Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Poor little snowflakes

our society is not doing a very good job of raising our children. Now this is a complicated issue that I'm going to blame parents not necessarily for doing the wrong thing in their day to day lives in raising their kids but allowing the government and especially our schools to not only indoctrinate our children but to raise a generation, probably multiple generations, of children who are afraid to do anything because they might get hurt: whether that be physically or emotionally.

Gold Ridge elementary school in Folsom, California is just the latest in a very long string of schools that is molly coddling our children. The school's principal sent home a letter recently telling parents that children will no longer be allowed to play tag on school time or property. So when recess comes around any child being caught playing tag will be disciplined; I'm sure that discipline will escalate each subsequent time a child is caught playing this dangerous game. And that's exactly the reason for them banning the game of tag from school grounds. It's too dangerous and children get hurt.

This comes not too long after the same school band touch football because, once again, children could get hurt. It's a dangerous dangerous game that could result not only in physical harm to children but if there are children who are not as physically gifted as others they can suffer emotional trauma as well. Maybe it's because they are getting picked last or maybe it's because they aren't given the football to run or throw or catch. What? Do they not have safe spaces?

So now what we are telling kids is that they should go back to their cell phones and play video games, text their friends, or search for Pokémon. What happened to the way we were raised? Is it any wonder that kids today are physically inept and more sickly than they used to be? Teachers used to tell us to go rub some dirt on it and get back in there. Sometimes it was a significant injury and they took us to the nurse but nobody freaked out over it by telling everyone else that you cannot play because one little snowflake got hurt.

I remember a time in elementary school, I think I was in the fourth grade and our outdoor basketball courts were built on a slope. That meant that one and had to be built up about 2 1/2 to 3 feet in order to make it level. One day I ran to Harvard and as I was about to fall off the raised and, I grabbed the pole that held the backboard it spun me around and as I fell I scratched my stomach from the belt line all the way up my chest. It was a nice scrape but there was really no bleeding. I do remember kind of losing my breath. The teacher on duty at the time came over pulled up my shirt saw that it was no big deal and told me to go back to playing basketball. When I got home I showed my mom and she had no problem with how it was handled. I'm sure many of you had similar situations that were dealt with the same way and guess what the world did not end.


Monday Morning Funnies – Upset liberal parents edition

liberal parents seem to take a lot more pride in how they raise their children as opposed to conservative parents. This certainly does not mean that conservative parents don't care about their children, quite the contrary, I think we raise more well-rounded children and children that are better prepared to deal with a life and become productive members of society. But liberal parents, like so many other things in their lives, are much more vocal about how they raise their children and seem to brag about little things more than anybody else. So I was interested in this story that was related to me by an acquaintance. I think it is typical of liberal parenting and the indoctrination they put their kids through.

This gentleman is a conservative and was outside one evening this past week when his neighbors, who are Uber liberals, want to buy with their young daughter, who is probably around eight years old. Apparently the conversation turned to a recent career fair at her school and this gentleman asked the young girl what she would like to be when she grew up. The girl replied, "I want to be president of the United States". The gentleman replied that that was very laudable and asked what she would do if she were president. The girl replied, "I would give all the homeless people some money and a house so they wouldn't have to be poor and homeless anymore." Of course the liberal parents beamed with pride at their daughters plans knowing that they had raised her "right".

My acquaintance told her that she did not have to wait and should tell she was president to begin working on her goal of curing homelessness. The girl wondered how she could begin now. The gentleman said you can come over and mow my lawn, pull some weeds and trim the hedges every week and I would give you $50, then you can take that $50 down and give it to a homeless person so they can buy some food and other things. The girls hundred this for a moment and said well, why doesn't the homeless person come work for you and you give them the $50 directly? My friend responded, "welcome to the Republican Party." The liberal parents were very upset and haven't spoken to my acquaintance since then. I'm sure that young lady is being told what a mean person he is and how homeless people cannot be expected to fend for themselves.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Rotary Int. Says “No guns” to local clubs

I have long held a positive opinion of the service club, Rotary international. While I have not been a member, over the years I have been asked to speak to several local clubs and have participated in many fundraisers sponsored by Rotary. Given the recent proclamation by the governing body regarding guns and gun shows or similar events, I will be rethinking my future support of this organization.

The international ruling body for Rotary promulgated new regulations for their 35,000 clubs and 1.2 million members prohibiting them from partnering with or cobranding with or accepting sponsorships from gun companies. Further they warned all local clubs against hosting gun shows, gun sporting events, hunts, or gun raffles. All of these types of events have been big fundraisers for many of the member organizations.

“The RI Board would not take kindly upon knowing that Rotary clubs are sponsoring or hosting gun and knife shows or that the clubs are hosting or sponsoring shooting tournaments and hunts. We would appreciate your assistance in passing on this information to the clubs in your areas and, if you would, ask any clubs that may already be sponsoring or hosting gun/knife shows, shooting tournaments and/or hunts to cease such activity,” read one notice.

it seems that the Rotary international board has decided that guns are the cause of violence not only in America but around the world. To be associated with guns in any way shape or form they feel hurts their brand and their image and promotes violence. Now a number of clubs protested the decision and the board has said they will review their stance in the near future. In the interim clubs are allowed to continue with any plan activities or sponsorships that were banned by the order. However, to me the fact that they would consider this given how much money they raise through these activities and how many of their members are peaceful gun owning Americans, tells me that maybe Rotary is being run by people who have philosophical differences with the fundamental rights outlined in our Constitution. It makes you wonder to some extent who they are supporting with their humanitarian efforts in other areas of the world.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Do you know Leland Yee edition

many of you will not remember the name of the US Congressman, a Republican, but many of you will remember his story. I believe he represented the state of Minnesota but I'm not entirely sure. But he was shamed and forced to resign from his office after allegedly soliciting a gay prostitute in an airport bathroom by tapping his foot. There was never any evidence that he actually solicited prostitution and it was never said that he had met with a prostitute. But you will recall that it was all over the news. How many of you know former California State Sen. Leland Yee? Probably not many of you. Yee is in the news this week after being sentenced to prison for violating a number of laws.

Leland has been a fixture in Democratic politics in California since the late 80s. He started out on various boards for the city of San Francisco before rising through the ranks, becoming a state representative and eventually a State Senator. He was your typical Californian liberal Democrat championing various causes such as gun-control, sanctuary cities, environmental issues, and so on. In fact he was at the forefront of trying to ban guns in California. He was also considered to be something of an outsider in that he was not part of the politically corrupt machine that typifies Democrat politics in California. He was getting ready to run for statewide office and had a good chance of succeeding. He likely would have been a future candidate for governor of the state of California.

However in March 2014 federal investigators in the Department of Justice arrested him and charged him with a number of crimes. Keith Jackson, 51, a close associate of Yee was also arrested. The FBI had been investigating organized crime in San Francisco and found a connection between Mr. Yee, Mr. Jackson, and Raymond "shrimp boy" Chow, a notorious gang leader in Chinatown.

As it turns out Mr. Jackson facilitated contact between Raymond and his associates for Leland. Leland would then perform certain political favors in exchange for large campaign donations. He would make a number of calls to help out these associates with legislation or even contracts with state agencies, some of which were dummy contracts set up by the FBI to see whether or not Leland was really participating in a pay for play type scheme or influence peddling.

But the most damning allegation came when Leland facilitated the purchase and importation of illegal weapons into California for distribution to gang members. An undercover agent contacted Leland who said he could purchase guns from the Philippines. After receiving money he conducted the deal and also received campaign contributions for his future political aspirations. Given that Mr. Yee was such a gun control advocate the judge found that his crimes were particularly heinous.

After initially denying culpability, Mr. Yee saw the evidence against him and pled guilty to a number of counts. He was sentenced to five years in prison. But I would bet that most of you have heard nothing or very little about a Democrat politician from the great state of California being found guilty of corruption, influence peddling, and illegal arms smuggling. While not surprising that this story has not been picked up and blared across all of the national media outlets it is still disappointing to see real news being ignored while misleading stories, especially about our president, are being put out hourly by the same media outlets. Is it any wonder that more people are ignoring the traditional mainstream media outlets?


This is where we are going as a nation… if we don’t stop it

Donald Trump was elected and the Democrats lost so many seats at the national, state, and local levels because American citizens are tired of the direction our political elite on both sides of the aisle have been taking us. Now let me say that this direction has been driven by the Democrats at the national level with help of the liberals in the media and academia. The Republicans at the national level have gone along with what the Democrats want because so often the Democrats a better than the ones in charge. They have abrogated their duty to stand up for their principles and work against programs that they believed would hurt America in the long run. That said primarily because we have let the liberals run our education system at all levels we have become a nation that does not represent the principles upon which we were founded.

Over the weekend I was listening to a program on ESPN radio entitled The Morning Roast. It is a relatively new program on Sunday mornings and I'm not entirely sure who the hosts of the program are as I have not listened very often. But as I was driving to the tennis court on Sunday morning I was listening to their discussion about Jamies Winston's speech to a group of middle school kids. Winston is the quarterback for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and is no stranger to controversy related to his actions, especially while in college. He has really matured after getting into the NFL but during his speech to the middle school kids he said some things that had the liberals open arms. Most of the controversy centers around Winston's comments about how kids should act, including saying something to the effect that women should be essentially demure. A lot of women and liberals took that to mean that they should be seen and not heard or that they should be in the background, at home baking cookies and having kids. I have heard part of the comments and I did not take it that way but of course the liberals will jump all over anything they can to create outrage.

But the hosts of this particular show took it in a different direction. The just of Winston speech to these kids is that you can be anything you want to be in America if you get an education and work hard. Isn't that the message that we as a country have tried to spread throughout our history? Don't we have so many examples of people achieving success after coming to this country? We have so many examples of children who have exceeded the success that their parents had because they work hard because they got an education. Doesn't mean that everyone is successful? Of course not. But in America you have the opportunity to try. But apparently this offended the hosts in the guest on The Morning Roast.

The people on this morning show said that it's not true; you cannot be whatever you want to be in America. The guest is a former NFL football player. He said that during his career he gave a similar presentation to a group of middle school kids. One boy came up to him and this gentleman asked the young man what he wanted to be when he grew up. The young boy said, "I want to play in the NFL." this gentleman said that it was clear to him there was no way this young boy was ever going to play any sport professionally much less football. He said the boy was undersized, appeared to be uncoordinated and did not exhibit any of the physical characteristics that you would see in a professional athlete. The hosts agreed that it was unkind to tell this young boy to work and try and achieve his dream. They opined that it would be better to tell him not to work hard at being a professional athlete but to find something else.

In fact to tell anyone in this country that they can be anything they want is mean and can cause permanent emotional damage. First of all not everyone can achieve the goal that they have set for themselves and secondly they inferred that we are a bigoted country who will keep certain minority groups from achieving success in their chosen areas of endeavor. So instead of telling children that they can be whatever they want to be, instead of telling them about the importance of education is a strong foundation for achieving their goals, these three people said that it would be more important and more constructive to tell these children to be nice people. Especially when it comes to how they treat women. In fact the female host said that the message should be to elevate women, put them first and if you're competing with women when not consider letting them achieve their goal first. The male cohost and guest agreed with her to a large extent.

what is wrong with telling people that they can achieve anything if they work hard and get an education. We also teach them at the same time how to deal with failure or how to adapt when things aren't going the way they want them to. How many times have we seen the story of a successful athlete who was not quite so successful as a youngster. Remember Michael Jordan was cut from his junior high basketball team. According to these hosts Michael Jordan should have been discouraged from continuing to pursue his dream of playing basketball in college and the NBA. He should have been told to do something else. Maybe George Washington Carver should have been told that he could not pursue a career in science because of the color of his skin and the atmosphere in the South at the time. Marie Curie should have been told the same thing.

Can you imagine what our world would be like if all of the people who overcame significant obstacles to achieve their dreams were not there as examples for the rest of us? Can you imagine what this world would have been like without all of the successes that Carver and Curie had? how many people in each of your lives do you know that have overcome obstacles to achieve some level of success? Think about the first person in your family's to attend college or to buy their first house. We have to dream bid we have to work hard to try and achieve what we want to achieve no matter how difficult it may seem at the time. We do not move forward as individuals or a society without this attitude.

But to the liberals not only is it mean to tell people who might not succeed to continue trying but they also think that we shouldn't have people who are more successful than others no matter what the endeavor. Liberals look at people and see what they can't do and worry more about their feelings. Conservatives look at people and see what they can achieve and want to teach them how to deal with adversity. We want to encourage them to pursue their dreams even if it may be unlikely. That is one of the fundamental differences between conservatism and liberalism. If the liberals had created this country we would never have achieved all that this country has become. Yes we have warts in our history and yes we have to strive to be better as a society but we are still the greatest country that has ever lived on the face of this earth. The liberals over the last four years are trying to take us backwards and unfortunately there are way too many examples of where they have succeeded.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Why? Just why?

I was reading an article about the Niagara Falls. The gist of the article is that the water is eroding the falls, which will eventually become rapids. Now, probably not in our life times but in a generation or two, it could happen. Sounds to me like nature is doing what nature does. But government agencies on both sides of the border are taking a look at how they can stop the erosion to preserve the falls. Why? I'm confused, but then again, it's liberals running the show.

Why are they trying to save Niagara Falls? Is there an environmental reason for doing so? Is there a Snail Darter that would die if the falls disappeared? Maybe a habitat for a rare frog that's only found at the base of the falls. I don't think so. It appears to me that the efforts to save the falls is solely because they want people to be able to come and view the wonder of Niagara Falls. Why would that be? Do they make a lot of money off of park fees and taxes collected from businesses that make their living off of the tourists coming to see the falls? What is one of the undeniable truths of life? Follow the money. I'm betting that's the case here.

But isn't that in direct conflict with what the environmental leftists are doing elsewhere in our country? Of course it is. Think about our own national forest right here in SW New Mexico. The people in charge of the wilderness have decided that we humans are destroying the forest by visiting nature, so they've closed many roads and trails to public access. It's hard to keep up with all the rules but in some places where they allowed roads to remain open, they put in rules that said you cannot drive or park off of the established road or trail. So if you want to get out and hike and there isn't a parking area, you park on the road blocking access for everyone else.

I've even seen cease and desist orders telling private groups, such as hiking or trail riding groups (horses not machines) that they cannot voluntarily maintain trails; clearing trees, rocks or repairing damage done by rain or flowing water. Can't interfere with nature now can we? Except that the Forest Service does all the time, putting out naturally started fires and not allowing grazing or limited logging activities that have been shown to improve the health of the forest. So essentially they are keeping us out in order to let nature run its course without interference from humans; or limited interference at best.

And why? Because we are told that there isn't enough money being collected in the form of usage fees or taxes from ancillary businesses to be able to maintain the forest or facilities. So there you go, follow the money or lack thereof. Shouldn't they be spending money to maintain access to the forest for those of us that own it? The American people would be 'us'.


Liberal Hypocrisy – George Clooney edition

George Clooney is one heck of an actor; that doesn't mean that he's super smart, super knowledgeable, or that he's more insightful or aware of world events than anyone else. He's just a very successful actor. But that doesn't stop him from expressing his opinion on a number of topics, especially political or world events. Don't get me wrong, he has every right to do so and should; good for him. But isn't it amazing how so many leftists hang on his every word (or many celebrities for that matter)? Despite hating the rich in general, leftists adore celebrities despite many of them being super rich.

Clooney and his wife, Amal, have been very critical of President Trump's attempt to place a temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries identified by the Obama administration as supporting terrorism against the United States. It doesn't seem to matter that Amal is a human rights lawyer and can easily read the law and should know that any president has the right and obligation to do what Trump did. But they've called Trump racist for trying to institute a temporary halt to immigration; just like every other uninformed or lying liberal.

But now it seems that the Clooney duo may be having a change of heart. Amal is pregnant with twins. She and George have regularly traveled to some of the countries on the list, Iraq and The Sudan for example. Amal has traveled to those locations in the course of her work and George in his humanitarian efforts. Both of them should be lauded for that work and their willingness to go to those countries. But now that she's pregnant, they don't think it's a good idea for her to travel 'dangerous countries' and put their future children in harm's way. Sounds like a good decision to me but why the change in opinion? Maybe because it's their future family that's in danger and not our families? Maybe it hits close to home now?

That's usually what liberals practice; it's OK to bring potentially dangerous people into our neighborhoods and put our children at risk but never, ever put themselves or their families at risk. And I wonder, do they support the Planned Parenthood view (aka the liberal view) of unborn children? That until the child is born, it's not a viable human being with rights? If so, then what are they worried about? If Amal is attacked and they lose the unborn babies, what's the big deal, these weren't 'viable' human beings according to the leftist view.

Now of course, not everyone in those countries is a bad person intent upon harming Westerners in general or the Clooney's in particular but why take the chance? They don't have an ability to screen out people who might want to do them harm so why take a chance by putting themselves in a dangerous situation? Kind of the same thing that we want to do for our families...


Liberals just don’t learn

I was in a local establishment earlier this week having an adult beverage. A chair away from me two people were having a conversation about the threatening stance that America has taken against countries and groups around the world since Donald Trump has become president. These gentlemen opined that we have taken a very threatening stance with Pres. Trump saying that we will wipe out terrorist groups like Isis and that we will not help countries that provide them with support; also that we have threatened Iran because they have, as a gentleman put it in quotation marks, violated glorious leader's agreement with them. The general tone of their conversation was that both men did not like the position that America is taking against our enemies.

I would that that if I followed these men out and looked at the vehicles they drove I would see at least one of them sporting a bumper sticker that said "war is not the answer". Doesn't that depend upon what the question is? I would bet that if I said what is the one thing that you never want America to enter into with another country to this person, their response or answer would be "war". So war is the answer if you ask the right question.

Back to the point that these gentlemen were making, that being that we cannot threaten military action against anyone because that never solves the problem. I really showed a tremendous amount of self-restraint not asking them about Nazi Germany or Japan. Clearly the use of military force solved the problem that was created by the aggression of those two countries. I would like to have also pointed out that just about every country we have defeated in a war is now our ally. Even though they started the war and we finished it we help to rebuild their country and their economy. We have provided military security for many of those country since World War II. Certainly the threat of military action against them did not deter their aggressive behavior in Europe and the Pacific theater but when we actually follow through with the use of military force, their aggression stopped.

Let's also not forget that we threatened Cuba and Russia with military action should Russia continue to put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. Because in the past we had followed through with our promised threat of using military force Russia backed off and a potential nuclear war was averted. Now of course I'm sure that these gentlemen would have been offended by my pointing out of history and probably would have some lame argument against my facts.

My other question for you liberals who believe that we are taking too much of an aggressive stance against terrorism and countries that want to do us harm is this: why does anyone take advantage of someone else? Whether that be an individual against an individual or a country against a country or anything in between. Certainly the aggressor believes that they have something to gain by intimidating the other person or country. But the real reason they choose to be aggressive towards that other entity is because they believe that entity to be inferior to them in some way. Whatever it is that person or country has that the aggressor wants, the aggressor believes they can get it by intimidation, by threats, or by action. You do not see a bully, whether it's a person or a country, picking on someone that they perceived to be their equal or their better.

I wonder why it is so hard for liberals to understand that? They use fear all the time to gain an advantage over their political opponents. They tell minorities of all types that conservatives want to enslave them or keep them in poverty or infringe upon their rights. Whenever they are speaking out about political topics more often than not they are talking about how bad a conservative plan would be for the "little guy". Rarely do they talk about their plans or their policies that would ostensibly help the average American. They use the ignorance of the average voter to their advantage. They also know that most conservatives will not speak up and call them on their BS. Because of the conservative stands up to a liberal they called a bigot or a racist and even if it may be the furthest thing from the truth, once a person has been labeled a racist by the left they will always be considered a racist by some.

The simple fact is this, we must not only promise to use military force or other strong actions to defeat our enemies, which means stopping them from engaging in behavior that is detrimental or threatening to us, but we must be prepared to use it. Throughout history you can find a number of examples of an aggressor taking advantage of the weaker party and a strong response stopping aggression. It is one of the undeniable truths of life.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

So you’re butt hurt about the temporary ban on immigration from certain countries…

I was not paying much attention over the weekend but understand that after Pres. Trump signed an order halting immigration from certain countries, the liberals went berserk once again. I guess there have been protests at airports, I've seen Facebook posts, and hurt a little bit on the radio over the weekend about the opinions of those who oppose Pres. Trump's actions. Once again, the left is using tactics that are tantamount to lying but are designed to create fear in the low information voter and get them to support the liberals agenda even though they probably wouldn't agree with it if they knew all the facts. It is also been another glaring example of the liberals hypocrisy and how they don't support principles but they support people with out thinking about what those people really stand for or want to accomplish.

So let's get a few facts straight; in 2011 or 2012 Pres. Obama received a recommendation from the Central intelligence agency regarding unfettered immigration from Syria and a couple of other Middle Eastern countries. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said it was an absolute certainty that terrorists were being allowed in along with legitimate refugees. Pres. Obama ordered the State Department to suspend all immigration from those countries for a period of six months. That was done and while there were some actions taken to try and screen future refugees, it certainly did not meet the standard recommended by the CIA and others. At the time that Obama instituted this temporary ban, there were no calls of racism or bigotry because of his actions. The left did not say a word about how many people would be left in those war-torn and terrorist areas and would probably die because they would not be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Yet when Pres. Trump does the same thing for a much shorter period of time and with a much shorter list of countries, the left calls him all of those names and more.

We have also heard the comparisons of Pres. Trump's policy to the Holocaust. The left wing nut jobs claim that what Pres. Trump is doing is tantamount to creating camps similar to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps Nazi Germany used to control Jews and other undesirables, ultimately putting them to death. They make comparisons as to how Hitler created fear among the population in Germany creating the circumstances that allowed him to build these concentration camps and carry out his plan. What I don't hear from Pres. Trump is the same rhetoric as to how anyone is subhuman, the cause of all problems in the world, or any of the other descriptions that Adolf Hitler used when talking about Jews and other undesirables. In fact, Trump has said specifically that it is not all citizens of Islamic countries or all Muslims in America. And let me ask you this, where is he building these camps? I haven't seen any construction and I'm certain that the media would be all over it if it was there. And where are the squads of jackbooted thugs running rampant in our neighborhoods grabbing people who are Islamic or even look Islamic? Where are the calls to create registrations and require members of the Islam religion to register with the federal government or any other entity for that matter? It isn't happening.

We have seen terrorist attacks carried out in this and other countries by people who have pretended to be refugees and have utilized the systems put in place to enter a foreign country and commit atrocities. Doesn't it make sense to try and screen out as many people that might be threats to our children, to our loved ones, to our fellow citizens? No system is perfect and we will not be able to keep all of the bad people out but the harder we make it for them to get in the less likely it is that we will have more terrorist attacks on our soil. Just look at what is happening in Germany, Sweden, Greece and other European countries that allowed tens of thousands of refugees in without any sort of screening. They are regretting that action and are taking more severe steps to rectify the problems that resulted then we would as a country. Yet, once again the left wing is silent because the majority of governments in those countries are socialist and far be it for a liberal to criticize a socialist government for anything.

But let me ask you this, how many of you own property that you rent to others? Are you a landlord of anyway or have you ever rented from someone? If your landlord and you want to rent your home or apartment or whatever it may be, you put an ad in the paper or advertised in some way. When someone answers the ad do you just give them the keys and say the rent is $600 a month due on the first have a good time? Or do you ask them to fill out an application and check their references or rental history? Of course you do and if you have been a tenant you know you have to fill out an application giving the potential landlord some information that helps them verify you will be a good tenant, that is you'll pay the rent on time and will destroy their property.

And let's take it a little closer to home. How many of you have locks on the exterior doors to your home or apartment? How many of you have burglar alarms or other security systems to help protect your property and your loved ones? Why do you have those? Why aren't you letting just anyone who wants to come into your home enter and do whatever they like. Certainly if you had that type of open invitation you would get people who would come in and sit down and watch TV and not do any harm to you, your family, or your property. But there would be people who would come in and harm you or still your stuff. They would abuse your generosity. And when you invite guests to come to your home you expect them to behave in a certain manner that is acceptable to you. Maybe you don't want them to drink and get rowdy or to do drugs in your home. Maybe you want them to be respectful of your personal beliefs as well as your property. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But you see these are the same exact things we are trying to do with our immigration policy. We are just trying to make sure, as sure as we possibly can within reason, that the people we are inviting into our country will not do us harm and will assimilate to our core values and expectations of behavior in our society. You don't do that by just opening the door and letting everyone in that wants to come in.

Pres. Trump span on immigration from specific countries is limited to those that are known to have the highest concentration of terrorist groups and are the most active in trying to send terrorists to other countries. I believe the band lists nine total countries but does not list 46 other countries whose societies and government are based upon Islamic religion. Yet to listen to them liberal media and the protesters, you might believe that he is banned all Muslims from entering this country. That is absolutely untrue. But hey, what's a liberal to do these days when they aren't in control? They will scream and cry loudly.


What did you think was going to happen?

I just don't know how many times we are going to have to tell liberals they don't understand economics or business before they will begin to listen. This whole living minimum wage debate or demand is asinine. We have seen it implemented in California, Seattle and Tacoma, Santa Fe, and several other places. Every time it has been implemented it has hurt the people it was designed to help. Whether those people lost their jobs or had their hours cut back or the things they have to buy got more expensive, it happened. Yet the left wing continues to call for increased wages for entry-level and low skilled workers.

Many of us have also warned the left that at some point it will become more cost-effective to replace human beings in those positions with machines. McDonald's is going to launch a vending machine that will dispense the big Mac. The automated cheeseburger machine will offer three sizes: traditional, the Mac Junior, and the grand Mac. For a short period of time, to introduce the concept, the sandwiches will be free. The concept is that the machine is loaded with the ingredients and puts the sandwich together when a person orders. Now you don't need a cook and a clerk but you just need someone to load the machine. At least one position is eliminated.

Wendy's announced that they are installing self serving kiosks in a large number of its locations this year. That will replace cashiers and some of the other kitchen help with computers and automated machines because it is now less expensive than hiring real people.

McDonald's in Europe are already installing the first of 7000 touch screen cashiers that will be installed in almost every restaurant in Europe. The president of McDonald's Europe, Steve Easterbrook, said not only is the expense ratio better but the average interaction between the customer and "clerk" is reduced significantly. This is not only more efficient but in today's immediate gratification world, the customer is happier as well.

21-year-old Joe Surkitz, a college student in London, said that he is trying to work his way through college and had applied at McDonald's for a part-time job. Now there are fewer positions available for human beings and it's likely you won't get the job he needs.

If liberals understood business and economics they would get the idea that at some point the cost of hiring human labor exceeds that of the automated machines. Machines tend to make fewer mistakes, tend to call in sick less often, and are much more efficient. But entry-level jobs that are often paid lower wages can give human beings experience that allows them to advance in their careers and get other higher-paying jobs. You might say that someone will have to build and/or fix those machines but if the people in Europe have their way it will be robots doing that job also. And even if humans can do it at a reasonable price, that means that someone will have to get specialized training before they can be hired.

And quite simply very few people remain at the low end of the minimum wage scale and for a few months because they now have been trained and have more valuable skills for the employer. Often after a probationary period people get a raise. It's not much but it is the first step of increasing their income.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments