As a small business owner, it baffles me when I walk into someone’s office or home who has been a client of mine for several years or longer and they have a new product that is directly related to what I do and they didn’t even give me a chance to provide it for them. If one of the above things were true, I’d understand, but not even giving me a shot doesn’t make sense to me at all. Why not go to the business you already have a good relationship with?

Does anyone else feel the same way I do, or am I just weird?

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to see this Law in motion when I was flying across the country. My trip consisted of two flights with a short lay over in between. As you probably know, most airlines have started to charge for checked baggage on flights. I can understand how initially this makes sense from a business perspective. The initial price of the ticket is fairly low, but then you can tack on other fees for baggage, not to mention other ‘extras’ that used to be free like meals, snacks, drinks, pillows, etc., and then you have effectively raised the price of the ticket while keeping the perception of lower prices.

During preboarding of both of my flights, announcements were made begging passengers to please check in baggage at the gate for no charge because there wasn’t room for the carry-on luggage for all of the passengers. One flight was actually held up while the flight attendants arranged the overhead bins to fit as much in as possible.

This got me thinking about how the government seems to be surprised by the unintended consequences of its actions. Take the news that several major corporations took a hit on their
books for perceived future losses from the passing of the healthcare bill, for example. Members of the current administration seemed shocked by this news as if the projected increase in costs occur in a vacuum.

Or, take the current oil situation in the gulf. (As a side note, I refuse to call it a ’spill’. What part of what happened even comes close to resembling a spill? Maybe ‘oil leak’ is better?) There are those who condemn BP, and with good reason, and there are those who want to blame various other organizations some for political gain and some for other reasons both good and not so good. One group often overlooked includes environmentalists. Ironically, by pushing the offshore drilling so far out into deep waters, they have unintentionally contributed to the mess we have today.

When you see a bill passed, a new policy enacted, or an organization make a change, do what most people fail to do and consider what the unintended consequences could be before you decide where you stand on the issue.

In a mathematically perfect universe, we would be less than dead; we would never have existed. According to the basic precepts of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have been created in the Big Bang and then immediately annihilated each other in a blaze of lethal energy, leaving a big fat goose egg with which to make stars, galaxies and us. And yet we exist, and physicists (among others) would dearly like to know why.

So, according to science as we know it at this point in time, we aren’t supposed to be here. If the numbers are correct, and of course scientists are supposed to always be objective and never incorrect, then we shouldn’t even be here.

Of course, the one variable that science has a hard time accommodating is God.

To put it in perspective, though, the only other US presidents to win the Nobel were Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. Adding President Obama’s name to that list only proves that the only “peace” the Nobel committee acknowledges is peace through a progressive agenda, even when nothing has been accomplished.

Other US presidents that should have been considered:

Ronald Reagan: Ended the Cold War

George W. Bush: Brought most the of world together after 9/11

Of course, liberals/progressives don’t see those as positive things, so that will never happen.

I’m assuming, of course, that you don’t now live in public housing.  If you do, let me turn the question around.  Would you prefer to stay in public housing or own your own home?

Myself, I’ve never lived in any sort of government provided housing.  At least I don’t think I have.  My family certainly was not wealthy when I was growing up.  I’m sure we would not have been considered middle class, but I’m digressing here and getting off the point..

I have been around public housing.  I worked at a landscaping company in Dallas, TX and some of the work we did was at public housing facilities.  Let me tell you, most of them were scary places.  My dad (who owned part of the company) still makes fun of my reaction to being at some of those places.

I’ve also known people who have lived in subsidized housing, that is government doesn’t provide everything but just makes up the difference between what the tenant can pay in rent and what the landlord wants (or actually what the government says the landlord deserves.)  I’ve also known property owners who provide such housing.  Some owners I’ve known LOVES to provide the subsidize housing because they don’t have to maintain their property at a very high level because where else are the tenants going to go?  Now, the ethics of that aside, that is part of the problem with abandoning a free market economy in any industry.  See, property owners who rent property to the general public must provide a certain quality of dwelling or those general public people won’t rent the property, or at least won’t rent the property for a decent amount of money.  By providing tenants and a guaranteed amount of rent, the owners have no incentive to keep their property properly maintained, and vice versa. the renters have less of an incentive to maintain the property.

So.. here’s some Flyover Country homework for you.  Drive by some public housing this week.  No matter where you live it is there.  If you don’t know where it is, call your local HUD office and ask them where to find it.  Drive by and take a hard look at it.  Find more than one if you can.

The next step in our homework is to contrast and compare your current housing arrangements with what you see.  (Again, think in reverse if you currently live in public housing.  Compare with your desired housing arrangements.)  What is the quality differences between the two?  What are the visual differences?  Which looks safer to you?  What is the neighborhood like?  What are the schools like?

Now, having looked at public housing in person, are you SURE you want public health care?

Let’s not let the best health care system in the world turn into the equivalent of public housing!

From the Drudge Report:

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The media has been biased for a long time, but if this is true as reported then the media has stepped over the line from bias to complete alliance with the left.  This is insane!  Every American should be outraged that our free press has so completely turned their collective backs on ethical journalism.

Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s few providers of late-term abortions despite decades of protests and attacks, was shot and killed Sunday in a church where he was serving as an usher.

The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was detained some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said.

I firmly believe Dr. Tiller was an evil man.  What he did to children was just pure evil through and through, however killing him in this manor is just as wrong.  This doesn’t help the cause, nor does it right the wrongs this man did.  I’m speculating here, but the person who shot him probably sees it as justified because he sees that his actions will save the lives of many children.  I disagree.  Murder is wrong.

What do you all out there in Flyover Country think?

Please leave comments below.

Time for a Flyover Country history lesson.

When the Founding Fathers were forming our still young country, they wanted a system of government that would provide a method of what are called “checks and balances”.  They didn’t want a leader who would be like a king and could reign over his people with an iron fist.  They also didn’t want a legislative body that could just run amok and pass laws that would not be in the country’s best interest.  The system they chose was a representative republic with three branches of government that were equal in power and had a system in which each could watch over the others and keep tyranny from occurring.

The three branches are as follows:

Executive: Enforces laws

Legislative: Creates laws

Judicial: Interpret laws

This balance of power is very important.  Over the course of history, the balance of power has shifted between the branches in various ways.  Currently, however, I believe the balance of power is shifting in ways that are unprecedented and frightening.  When the judicial branch, the courts, flee from their job of interpreting laws into the arena of “making policy” as Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice pick, accidentally mentioned in the above video, the balance of power shifts dramatically from the legislative branch (the people) to the handful of judges who sit on our nations benches.

That video should send chills down the spine of very freedom-loving American.