Louis R. Avallone

Category: Columns

  • Basic American Values

    Basic American Values

    By now, you know that Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise was wounded, along with two Capitol Police officers, a congressional staffer, and a lobbyist, after a shooter opened fire at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia. The shooter’s motive is thought to be related to his expressed grievances online about President Donald Trump and Republicans. Our prayers continue for a speedy recovery of all that were injured during the shooting.

    Unfortunately, this has all tragically happened before, though.

    You know – a member of Congress being shot.

    Remember in 2011, there was Rep. Gabby Giffords, who was shot in the head during a shooting rampage at a public event outside a grocery store in Tucson. Six people were killed, and 13 wounded, including Giffords.

    In 1968, New York Senator Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed by Sirhan Sirhan in Los Angeles, moments after declaring victory in the California Democratic presidential primary. Five other people were injured in the shooting.

    Then there was Louisiana Senator Huey Long in 1935, who died in Baton Rouge after being shot in the Louisiana state Capitol, allegedly by Dr. Carl Weiss.

    These are all isolated examples, in the long history of the world, that acts of violence will always be with us, however random or nonsensical they may seem. Violence, actually, is an expression of the need for survival in all living things.

    Perhaps liberals feel their existence is being threatened into extinction after last year’s elections.

    Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton’s former running mate Tim Kaine called for Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.” Or that the New York Times is currently sponsoring a play that features the assassination of President Trump. Perhaps the “need for survival” is why former CNN host Kathy Griffin posed for an ISIS-inspired photo holding Trump’s decapitated head.

    But is violence the only way to survive? For some, it obviously is.

    Is that why Madonna told the Women’s March on Washington, the day after the inauguration in January, that she fantasized about blowing up the White House. Is survival the reason that Snoop Dogg references assassinating President Trump in music video?

    If so, then this may explain why so many of our fellow Americans tweeted thousands of messages like this one, after the shootings: “Will the @SenateGOP reflect on today’s shooting and invite the Dems into the political process that’ll shape our healthcare system? Doubt it.”

    Others justified the shooting by tweeting, “The shooting today today is horrible but what the GOP is trying to do to Americans with health care is also horrible.”

    So if violence has always been with us, and will always be with us, why does violence feel so much more likely to happen today, in places where we least expect it, for doing nothing more than expressing our opinion on the issues? Whether it’s a bumper sticker on your car, or wearing a t-shirt, or sticking a campaign sign in your yard?

    Maybe it’s because our basic American values now seem so diluted in our culture. There seems to be less empathy and optimism, and more uncertainty and indecisiveness.

    There’s less congruency between how we want others to see us, with how we actually are. Our faith in God has declined, and there’s less a sense of community, or belonging, than ever before.

    There’s an interesting study that looked into the shift of our basic American values. The study analyzed the values expressed on the most popular television shows, from 1967 to 2007, namely: Andy Griffith, The Lucy Show, Laverne and Shirley, Happy Days; Growing Pains, Alf, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Boy Meets World, American Idol, and Hannah Montana.

    For these television shows, the most expressed values were community feeling, benevolence, tradition, and popularity. The least expressed values included fame, physical fitness, and financial success.

    In the last decade, though, those values expressed have flipped – from top to bottom. The new top values expressed include: fame, achievement, popularity, and financial success (with self-centered, attention getting, comparison to others, and power, all following close behind). It seems we’ve become more narcissistic than ever before.

    So, is this why the recent shootings feel like so different? Like it may be a sign of things to come – unless we can return to the basic American values that made America great?

    If being self-centered or attention-getting are the values that are growing in our country, then such acts of violence will surely continue, and the number of Americans justifying such horrific crimes will only grow, as well. Too many people place blame on others today – but not themselves – for everything that isn’t right in their life, whether it’s shooting at a police officer, or blocking city streets in protest, or setting a neighborhood on fire and looting.

    Have we become so enamored with ourselves, or self-absorbed in what we think, that common sense and decency has evaporated? And that lying, cheating, or hurting others doesn’t seems so out of place, as long as the ends justify the means?

    Well, call me old-fashioned, but maybe it’s time to turn Laverne and Shirley back on.

  • Nessie

    Nessie

    The so-called Russia-Trump problem is a lot like the Loch Ness monster. People have been talking about “Nessie” for what seems like forever (actually the legend dates back 1,500 years) and every so often someone claims to have evidence that it exists. But it’s always a fuzzy photo of a hump, or two humps, protruding above the surface of the water, like the hull of an overturned boat.

    Sometimes the photo evidence of Nessie actually turns out to be a broken-off tree branch floating in the water, casting a shadow just beneath the water’s cloudy surface, of a strange, swimming, elephant-like beast, with flippers instead of feet.

    So many people want to believe the Loch Ness monster is real, but there’s no serious reason to think it is. Since the first photograph of Nessie in 1933, the scientific community has never confirmed the Loch Ness monster’s existence.

    But that doesn’t keep the media, or millions of people from continuing to speculate about it.

    They ignore the dying confession of the photographer’s step-son who admitted that the 1933 photograph of Nessie was actually a hoax, staged by grafting a head and neck onto a toy submarine.

    They forget that this lake, in the Scottish Highlands, was sealed off from the ocean at the end of the last Ice Age (at least 10,000 years ago) and that a lone Nessie could not possibly have survived for thousands of years, especially without breeding.

    And they ignore the sonar and submersible technology today that would readily reveal such monsters in the lake, if they existed, for anyone really interested in knowing the truth.

    Instead, more than one million people, every year, make the pilgrimage to Loch Ness and the surrounding area, impacting the local economy by over $32 million. And all without there being any evidence of Nessie, at all. With all of the evidence to the contrary, “Why are people still searching for the Loch Ness monster?”

    In a very similar way, and with all of the evidence to the contrary, Why are we still searching for a Russia-Trump connection?”

    I mean nevermind that former CIA Director John Brennan has said that the Russians did not hack, or otherwise mess with vote tallies on Election Night. Pay no attention that former National Security Director James Clapper testified that he “saw no direct evidence of political collusion between the…Trump campaign and the Russians.”

    Forget that House Minority Whip (and Democrat) Steny Hoyer says, “We don’t yet have hard evidence,” about the Russian collusion allegations, despite months of investigations. Tune out that Sen. Dianne Feinstein has said (more than once) that there’s zero evidence. Ignore that Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have admitted they have not found any evidence of collusion. Disregard that the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee has also said there was no definitive proof.

    With all of that said, Democrats and the media continue dispensing the folklore of some collusion between Russia and Trump, just like the legend of Nessie. But why do they do that? Is it just political, or sport? Or it something more?

    Turns out, it’s something more.

    Whether it’s this Russian collusion connection or the Loch Ness monster, our brains want to search for something to substantiate our beliefs. Psychologists call it “confirmation bias,” which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing.” Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees.” I call it “denial,” and as the saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    “Many people quite simply just want to believe,” said Brian Cronk, a professor of psychology at Missouri Western State University. “The human brain is always trying to determine why things happen, and when the reason is not clear, we tend to make up some pretty bizarre explanations.”

    And just like millions are still looking for a way to explain the existence of the Loch Ness monster, millions in our media and Democrats everywhere are looking to explain how Donald Trump got elected.

    Because the reason is still not clear to them, they have made-up this Russian collusion story, to help explain it to themselves.

    I get it. I mean, at one point people didn’t understand why the sun rose and set each day. And today, many still don’t understand Trump’s election.

    That’s fine – but how much longer are we going to talk about this myth?

    If we’re going to continue doing that, let’s at least go look for Nessie, too.

  • Monumental Error

    Monumental Error

    Why would you ever return to what hasn’t worked? I mean, would you ever choose to go back to your least favorite employer? If you had a drinking problem, would you ever choose to go back to those times when you simply weren’t your very best self?

    If you’ve worked hard to become educated, or experienced in your trade, would you choose to return to those times when you were more ignorant than not, and didn’t really know what you were doing, at all?

    Obviously, you wouldn’t choose any of that, or go back to any time when you were not the very best you could be.

    But this seems to be at the heart of the hullabaloo over the Confederate monuments in New Orleans. Here’s why:

    Those offended by the monuments (and want them taken down) really believe the rest of us want to go back to the time of slavery, when we were not our very best selves, and more ignorant than not.

    But again, who in their right mind would choose to return to what doesn’t work?

    You see, removing monuments, rewriting textbooks, redacting words in literary works (such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn), legislating political correctness, snubbing films like Gone with the Wind, or even banning the display of the American flag as racist, is not necessary to make the point that what happened way back then has no place whatsoever in whatever we are doing now.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans need no convincing of that, at all.

    But regardless of whether those monuments are displayed, or pushed into a corner, under the dust heap of history, there will always be those who have hatred in their heart. For them, hiding our past makes no difference in their thinking.

    Instead of the monuments representing an enemy, or our past failures (even though the war was really over states’ rights), what if these Confederate monuments represented the triumph of good over evil. Of justice. Redemption. Forgiveness. Of what’s possible when men and women of principle make a stand. Or the power of God to change the hearts and minds of men.

    America has changed (thankfully), and that’s putting it mildly. Consider that only 15 percent of African-American adults today lack a high school education, compared with 75 percent of adults 50 years ago. There are now 3.5 times more African-Americans enrolled in college than were 50 years ago, and for every college graduate in 1963, there are now five.

    And in positions of power, black elected officials have also made significant gains. Just going back 50 years to when the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965, there were only five African-Americans serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate – now there are 49 black lawmakers. Over a similar period, the number of black state legislators grew from about 200 to 700.

    Am I saying everything hunky-dory now? No, of course not. There is still prejudice. Bigotry. Injustice. But these have been with us since before Jesus Christ (and will likely be with us until He comes again).

    So, how much does removing monuments make life any better for people of color? You tell me. Maybe the issue isn’t so much as where the monuments are placed, or buried, as much as how we perceive their meaning, in the first place.

    No, no, no one wants to go back to a time when we were not our very best selves. But that doesn’t mean we want to forget when we weren’t.

  • Not Getting It

    Not Getting It

    Sunday morning came way too early for many in Caddo Parish on April 30. It was the day after voters rejected the property tax renewals that had been placed on the ballot. That morning, The Times in Shreveport couldn’t even bring themselves to report the election results in their printed edition. Online, this news must have still been too grim for them to report, as it was posted up with only a simple, almost curt headline, “Results uncertain, pending certification.”

    You see, the day before, there had been an election, and renewing property taxes were the only items on the ballot. And voters had said “no”, or “not so fast,” to all of them. And online, at least, the news seemed tough to bear for some.

    After all, many who had placed those tax renewals on the ballot, and supported renewing them, didn’t understand why. Caddo Parish Commissioner Patrick Jackson thought that voters “didn’t get the message,” saying “there is some misinformation that was put out, there is some more information that the parish needs to put out.”

    Parish Administrator Dr. Woody Wilson, and several commissioners felt the public had been misinformed about the property tax renewals, too. They thought the public just “didn’t get it” and that after the voters get more educated about those tax renewals, they’ll come to see it differently, next time, and vote in favor of those taxes, instead.

    But – what if the public already knows more than our government leaders think, and notices more than they realize?

    Remember in 2010, when the Democrats lost control of the House, and voters handed Democrats more losses than in more than 62 years? Many government leaders then, also, said the voters “didn’t get the message”, and that too many had been manipulated into becoming angry about the wrong issues.

    Back then, Barack Obama explained those 2010 elections as having to do with “anti-immigrant sentiment” or being “troubled” by what an Obama administration represents. Even actress Janeane Garofalo believed the voters just “didn’t get the message” in the 2010 elections, saying “this is about hating a black man in the White House.”

    And just this month, Hillary Clinton explained her election day loss last year on those voters who just “didn’t get it,” or otherwise didn’t understand the issues. “I was on the way to winning,” she said, “until the combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me but got scared off.”

    Obama felt the same way about Clinton’s bid for President last year. He believes that the voters just “didn’t get it” because he thinks Clinton didn’t do enough to get her message out. If only HE had been the one to articulate her message, he says, he “could’ve mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it.”

    But this “blame the voter” has happened before, though. The voters get blamed for not getting the message, or not being smart enough to know any better. In 1980, Republican rival John Anderson called candidate Ronald Reagan a sure-fire “loser,” comparing political suicide to the possibility of nominating Reagan as the Republican Party candidate for President. Even Gerald Ford labeled Reagan, “unelectable”. And Jimmy Carter was convinced that Reagan was the easiest Republican to beat.

    You see, it’s not that the Caddo Parish voters “didn’t get the message” in voting “no” to the property tax renewals, it’s that they don’t trust their parish government to spend their tax dollars wisely, or honestly. At least, not yet.

    And why should they? From spending millions to purchase the former General Motors plant (and then allowing millions of dollars worth of equipment inside to be sold off by others), to the Caddo Parish Employees Retirement System or “CPERS” (where it is reported that Commissioners received triple the amount they contributed), to the repeated requests for more revenue through multi-million dollar bond elections (even though the Commission’s reserves are almost double their annual budget), it’s not that voters “don’t get it” on these issues, or why taxes are needed in the first place.

    It’s not that, at all.

    It’s that the voters just don’t want any more of it.

  • Just Sitting There

    Just Sitting There

    You have probably heard it said that the average person uses only 10 percent of his or her potential. Some studies say that most people function with only about 2 percent of his or her mental potential. The remainder just sits there in reserve, being saved for some later time. Motivational speaker Zig Ziglar explained that this would be exactly like your parents leaving you a trust fund with $100,000 in it, but all you ever took out to spend was $2,000 and “the other $98,000 simply sat in the account, unused throughout your life.”
     
    Well, this is somewhat like our Caddo Parish government, which has more than $120 million of cash (or cash-equivalents) just sitting there, being saved for some later time. This amount is almost 200% of their total budget for 2017, at a time when most local governments across the country seldom have reserves of more than 8-10% of their annual budget.
     
    So if you have almost 200% of the amount of money you will spend in any given year, just sitting there, why in the world would you need to borrow money from us, and burden us with more debt, when we already are paying the highest property taxes in Louisiana?
     
    Well, the academic answer, from local elected officials, is that any surplus money should be kept around for emergencies, such as a flood, tornado, or man-made disaster, like a plant explosion or oil pipeline burst.
     
    But would any such disasters require $120 million in expenditures? Of course not. Consider Bossier Parish, as an example, though. They were the hardest hit from the flooding in March, 2016 and suffered $3.4 million in total losses.
     
    However, after FEMA reimburses them (FEMA reimburses 75% of costs), the net cost to Bossier Parish will only be around $900,000. That’s a lot of money, of course, but obviously a far cry from the $120 million or so that Caddo Parish has just sitting there, set aside, for such emergencies.
     
    This underscores the fact that too many of us don’t understand what local governments take in, or the extent of waste, fraud, and abuse present in the system. And frankly – there are too many elected officials counting on just that.
     
    Caddo Parish is not unique, though, in that regard. Many other local governments across the country are facing the same difficulties. Declining tax revenues, depressed property values, shrinking populations, higher costs of government services, etc.
     
    However, not all local governments take same approach. Some don’t see raising (or renewing) our taxes, or cutting services, as the only 2 options to balance their budgets. Some have chosen to lower taxes, instead. For example, in Burlington County, NJ, the county government was hemorrhaging dollars. So, they reduced their spending, and cut taxes by 13% because their goal was to “reinvent government.” The county chairman said, “We wanted to find a better way to get it done and by combining different departments and offices, we would find ways to save dollars and not duplicate tasks. We had to be more efficient.”
     
    Similarly, in Greene County, Ohio, commissioners were able to reduce the amount of property tax collected by $1.9 million because the county determined it had more than what was needed for county services. The county administrator said, “We didn’t need all those tax dollars, and we need to find a way to put them back in the community.” As one commissioner said to his constituents, “This is your money. We don’t need it, so you put it to use.”
     
    Now, when was the last time any of us heard that? Never.
     
    So, why is the only discussion around here about raising, or renewing taxes, especially when there’s $120 million just sitting there?
     
    Here’s the real answer: Our elected officials know that if they spend what they have “saved,” or don’t renew what taxes they already have, the taxpayers won’t likely vote for any new taxes, at least not anytime soon.
     
    So, it’s the “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” analogy. And that “bird in the hand” is our tax dollars, and they aren’t letting go, and there’s certainly not any talk around here about “reinventing government” or putting tax dollars “back into the community.”
     
    None of the tax propositions on the April 29 ballot expire this year. Only 1 of them expires as early as 2019. The rest don’t expire until 2021 or 2022. What’s the rush to hold an election to renew a while bunch of taxes, on an obscure Saturday in April, where the voter turnout will be almost nil, that will cost the Parish almost $150,000 to conduct? There is no rush. Not at all.
     
    Instead, let’s give our Caddo Commission the opportunity to do for us, just what the local governments in New Jersey and Ohio have done for their constituents, and reinvent government for us, first.
     
    Will Rogers once said, that “we should be thankful that we’re not getting all the government we’re paying for.” If that’s true, then maybe having some folks in our government using just 2% of their mental potential is a good thing. There’s no telling how much higher our taxes would be, if they were using anything more.
     

  • “X#!!”

    “Incompetence” is a 4-letter word. And for those of us who are totally fed up with “incompetence” in our elected officials, we probably sound like the most foul-mouthed, cussing sailor you have ever met. And you know what? It’s just gotten to that point.

    There’s simply no polite way to say it anymore. After all, if we keep doing what we’re doing, we’ll keep getting what we’re getting, and frankly, and I don’t want any more of “it.”

    From the Caddo Parish Superintendent of Schools, to the Mayor of Shreveport, to the “accidental” Governor of Louisiana, they tell us how much they are “working for us,” that “now is our time,” and that “our children deserve better”. They tell us how our streets will be safer, our schools will be better, garbage pick-up will be on time, our water bills will be accurate, and our future will be brighter, all because of their ideas (and the higher and higher taxes to pay for them).

    But their ideas aren’t enough — good ideas don’t have wings. They don’t just take-off. They require leadership abilities to bring them into fruition, and far too many of our elected officials simply don’t have it in them, despite their arguably good intentions.

    They don’t have the temperament needed to concentrate on large-scale, organizational change. They aren’t secure enough in their own beliefs to deliver the changes needed because they capitulate when faced with almost any political resistance to those changes.

    But look, leadership is not for everyone, and that’s okay, but we don’t have to elect them into office, either. According to Fortune magazine, 70% of CEOs fail because they cannot execute. They don’t get things done, they are indecisive, and don’t follow-thru. And yet, we keep electing these same type of folks, to lead our communities and nation, year after year.

    As voters, we must be in the “people” business in every election, every year, everytime. As Jack Welch, the former Chairman and CEO of General Electric said, “We spend all our time on people,” he says. “The day we screw up the people thing, this company is over.”
    The same is true for our government, from City Hall to the White House and I’ll say it — we’ve screwed up the people thing. Just look at the “ideas” being floated around in Baton Rouge right now to “fix” our state’s economy.

    Although Louisiana already has the highest average combined state and local sales tax rates in America, Governor Edwards wants to raise taxes in Louisiana even more – this time with a “gross receipts tax” – even though our proposed state budget is already $4 billion larger than it was last year.

    This “gross receipts tax” is an additional tax that will be levied on all businesses that sell more than $1.5 million of “stuff.” That’s a tax that is due whether a business is earning a profit, or not. There’s not enough room here to discuss the details, but the next time you call a plumber to unclog a drain, or buy a car, or even go to the doctor, you’ll be paying for Governor Edward’s “gross receipts tax” and you’ll be funding higher and higher government spending for stuff that you probably wouldn’t approve of, in the first place.

    What our “accidental” Governor doesn’t understand is there is no such thing as a “free lunch,” even if you think you are soaking the rich, or making business pay their “fair share.” At some point, we, the people, end up footing the bill, no matter what you make it look like today.
    Raising taxes is the path of least resistance. It’s much easier to keep on spending, than cutting back and disappointing a constituency. Just like it’s much easier to keep smoking, than to quit. Or to sit in front of the television, or scroll through Facebook posts, than to spend time with your kids. Or to be more concerned with your own well-being, than those who are less fortunate and could use your help.

    So yes, I am using a lot of 4-letter words these days. For some of our elected officials, they just may be the only ones they can understand.

  • You Gotta Read This

    You Gotta Read This

    An average headline is probably only six to 10 words in length, while the average news story is as many as 1,000 words in length. Surprisingly though, only one-half will ever read the news story, at all, beyond the headline.

    Armed with this knowledge, is there really any question as to why so many are so misinformed about the news? I mean, how can anyone glean the important details of a news story, by only reading a 10-word headline?

    You can’t. But they try, anyways.

    And so we lament how our fellow Americans know so little about what is going on in their own community, not to mention in Washington, DC.

    And when you factor in headlines that were seemingly written intentionally by the mainstream media-elites to mislead or confuse us, you’ve got a mess on your hands. This is because the continuing decline of reading skills threatens our very existence as a country, and our individual lives as free men and women. Is that too dramatic?

    I don’t think so, considering that more than one-half of the people in our country are only consuming their news via headlines, and not from much else. How can they ever be informed on complex issues, much less cast their votes to address those issues, in the first place – if most don’t read past the headlines?

    You see, we’ve become a nation of scanners – not readers. No question. We screen every incoming email message or Facebook post for relevance and importance, and if we decide to read it, we usually stop reading once we think we’ve gotten the gist, and then we move on, without going any deeper.

    We do this because we want to know what’s going on, but we end up just reading only summaries of the news, or the headlines, because too many are too lazy, or too busy, to do the work themselves, and read the story all the way through.

    In fact, a recent study found that 60% of the links your friends share on social media have never actually been read by your friends. That’s right: Most people share news and articles without ever reading them, at all.

    This may earn them attention from their friends for what they are sharing, but they are also teaching their brains to overlook the details, and to read with half their focus, instead. This has resulted in our attention spans being at an all-time low, with 50% of adults who cannot even read a book written at an eighth grade level, and over 44 million adults are now unable to read a simple story to their children.

    We know this about reading: 3 out of 4 people on welfare cannot read. 3 out of 5 people in American prisons cannot read. Almost all juvenile offenders have difficulty reading. More than one-half of American adults have an income well below the poverty level because of their inability to read.

    And while illiteracy doesn’t breed illiteracy, it does it make it more likely that children of illiterates will lack the reading skills needed to break the cycle of poverty and incarceration, or to have a basic understanding of what America is, and what she represents.

    How long can our country remain strong when over one-half of the population cannot read at the same grade level as the other half?

    So if you have read this far, congratulations. And the next time you are at your favorite restaurant, or at the gym, and the televisions all along the wall are tuned to various news channels with the volume muted, just remember those headlines are what 50% of Americans consider their “news” for the day.

    And there’s just not a good headline for that.

  • Pay Raise

    Pay Raise

    Superintendent Lamar Goree said this month that he’s been charged by the Caddo Parish School Board with looking at how to give “everyone a raise in our school system”. That’s after nearly 60 percent of Caddo Parish Schools’ were scored by the Louisiana Department of Education as ‘D’ and ‘F’.

    Shreveport Mayor Tyler says that we need to give pay raises to city employees making $80,000 a year or less “to make sure that we’re being competitive with other governmental entities.” That’s after total (government) jobs at City Hall rose last year, while the population of Shreveport continued to decline and we ranked no. 4 in the country for job losses.

    And in Washington, DC, even as he was leaving the White House, President Obama officially authorized a 2.1 percent pay raise for federal civilian employees in 2017, even though our national debt was (and is) nearly $20 trillion. Now, just this month, a House Democrat has introduced a new bill to give federal employees an across-the-board pay raise of 3.2 percent in 2018.

    So from failing schools, to declining population growth, to rising debt – our government seem to be hell-bent on incentivizing poor results – and unfortunately, with devastating accuracy.

    What’s missing in all of these calls for blanket pay raises across the country in government is not just the taxpayer money to do so, but the lack of any real progress – or interest – to develop an effective performance appraisal system of government employees that gives honest feedback, and provides meaningful differentiation between the high-achievers and those who work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough money not to quit.

    Why is it that some folks just don’t get it? Unless our government has an objective employee evaluation system, to get rid of low performers, and reward high achievers, we’re just rewarding mediocrity – plain and simple.

    Yes, you can hire better people with pay raises, attract better job candidates, etc., but you have to still deal with those whom you already employ and simply are not doing the job that needs to be done.

    You see, study after study shows that retention of an organization’s best and brightest decreases, in the long run, whenever blanket pay raises occur. This is because there’s a demoralizing effect on the high achievers in any organization because they feel their efforts to go above-and-beyond aren’t recognized when those who didn’t make the effort were rewarded, nevertheless.

    And to add insult to injury, not only does your most loyal and best employees feel unappreciated, but a blanket pay raise makes it even more unlikely that these best and brightest will have any chance of receiving a pay raise themselves anytime soon, based on their own merit, because now there’s even less money available in the budget to do so, after the blanket pay raises to everyone else.

    Maybe this is why President Trump has called for a federal hiring freeze, and an end to automatic raises, and to make it easier for our federal government to fire poor performers. As the White House press secretary explained, “Some people are working two, three jobs just to get by. To see money get wasted in Washington on a job that is duplicative is insulting to the hard work that they do to pay their taxes.”

    And he’s right. If we are going to continue talking about blanket pay raises, shouldn’t we be talking about the effects of doing so, other than to one’s own bottom line? In the end, this is all about getting better, and grabbing life by the collar, gutting this out, growing ourselves, and turning our country around. Sure, the money is important, but the value of what you give is even greater, and rewarding mediocrity cost us all.

    After all, as Winston Churchill said, “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”

  • Safety Goggles

    Safety Goggles

    In Berkeley, California, masked protesters smashed windows, stormed buildings, and set fires recently on the campus of the University of California to shut down a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart News editor. The university canceled the event and blamed “150 masked agitators” for the unrest, saying they had come to campus to disturb an otherwise peaceful protest. Five people were injured and the university police locked down the campus for hours, but not until the protesters had caused $100,000 worth of damage to the campus.

    That followed a bloody frenzy in Seattle on Inauguration Day, last month, where protestors tried to prevent a speech by Mr. Yiannopoulos again, but this time at the University of Washington.

    Then there was Madonna on Inauguration Day, who said she had “thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House,” while speaking to protestors at the Women’s March in Washington. On that day, hundreds of thousands marched against Trump, and for everything from gender and racial inequities, to the right to organize and fight for a “living minimum wage” for all workers, plus comprehensive reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights, and immigrant and refugee rights.

    “This is not just the beginning of the ‘tea party of the left’ but a larger movement for civil rights that could make history,” said Moumita Ahmed, founder of “Millennials for Revolution,” an offspring of the Bernie Sanders campaign. “The steady flow of protests will absolutely continue and get bigger and bigger.”

    These often violent protests, and efforts to silence free speech, remind me of conservative writer William F. Buckley when he wrote, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

    But none of us should be bullied into silence, however growing the flow of protests become. The truth is, many of you who feel that your candidate won in November, are still struggling to find your voice. You still bite your tongue, or hold your comments back in polite conversation, afraid that you will be called racist, elitist, sexist, or anti-environmentalist – regardless of whether it’s true or not – simply because of how you voted, or what you believe.

    It’s our natural fear of isolation from others that keeps too many of us from sharing our opinions, and this encourages a sense of apathy, or a “to each his own” mentality, instead. This is where we just go along, to get along. The problem with that, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., is that “(o)ur lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

    With the Democratic Party interests so defeated this past November, and yet so vocal now, especially through the rise of professional protest groups around the country, including those sponsored by brands like Nike and Starbucks, what role do you have now, in taking a stand for what you believe, and the values you hold? A big one.

    In fact, even if you feel you “won” last November, it’s more important than ever to remain vocal about the things that matter.

    No, it’s not enough to watch the same conservative television or radio shows, or read the same conservative-minded publications. Or visit with your friends and families about the decline of our country, or the ridiculousness of the violence by protestors. Or which party or demographic population that is mostly to blame for it all such issues.
    But you shouldn’t keep preaching to the choir, either, and expect much to change, and blame is a waste of time. No matter how much fault you find with another, it will not change you – or our country – and it won’t succeed in changing whatever is making you unhappy, or that you feel is wrong with our country.

    Instead, you must evangelize the principles upon which our country was founded — economic freedom, equal opportunity, and self-determination – especially to those who may very much disagree with your perspective. These are the fundamental principles of our Declaration of Independence, and when followed, these won’t ever confuse caring, with actually helping, or doing, with actually accomplishing something.

    So don’t be silent about things that matter, and call it like it is, no matter what side of the aisle you are on, and even if your candidate won in November. And if anyone happens to get offended by you defending what you believe, especially the intellectuals who “know better” than the rest of us, just tell them to go join a protest. And bring some safety goggles.

  • What Took You So Long?

    What Took You So Long?

    Psychologists call it “confirmation bias,” which is the tendency to search for, or otherwise interpret information in a way that confirms what you already believe, regardless of the facts. You may call it “rationalizing.” Others may call it “missing the forest for the trees.” I call it “denial,” and as the saying goes, denial is not just a river in Egypt.

    But do we really prefer illusion, to the truth? Many do. The truth hurts, after all, and even when we hear the truth, our defenses seemingly kick in to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away.

    So, is this why as many as 1 million women showed up in marches across the country, with not just one grievance, but many? Was the truth of the past 8 years exposed with the inauguration of President Trump, and the protests an attempt to keep the illusion alive – and the pain away?

    Some marched for equal rights for women and against sexism. For minority groups and against racism. For better jobs and higher pay. For environmental responsibility and against global warming. For peace and to end all wars.

    Yes, the conventional wisdom is that these millions of women were expressing their discontent over the election of President Trump. But discontent over what, exactly? He had only been sworn in as President for less than 24 hours before the protests began. And after all, tens of millions of women had voted for him in November. In fact, many say it was women voters in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan that gave President Trump the votes he needed to win the White House.

    So, what’s really going on here? I’ll tell you: we prefer illusion to truth, and the bottom line is that these women have been lied to, especially about the consequences of voting for politicians who care more about feelings than they do about thoughts and ideas. Or so-called “leaders” who are more interested in their own well-being, than in ours.

    Instead of promised good jobs for the jobless over the past 8 years, these women see 94 million Americans not even working now – the highest ever in our country’s history. In fact, by the end of 2016, the number of those filing for unemployment benefits was at its highest in more than a year.

    Instead of improving access to healthcare over the past 8 years, and making it more affordable, these women see that there are just 3 percent more Americans with health insurance today, and that the number is dropping every day. They see how many Americans simply can’t afford paying their premiums because insurance companies are raising premiums on everyone by as much as 60 percent to keep from collapsing under the Affordable Care Act.

    Instead of “healing our planet” over the past 8 years, they see that taxpayers are now shouldering more than $2.2 billion in expected loan guarantee defaults from companies like the bankrupt renewable energy company, Solyndra, and at least 36 other taxpayer-funded green energy projects that have vanished like the wind.

    And although we “ended a war” by withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq in 2011, these women see how this single decision to withdraw left the door wide open for ISIS to expand their terror around the world, killing thousands of innocent people, and terrorizing millions more.

    And instead of diversity, these woman saw Obama choose a cabinet overwhelmingly male and white, and racial tensions are higher than ever.

    In 2008, the illusion of “hope and change” sounded like the truth to these women. We were all promised, back then, that healthcare negotiations would be on C-SPAN (they weren’t) and that the budget deficit would be reduced by 50% (but it grew).

    They were promised there would be no earmarks in the $787 billion stimulus bill (but there were). We were promised the “Recovery Act” would save or create jobs (yet unemployment continued to rise to record levels). We were told “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” (we couldn’t). We were assured Obamacare would pay for itself (but it doesn’t). President Obama said, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future” (but he did and deficit spending rose to over $5.1 trillion).

    Maybe we could all agree now, at least, that when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But I get it, about the protestors and I’d be mad, too, if I were in their shoes, waiting on “hope and change” all these years.

    Just one question, for those who marched on January 21: What took you so long?