George C. Joseph and Other Things

By now, I’m sure  you’ve seen the letter from Mr. Joseph talking about how his dealership will be taken away. I don’t know the circumstances and will not claim that I do. What I will say is that I work for a family-owned car dealership as well, one that has about twice the number of employees and around four times the inventory. It’s not an entirely fair comparison since they sell foreign cars, but I’ve done some asking around and it turns out that what allegedly happened to Mr. Joseph couldn’t happen to my dealership, because the owner was a little more savvy with the contracts he signed. I also found this post on Craigslist, which while I definitely don’t agree with everything in it, I still find highly amusing:

link

Dear Mr. Joseph.

Congratulations on the success you and your family have enjoyed over the last 35 years.

As you know our free market oriented capitalist system is based on a few fundamental principles. Some of these are:
1. Individual risk and reward
2. Personal responsibility
3. Market selection of winners and losers
4. Rule of law and integrity of contracts

Part of what makes our system so great, is that it enables hardworking citizens, like yourself to achieve great success, as you have. Another part of what makes our system so great, is that it disciplines, through failure, those who will not adapt to new realities, and those who refuse to prepare themselves for all contingencies that life might throw their way.

I applaud you for accepting the first part of the above, but question why you don’t appreciate the second. Your family risked much over the last 35 years. For a large portion of that time, you succeeded. Now you have failed. Did you write a letter to the editor when you succeeded saying “how in America could I be so successful?” Of course not.

During the time you were succeeding, millions of Americans took large gambles and started small businesses. In many case they lost everything – and had to start over… perhaps even working as a salesman or mechanic in your shop. Did you then question the system which had not treated them as kindly as you? Did you then express your outrage that they did not succeed – as you had? Of course not.

You claim that you will lose everything through “NO FAULT OF OUR OWN”. Is that true?

Why did you not see an upcoming recession? Why did you not save money more prudently – in the event of a downturn? Why did not diversify into other brands? Why did you not demand some guarantee from Chrysler when they demanded you remodel your store?

You had a continuing relationship with Chrysler of your own choice, they did not turn out to be the best partner… That happens, and will continue to happen in our system. Next time, you and/or your offspring will remember a simple lesson: “chose your partners carefully”.

Chrysler failed. That is unfortunate, but due to many structural problems with their business model. Don’t despair! American’s will continue to need cars, and new, smarter, more nimble competitors will fill that need. Perhaps you can start again selling their cars, or working for someone who sells their cars. Yes, you might not be boss anymore, and yes, you might not have the prestige that comes with employing 50 people.

However, none of that is your right, and nobody else owes that to you.

Your only right, is to rise and fall as the forces of fortune and your personal enterprise allow. Nothing more. Our rule of law dictates that under bankruptcy all contracts are renegotiable. Perhaps before starting your next venture you brush up your understanding of our legal system. All contracts are subject to review and summary cancellation by the presiding judge in the event that a counterparty goes into bankruptcy. Bankruptcy was, unfortunately necessary for Chrysler to prune you and other underperforming dealerships because state car dealership laws frequently make it impossible for a car manufacturer to cut dealerships without bankruptcy (I’m quite confident you did not fight these laws.)

My advice: Keep your chin up. Maintain your principles. Believe in hard work. Stop crying like a child who has lost at checkers.

Most sincere regards,
Uncle Sam

I would also love to know if his income decreased any in order to try to avoid firing the 20 people he did. He’s certainly not obligated to do that, but if he didn’t, then he needn’t ask that the government be concerned for their plight, either.

***********************

Nancy Pelosi, I wish you would just once think before you speak. You’d think after the first time you got caught in a lie you’d learn, but for such an intelligent woman, this lesson seems to remain beyond you. You’re making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself, and you need to knock that shit off.

***********************

Prince’s latest website: lotusflow3r.com Go there. He is the ultimate and timeless badass–even if I don’t have $77 to join his fanclub.

Texas Lawmaker Suggests Asians Adopt Easier Names

I’m just posting the article and the link. I don’t think I need to comment.

Lawmaker defends comment on Asians

Call for voters to simplify their names not racially motivated, Terrell Republican says

By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

April 9, 2009, 11:58AM

AUSTIN — A North Texas legislator during House testimony on voter identification legislation said Asian-descent voters should adopt names that are “easier for Americans to deal with.”

The comments caused the Texas Democratic Party on Wednesday to demand an apology from state Rep. Betty Brown, R-Terrell. But a spokesman for Brown said her comments were only an attempt to overcome problems with identifying Asian names for voting purposes.

The exchange occurred late Tuesday as the House Elections Committee heard testimony from Ramey Ko, a representative of the Organization of Chinese Americans.

Ko told the committee that people of Chinese, Japanese and Korean descent often have problems voting and other forms of identification because they may have a legal transliterated name and then a common English name that is used on their driver’s license on school registrations.

Easier for voting?

Brown suggested that Asian-Americans should find a way to make their names more accessible.

“Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese — I understand it’s a rather difficult language — do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?” Brown said.

Brown later told Ko: “Can’t you see that this is something that would make it a lot easier for you and the people who are poll workers if you could adopt a name just for identification purposes that’s easier for Americans to deal with?”

Democratic Chairman Boyd Richie said Republicans are trying to suppress votes with a partisan identification bill and said Brown “is adding insult to injury with her disrespectful comments.”

Brown spokesman Jordan Berry said Brown was not making a racially motivated comment but was trying to resolve an identification problem.

Berry said Democrats are trying to blow Brown’s comments out of proportion because polls show most voters support requiring identification for voting. Berry said the Democrats are using racial rhetoric to inflame partisan feelings against the bill.

“They want this to just be about race,” Berry said.

r.g.ratcliffe@chron.com

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6365320.html

Silence

I’ve been reading a lot lately about how homosexuals, celebrities, and other undesirables should just get over the Proposition 8 thing. The people voted, the majority rules, quit whining, the end. This attitude is disturbing to me, and it should be disturbing to you. Majorities have often voted for things that are unethical. Majorities have voted for slavery, for the exclusion of certain groups from voting, for eugenics. When the majority votes to oppress, to limit freedom in a country that pledges “freedom and justice for all,” we should protest. To remain silent, or God forbid, to defend this, is unacceptable.

An eloquent reminder, taken from a sermon by Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist;

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;

Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Why I May have to Turn In My Liberal and Feminist Identification Cards

***DISCLAIMER*** I am not interested in arguing about whether abortion is murder. I have my beliefs, yours may be different, and that’s OK with me. It’s been argued to death, and I’m just not interested. I’ll ignore any attempts. That’s not the point of this entry.

I identify as both a liberal (a bleeding heart, yellow dog, Commie, Socialist, criminal coddling, high-tax-craving liberal, thankyouverymuch) and as a feminist, but I have one particular belief that tends to piss off people of both persuasions.

I am entirely pro-choice, but I do not think it’s anti-feminist to be pro-life. (I also think the terms pro-choice and pro-life are misleading and designed to garner sympathy for pro-lifers, but that’s another blog post for another day. I will use the words because, for now, they are in the vernacular.) I do not believe that life begins at conception, but I know many people do. If they do, that means that they believe that abortion is murder and, to be honest, I’d be a little concerned about people who were completely OK with the legalization of murder.

This is not an issue like homosexuality, where the actions of other people don’t affect anyone but themselves. In the mind of pro-lifers, abortion is murder, and one can hardly expect them to be complacent about that.

My views on this are often met with disdain by members of the liberal and feminist communities. I’m cool with this.

Gay Rights

I used to be a devout, sincere Christian. Even then, I did not understand the desire of some people to withhold rights from a section of the population. Let’s say that homosexuality is a choice. (I no longer believe this, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is.) It’s still two consenting adults choosing to do something that doesn’t affect me. Legislation of morality is in no way acceptable.

The argument says that “civil unions are fine, but don’t call it marriage because that’s always been between a man and a woman.” Actually, that’s not true. Ancient Romans allowed marriage–and they did call it marriage–between two members of the same sex. You may think they shouldn’t have, but the fact does negate your “always has been” argument.

However, if you wish to work with semantics, that’s fine too. If you say marriage is a holy institution, I can accept that. I say the government should only be involved in civil unions. If you want to get married, then find a church who will marry you. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals will have much trouble doing that. It should be mentioned, though, that the fact that marriage was practiced in ancient Rome before Christianity existed should indicate that marriage may be used by the church, but it is not exclusively a holy institution.

I am baffled by the constant reminder that it is a choice. It’s not, but so what if it is? It’s a choice to be Christian, a choice to vote for the Green Party candidate, a choice to pray to the Virgin Mary. Should people who choose these things have to work for equal rights?

The thing that irks me the most–because it is, frankly, an idiotic argument–is the one which says, “If we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, what’s next? Men marrying goats?” It’s absolutely absurd to jump from allowing two consenting adults to marry to allowing adults to marry (non-consenting) animals. Furthermore, that very same argument was used when people were working to have repealed those laws that prohibited interracial marriage. Interracial marriage has been legal and common for quite some time now, and I haven’t noticed an increase in people lobbying to be allowed to marry Rover.

Finally, it amazes me that the people who primarily oppose this—conservatives—don’t see the inconsistency between that and their other views, specifically their financial views. Most conservatives believe that government support to individuals should be limited, if not eliminated, and taken over by churches and other private organizations. Why? Because they don’t think government should require people to do what’s right—even though, they are quick to point out, they give plenty on their own. Well if it’s wrong to legislate morality when it comes to the pocketbook, shouldn’t it also be wrong to legislate morality when it comes to the bedroom?