Rights?

I've gotten into all sorts of arguments, some heated some not, with all sorts of people over the years about the definition of "rights." My position is that I do not have a "right" to something that someone else has to provide for me. Everything, other than sunlight and air, has a delivery cost that must be overcome. Food, cars, air conditioning, education. Everything. Plenty of people disagree with me.

But can we agree that two seats on an airplane for the price of one isn't a right if you're fat?

Mr. Secretary - Don't Think So

I just love this picture and that's why I'm posting it. It brings back memories of a happier time for conservatives. If John Kerry can't become Secretary of State, why not make him chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He can bloviate from there. Remember, his wisdom in international relations and national security includes such gems as opposing deployment of the Pershing Missile and the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative (two of the major factors that led to the end of the Cold War), voting in favor of the nuclear freeze in the 1980s, and voting against the first Gulf War (which would have met his "global test"). Hey, all you have to do is add in splitting Iraq into three separate countries and he could have been Vice-President.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

On CNN this morning was a story about a poll testing knowledge of American history. I only caught one small part. The question was "Where does the phrase 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' come from?" The answer is The Gettysburg Address (yesterday was the 145th Anniversary of the speech, BTW). The following percentages of those who gave the correct answer won't surprise you:

Respondents: 21%

Elected officials: 23%

Then I heard the anchor say "Double that last number, 56% is how many respondents knew that Paula Abdul is a judge on American Idol." That's not a typo and she repeated it twice. "Double that last number, 56%..."

I weep for the future. Have a nice day.

Neither Rain, Nor Snow, but Not at 5:00pm

Believe it or not, the United States Postal Service has ended its 5:00pm mail pick-up at all downtown Chicago office buildings. The last pick-up of the day will be at 3:30. They claim it is for budget reasons and Presidential security now that President-elect Obama is working in Chicago.

This makes no sense for several reasons. First, if it is really for security reasons, isn't the first mail pick-up of the day just as dangerous as the last? Hey, why not stop all Loop mail pick-ups and we can all feel really safe.

Second, if it is for budget reasons, why not cancel the first pick-up of the day. How can that cost less than the last?

The Postal Service is once again proving that government run enterprises cannot be competitive. When there is no profit motive, the customer's interests don't matter (as if you needed me to point that out in relation to the Post Office). Many businesses count on a 5:00pm mail pick-up to get important items out to their clients and customers. What are they suppose to do with the work that is completed between 3:30 and 5:00? I know, use private delivery services who are more reliable anyway. Does anyone think that Federal Express or UPS will cancel their final pick-ups of the day? I don't.

A Final Thought on GM (Hopefully)

What really strikes me is how quickly the press uses correct but incomplete information to build stereotypical narratives. Republicans/conservatives want to be "tough." Democrats want to be "helpful." The use of emotive language in headlines anchors the reader to a perspective (first impressions matter, right?) that fits assumptions and preconceived beliefs. In other words, the press perpetuates mindless debate.

Clearly I don't know what goes on behind closed doors in Washington, New York and Detroit but near as I can tell our Congress is trying to structure a vulture investment but it isn't a vulture investor. Successful vulture investing requires either one, but preferably all, of three things:

1. The investee has some wildly unrecognized potential.
2. The investor has some unique managerial ability.
3. The price is so low even Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man could turn a profit.

Congress is undoubtedly powerful but it isn't organized to allocate finite resources and make profitable risk/reward decisions. It can lavish huge amounts of cheap capital on the big 2.5 and use the tax code to create the illusion of consumer affordability. Absent the pain of forced restructuring by markets how will the big 2.5 ever get to a sustainable, albeit smaller, size? This isn't an argument for letting Detroit collapse, but there must be an alternative between raging free marketism and central planning cognizant of the particular role of domestic automotive manufacturing.

Now I'm done. On to the next topic...