Competing Agendas

You have probably seen images of various cities where the Occupiers are brandishing signs "Sorry for the Inconvenience, We are trying to Change the World."    This is a weak attempt to diminish the rage many of the other 99% are feeling when the protests cause traffic gridlock,  making them late for work, or shut-down their workplace, or ruin their plans for a day in the city.

Don't shoot the messenger shoot the bankers!

The arrogant attitude of the Occupiers is clear:  OUR AGENDA is more important than your agenda.  If you don't want the world to be changed, then, you are wrong.  If you think it is a crime to block traffic and interfere with other people's rights, then you are the enemy.

Think about it:  this is pretty much the same rationale embraced by terrorists, who believe that THEIR AGENDA trumps your right to not be blown to smithereens just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It is only a few bus stops on the same trolly line from Occupy to Suicide-Bomber.  It is only a matter of the degree of chaos you are willing to inflict on the innocent bystander.  The mentality is the same:  We are so right that we claim the authority to override your rights. Another parallel to terrorism: The targets of the protest suffer the least, rather it is the innocent bystander who is most inconvenienced, or maimed.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not being critical of the message. Some of the points are well justified.  I just don't like the method.  We are still a free society and I don't believe that  trampling of other people's freedoms is justified by your agenda, however righteous.

On the other hand, I recognize that revolutions are messy, and I will not be surprised to see some political heads rolling.  Because terrorism has proven to be an effective way to get attention.

The Problem With Diversity

Before I forget this, I wanted to mention and article I read a few weeks ago (March 8th) in the Ideas Section of the Boston Sunday Globe on the topic of bias and diversity. The article by Drake Bennett reported that recent research studies have been unable to demonstrate that the ubiquitous diversity training programs have resulted in significant positive changes. They measured headcount and promotions at major corporations where such programs have been de rigueur for the past decade or so, and the results were, well, unexpected. They were the same as in places that did not have such programs.

I think the reason for this is simple: No one can make a compelling argument that more diversity results in a more profitable company. Or a better basketball team.

In the same section a Globe editorial cited the staffing at Wheelock College in Boston for their high "participation" rates of black and Hispanic employees. One might gather from this emphasis that the definition of "diversity effectiveness" is hiring more minorities and women into "good" jobs and paying them the same as white males.

In other words, diversity training is perceived as having pretty much the same goals as affirmative action. Many managers see affirmative action as an artificial device to lower standards to allow less qualified applicants to have hiring preference. (If you have been in conversation with a customer service agent who can barely speak English, you can appreciate how ineffective some of these program can be.)

The discussion seems to revolve around race and gender. We don't hear so much about other aspects of true diversity - age, disability, nationality? Moreover there seems to be a widening gulf between economic classes. People - especially older people - seem to be most comfortable around people who are compatible educationally and economically. I think discrimination in 2010 may have less to do with skin color than it does with social values (at least in the Northeast). People who can afford it are choosing to live in communities where The Association dictates the color of your house and the credit score - not the skin color- of your neighbors. Racial intolerance like public smoking has become unacceptable.

Political polarization has become the dominant divisive force in our culture to an extent never seen before (at least by me). In the old days, you would invite people of different views to stimulate interesting dinner conversation. Nowadays, we segregate our dinner guests by their political beliefs to avoid shouting matches and other hostilities.

I mention it because this is an area where race clearly matters less than ideology. Many on the Left decry the Tea Party rank and file as ignorant racists, partially because the membership is predominantly white. But this does not accurately describe the motivation for Tea Party activists - which is principally economic.

The Diversity movement gained its broadest acceptance during the boom years. The crisis of double digit unemployment over the past two years has probably changed the landscape. It will be interesting to see if struggling companies meet their stated diversity objectives as they rebuild their decimated workforce.

I would not be surprised to see American businesses start to move away from "diversity" as a goal, since it has no real business value, other than to assuage the guilt of those who feel that they have been the fortunate beneficiaries of a good genetic dice roll. When the central purpose of a business is profit, talent will almost always trump bias. (Note the qualification "almost always" because the Hobbesean truth is - some people are just nasty, brutish and short. )

Death Panels

Today in the Boston Globe there was a seemingly innocuous item that clearly confirms the worst fears of neocons and their brethren skinheads who protest loudly against what they call the government takeover of health care because it would enable Obama to kill your grandmother legally.

The title of the piece "Seniors largely spared of swine flu threat" reported by AP (of course) was cynically designed to allay the fears that seniors (generally defined as those age 65 and above) might feel about the threat level Orange PANDEMIC THAT IS SWEEPING THE GLOBE.

The body of the story consisted mostly of quotes from the un-informed ramblings of geezers who just wanted somebody to talk to. But if you read it carefully (as your humble scribe is wont to do) there was one statement that jumped out like a zombie in a horror flick:

"Federal guidelines call for the new H1N1 vaccine to be given first to pregnant women, those who live with or care for children 6 months or younger, health care workers, people age 6 months through 24, and people with chronic health problems or compromised immune systems. Only after shots are offered to those groups will the vaccine be available to healthy adults 64 or younger. After that, seniors, age 65 or older, would be eligible."

Despite the fact that this is badly written prose, the message is crystal clear: this is exactly the sort of health care rationing that conservatives say leads down the slippery slope to the feared Death Panels. If they can do it with flu vaccine, they can do it with knee replacements and vitally-needed medicine like Viagra.


This kind of healthcare policy, based upon scientific medical research of potential risk is obviously one of Obama's stealth weapons to kill old people and further his Socialist Agenda.