Truth

Recent banter on facebook has me thinking about how lies are perceived in the society we live in.  The facebook exchange was regarding what a coach of a college basketball team should say when asked if they would be returning next year just as his team prepares for a big tournament.

The subject goes far beyond this example.  How many times have you heard someone say "he is a politician, they all lie."  This is usually said of a politician they support!  Or the phrase "you can tell when he is lying - his mouth moves."  The facebook conversation ended with one participant saying they were in sales, so they lie every day.  It seems that society accepts lies in certain situations. 

In the basketball team situation most coaches will say yes they will be back next season regardless of whether they know they will be.  To say no (especially heading into tournament time) would be demoralizing to the players and fans and make losing a virtual certainty.  But saying yes when they know they won't return is a lie.  To me, a lie is a lie and it is always wrong.  I feel that no answer is a better response than a lie.  I was the minority voice with this position.

But before you nominate me for sainthood, let me admit that I have and do continue to lie.  I don't lie as much as I once did, but it still happens more often than I would like.  The only difference between past lies and current ones is that I seem to recognize my current lies quicker and they weigh on my conscience more. 

So this is not a condemnation of those who I bantered with.  I am sure they are swell guys.  I do know that one is severely misguided when it comes to favorite basketball teams, but otherwise tolerable.  I am also sure the real life coach who lied about whether he is leaving the team is also a swell guy.  His record proves it.


So I have been thinking about whether there are exceptions to when it is appropriate to lie.  The coaches situation seems to be a real world example that many believe is an acceptable lie.  Other opportunities, such as "Does this dress make my butt look big?" are situations where a lie could be less hurtful than the truth.  Are these valid exceptions?

My own personal example is when one of my employees ask me if layoffs are coming.  My team has endured yearly layoffs for most of the last 12 years.  They sometimes ask me this question before making a significant purchase, or in the time leading up the customary period when most layoff occur.   My example is much like the college basketball coach's situation.  If I know they are coming and say yes, the team will stop performing and spend much of their time worrying or preparing for possible layoff. 

If I know they are coming and say no, I will lose the trust of my team once the layoffs are announced.  They will always question my honesty about everything from that point forward.  To me, that is the worse case scenario.  But it is also the correct answer according to the company I work for.  To leak that layoffs are coming would be grounds for corrective action.  So how can I balance my manager responsibility with maintaining trust with my team?

Fortunately, no one asked during the most recent layoffs, but I was concerned during the entire time that I knew one was coming.  My thought was that if someone asked, I would be evasive.  I would respond something like this:  "Periodically, the company examines their workloads and workforce and make adjustments.  If you are impacted you will be informed at the appropriate time."  It is like saying yes without saying yes.  The difference between that response and lying is that after the layoffs I still have the trust of my team.

Religion too?

I found something that will make me more nauseous than a Kentucky win over Kansas.  When I saw this I wanted to vomit.  It is deceptive and wrong in so many ways.

The most obvious lie is that free contraception is a basic right.  Obama is supposedly a constitutional professor, so he should know that rights are given by our creator and enumerated in the constitution.  So where does it even hint that free contraceptives are a basic right?

The second obvious lie is that someone is trying to deny women the use of contraceptives.  That is not what the current issue is about.  Anyone who is paying attention knows the argument is whether the White House can require religious institutions that are not comfortable with the use of contraceptives to provide them free to their employees.  There is no reason that any employee of any religious institution can use contraceptives if they so choose.  The question is whether they must be able to get them for free as part of their benefits.

The third lie is that Obama put forth a reasonable compromise.  He only played a shell game by saying the religious institution did not have to provide the free contraceptives, but the health insurance they offer their employees must.  Who is he kidding?  The religious institution pays the insurance premiums, so they pay for the contraceptives.  Obama only fooled the weak-minded.

And finally, the dangerous precedence Obama is trying to set is whether the federal government can force their will over the beliefs of any religious entity. If Obama gets away with this, what is next?  Can he then enforce changes to doctrine that he does not feel is helpful? 

Those who are not concerned by this charismatic man who has successfully expanded government into private businesses and health care, has pushed our capitalist economy to the brink of socialism, all while controlling the mainstream media, just aren't paying attention.  And now he wants to impose his will on religion.  Where is he taking this?

Progress on the Deficit?

Just remember this when you hear democrats say they are tackling the budget crisis in America.

President Obama made a promise early in his presidency, saying, “today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office. This will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay — and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

The deficit Obama inherited was $1.3 trillion.  Obama's 2013 budget projects a deficit of $1.15 trillion.  Some say that is a rosy forecast and the actual budget deficit will be far higher.  As I write this, Congress is debating extending the Social Security payroll tax through the end of 2012 and just adding the $200 billion cost to the deficit.  This not only has Obama's approval, it is his preferred way to handle the cost.  If it passes, the deficit balloons to $1.35 trillion for 2013.

Mr. president, we are not making any progress toward the most significant issue facing the country.

Preview: State of the Union 2012

The president delivers the State of the Union speech tomorrow.  Typically, the speech is the way a president can take credit for the good things that have happened during the past year, and reset the agenda for the next year.  Rarely do these speeches mean anything, or change anyone's behavior.  Every four years the speech occurs while the president and most of congress are working to get re-elected.  In these years, the speeches sound a lot like a campaign speeches.  That is what we can expect tomorrow night.

Obama will continue his shameless attempt at class warfare.  He will claim the rich do not pay their fair share, without defining what a fair share is or mentioning that the top 50% of wage-earners pay 98% of the federal income tax.  The complicit media will not call him out on it.  His democrat supporters will stand and cheer for the obvious lies. 

Am I becoming a pessimist?  I think so.  A couple of months ago, -T and I watch a Redbox movie entitled "Atlas Shrugged".  The movie is a remake of a book published in 1957, but amazingly synchronized with modern times.  The premise of the book is that successful people must be free to create, and must be rewarded for their efforts.  The "capitalist " cannot be a slave to government or society or his will to succeed will diminish.  Destruction of a profit motive through excessive taxation and regulation will ultimately convince the capitalist to "shrug", give up, or go where his value is appreciated.

On Tuesday, Obama will continue to instill reliance on the federal government through welfare, extended unemployment, food stamps and other government programs.  Many of those who now rely on those programs will support Obama because they do not see how they can survive without them.  This is exactly where Obama wants them.  He must generate the feeling of class warfare to ensure entitlement-reliant citizens will vote for him instead of the republicans who support the successful capitalists.

Atlas Shrugged ends with the successful capitalists disappearing.  The mystery is solved when it is found they are not abducted, but were merely given a chance to become successful in a world without government coercion.  They willing choose the alternative.

How close is America to seeing its best and brightest shrug?  I believe it is very close.  Entrepreneurs voluntarily move overseas or use foreign labor to avoid an over-regulating, over-taxing federal government.  An Obama second term could become the tipping point where others will simply give up and let the feds take care of them, leading to a recession/depression like hasn't been seen before.

Bizarre

This winter the weather has been nothing short of bizarre.  The good kind of bizarre.  While Midland, Texas digs out of another snowfall, KC and many cities in the north and west have recorded little to no snow.  Storm after storm have hit the southern US, while much of the rest of the nation has been warm and dry.

The only thing more bizarre than the weather has been the weathermen.  Last Wednesday evening, the KC area was brushed by a small winter storm that hit St Louis and Chicago with quite a bit of snow.  The local weathermen did not predict any significant snow accumulation for KC.  Regardless, during the 10:00 PM news, they had colleagues stationed across KC reporting on the flurries that were just beginning.

The next part I just couldn't make up.  One meteorologist was doing a live shot from the parking lot of the local station with a yard stick in his hand measuring the snowfall. The quote was "Yes, Krista, it looks like we have about a tenth of an inch of snow".  It really is getting bizarre.  In the spring we see live reports of it raining.  Now, a dusting of snow get a live shot.  Real BREAKING NEWS!

Occupy This

I have remained interested in the Occupy movement, mostly because I like to watch slow motion train wrecks.  I find the lull in activity humorous.  Obviously, winter has throttled the participation.  They want to protest, but only when it is comfortable.  They must have moved back to their parent's basement to play video games until Spring.

The movement was doomed to failure when the first doper drop out described the movement essentially as a college student welfare plan.  He wanted his student loans forgiven because large Wall Street firms were bailed out by the federal government.  It made no sense then, and still doesn't. 

I am fascinated by their requests for hand outs because their perceived greed by corporate leaders.  Doesn't that make the Occupy movement greedy?  If they covet the possession of those who have more than they, isn't that a form of greed?  They want what others have even though they haven't accomplished a thing to claim that right.  Does that make the 99% guilty of greed?  I think it does.

But as Michael Douglas said in the movie Wall Street, "Greed is good".  Good greed is what motivates us to accomplish things we can be rewarded for.  There is no reason to be ashamed of good greed.  As long as greed remains within the bounds of civility and the law, it is a force that delivers value into the marketplace.  Bad greed is the desire to acquire something undeserved.  Bad greed describes the Occupy Movement very well.

KC Chiefs 2011 and 2012

It's time to wrap up the 2011 Chiefs schedule and look forward to 2012.  Being a man of character, I will admit that I was wrong.  I had picked the Chiefs for a 4 win season.  They won 7.  Even the smart-a kid from Memphis who picked 6 wins was more accurate.  That hurts.  Not as much as his UK Wildcats squeaking by the KU Jayhawks in the college basketball opener, but it hurt nonetheless.

One tendency for the Chiefs every year is they always lose a couple games to teams they should beat, and beat a couple teams they should lose to.  2011 was no surprise in that regard, however the fact they missed the playoffs by one blocked field goal was a gigantic surprise - a fact that shows just how weak the AFC West division is.

During the first half of the season, the KC Chiefs were a dreadful team.  During this stretch they had neither an offense nor a defense.  I predicted that Matt Cassell and Todd Haley wouldn't see the end of the season and was right on both.  I expected Matt to be benched, and he might have been if not for a hand injury that ended his season early.  Todd Haley was canned with 3 games left in the season largely due to his Tyler Palko experiment.  During the second half of the season, the Chiefs showed no apparent offense, but a defense that might be developing into an exceptional one.

The emergence of Justin Houston was key to getting pressure on the quarterback, something that did not happen during the first 8 games.  Derrick Johnson also developed into one of the best linebackers in the game.  Add Tamba Hali, and you have a very good linebacking nucleus that should be strong for many years to come.  The defensive backfield was also strong despite the loss of Eric Berry.  Based on the last 4 games, the Brandons are looking like shut down corners.

Haley's departure couldn't have happened at a better time for Romeo Crennel.  Romeo immediately changed starting quarterbacks and pulled off the upset of the season when KC beat the undefeated Green Bay Packers.   Not only was this a shock to the entire NFL, it also gave hope to playoff contenders that Green Bay could be beat.  Since the game we haven't heard "best team in history" mentioned again.  Crennel appears to be the new Chiefs head coach, based on a 2-1 record to end the season.  He was very close to 3-0 as the Chiefs should have beaten Oakland in game 15.

So how will a Crennel-led team fare in 2012?   I am optimistic.  The harshest schedule in franchise history is behind us, and the 2012 schedule looks fair, almost easy in comparison.  At home the Chiefs will face 4 playoff teams in their 8 opponents; Denver, Oakland, San Diego, Atlanta, Baltimore, Carolina, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis.  They will do no worse than 4 wins and could win 6 at home in 2012.  Away they play Denver, Oakland, San Diego, Buffalo, Cleveland, New Orleans, Pittsburgh, and Tampa Bay.  I see the Chiefs winning at least 4 and possibly 5 on the road next year.  That would put them in the 8-8 to 11-5 range.  Remember that 8 wins was good enough in the AFC West this year, so the Chiefs have a legitimate shot at the division title next year.