In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence." It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of Hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by Peter. It holds that in ahierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity.^[1] Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence".


I have seen this at work most of my life, but getting stuck in a hierarchy is not necessarily a competence issue. We've been at jobs where the boss doesn't know what they are doing, or in other endevors where those in charge are incompetent. True enough. 


But there are factors other than job specific competencies that can lead to stagnation and lack of career movement upward or moving upward in organizations that are not work related. The Peter Principle works best in theory in old school hierarchical command and control organizations where people work there a long time. Think again when the principle was written. Again, other factors can be at play.


Culture. What if you get a job at an organization where the culture doesn't jibe with your internal beliefs? This can lead to poor performance, but is not indicative of what the individual is capable of. 


Structure. What if the structure is that of very few opportunities to move up, and on top of it, the decisions to promote to a higher position aren't solely or primarily merit based? This is part of a cultural issue, but without opportunities, there is a discreet limit to what is possible for many people. Unless you fall in the group of favored political attributes, you will never get promoted. A case in point would be where my dad worked as a civil servant as a greenskeeper for Nassau County Parks and Recreation. There were several people that worked under him, yet when they paid the republican party a sum of money, they became his boss or were promoted to a position equal or greater in another group. This is very discouraging. I have also seen where protected minority groups are given preference. White males need not apply. I could go on. These promotions were not based on rational merit and the resources to compete are not available to everyone. Talk about discrimination. 


Downsizing/available jobs. What if a person gets downsized and the only available jobs are below his or her level of competence? They may have to take the job, and this leads to my next point. Perception. The guy that takes the lower job is seen as damaged goods or at least the perception may be that that is what he or she is capable of at best. This can lead to dulling of skills, depression, and hopelessness. Climbing back up the ladder after this is paying for the same real estate twice and then we enter the next variable: Age. Having to re-navigate the same career path takes time and then if you are over 40, age discrimination creeps in. From an objective standpoint, employers look at someone over 40 differently. One, by that age, they expect a high level of accomplishment, and a progressive increase in responsibilities and achievements. For the person that gets rightsized, or has to start over for whatever reason, there is a reverse karma at work: Well, they got shit on, so they must have done something to deserve it. 


My point here is that The Peter Principle is a little thin explaining all or even most possibilities. People generally are capable of much more than they bring to their jobs, and honestly, most of their knowledge and experience is untapped by any employer and this leads to one more point which is an extension of the last paragraph. If you are doing a particular job at an organization, the perception is, that is all you are capable of doing. It's a mindset that management at many organizations have, and even if you leave a company to go to another, the perception may follow you. The key is not to get stuck shoveling the same shit against the wall too long. I will also say the larger the organization, the more opportunities that exist. My wife works for a huge bank HQ'd out of california and they have so much diversity in types of positions that are open, that advancement and opportunity is not only good, but if you take advantage of it, very possible. Working for smaller organizations, non-profits and governmental agencies are much more limiting and possibly frustrating. 


So, if you still have the fire in the belly but are in a dead end, ultimately the impetus will be on you to make some change. The comfort zone may be that you have a short commute, the hours are convenient, or you like the community. All these are legitimate factors, but is it worth your sanity? People ofter give up the kingdom for a pittance, and for such things that I would call lazy thinking. If you think I am wrong, look at the co-morbidities that I often see in such people: Obesity, Alcoholism, Spousal Abuse, Depression, Suicide, and other behaviors that lead to negative results. Our spirit capability is zero sum. We cannot take an infinite amount of cognitive dissonance and not have it affect our well being. It will rear its ugly face somewhere. 


Anyway, that is my Saturday Morning Ponderance for this week. See you next time. 


Thank you for reading this blog. 

Somehow, Less Than Presidential

In recent memory, it has been almost tradition for the president to go abroad when things are going badly domestically.

This started, at least in recent memory, with Nixon, when he had his problems with Watergate, Vietnam, etc: He went to China. Many presidents since then have done the same thing when things get sour at home.

Obama is no different. With his numbers tanking and having been in decline over the last 10 months, he does this Asia tour to make himself seem more presidential. More subterfuge from the magician.

He preaches governmental reform with freedom of speech in China, yet he wants to empower the government here to take liberties away. He bows like a coolie to the Emperor of Japan, several times, yet he expects us to bow to him. He assigns the trial of KSM to Manhattan, where the terrorist may enjoy legal protections that citizens have, in my opinion, to one, appear fair to our detractors and enemies, and two, to showcase the Bush administration in a negative light. I bet he hopes they spill the beans about gitmo, so as to get the public against something he is against and get the attention off himself.

And that is the crux of all of it: To get the negative attention off himself. Like a con man who is discovered as such, he will try to spin to gain confidence of his mark again and the mark is us. Are you buying into it?

Thank you for reading this blog.