DADvocate

Rahm Emanuel in a demin tuxedo? Nothing new. Levi Strauss made one for Bing Crosby 59 years ago. That's soooo 1950s.

Via Instapundit

Jesus' greatest teaching tool was the use of parables. One of my favorites is the parable of The Workers in the Vineyard.

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, "You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right." So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, "Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?" "Because no one has hired us," they answered. "He said to them, "You also go and work in my vineyard."

When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, "Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first." The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. "These men who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day." But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?" So the last will be first, and the first will be last. (Matt. 20:1-16)

As in most of the parables, Jesus teaches more than one lesson. I highlighted two of those lessons in this parable.

Today we have numerous people who want to tell us what to do with our money. Many want to use the power and force of government to make us do what they want with our money.

The second is a question of motive. Are they envious of others' generosity? do they want to feel generous by forcing others to do what they want with their money? Obviously, they don't think you have the right to do what you want with your money.

Indeed, the left wing of the Democratic Party thinks your rights don't matter and they should be able to tell you what to do with all your material belongings and how you should act at all times.

The truth is quite simple. You can find it in short, simple stories of Jesus' Parables, Aesop's Fables, Zen stories, and many other places. But, when you get a 17 minute non-answer to a simple question, you're not getting the truth. You're getting smoke and mirrors.

Real unemployment in the U.S. stands at 16.9% The Machiavellian at The Virtuous Republic points out. How does The Machiavellian come to such an outrageous number when the official unemployment rate is 9.7%, higher than Obama predicted it would go but much lower than 16.9%? Surprisingly he uses the number of people who are not working but are not currently working, plus those working part-time for economic reasons (i.e. "those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.")

I'm sure that some lefties will want to argue that those working part-time for economic reasons shouldn't be counted as "unemployed." By the strictest definition that would be true, but we know that the lefties aren't interested in following the definitions. They're interested in making themselves look good. If you want to count college educated persons working part-time at grocery stores and fast food joints as employed, the unemployment still stands at an incredibly high 11.1%.

The chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:


Just the other day, Obama was claiming, "But today is an encouraging day. We learned that the economy actually produced a substantial number of jobs instead of losing a substantial number of jobs.

Funny, the numbers from the BLS don't look any better.

Driving home the other day, I happened to catch a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh. He was ranting about Obama's speech in Charlotte, N.C. Rush referred to Obama's words as "vitriol" but I'm not sure I agree on that part but Obama's words below are quite telling.

No company is going to make investments for a public good. None of you would expect a private company to fund our military or our firefighters. There are just some things that you can't do on your own, and the private sector is not going to do -- it's not profitable because if Bob was the guy who had to build the road, he'd have a whole bunch of other people driving on that road that weren't paying for it. So it's not a good investment for him.

Telling because every statement in it is a lie or, at best, betrays Obama's gross misunderstanding of how the world works.

Virtually every company's investment is for the public good. Individuals and companies identify products and services people want and determine if they can make a profit delivering those products and services. Virtually all of those are for the public good. Does not Proctor & Gamble serve the public good by providing high quality soaps, shampoos, detergents, food products, diapers, and more? Do not airlines serve the public good by providing fast, efficient transportation for the public?

The list goes on: pharmaceutical companies, food processors, mining companies, high tech industries... A company that doesn't make investments in products and services that provide for the public good doesn't survive. People only want products that they feel improve their lives in some way. While, occasionally, some of the products, such as cigarettes, end up being harmful, one can hardly claim that every government action, legislation or program has been nothing but beneficial. Companies make heavy investments in the public good because that is the road to success.

Private companies already fund our military and firefighters and police and lots of other government activities through the taxes they pay. In the past companies built entire cities. Ever wonder how Pullman, Illinois got its name?

If it's not profitable for a private company to build a road, why are companies worldwide doing it?

In little more than 12 months, beginning in late 2004, the following events occurred: A Spanish toll road company proposed to invest $7.2 billion to build the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC), a major highway, rail, and utility corridor running north-south from Oklahoma to Mexico. A global consortium agreed to pay $1.8 billion to lease, toll, operate, and maintain the Chicago Skyway for 99 years. And an Australian toll road operator bought out a struggling public-private toll road in Virginia.

Private highways are common in Europe and Asia.

Bottom line: Obama is either a proficient bullshitter who gives little thought to his words and claims as long as he thinks they sound good and will convince people into believing what he says or he's a smooth talking ignoramus. Take your pick.

Usually I talk about my two youngest kids the most as they are the two still living at home, but today I'll give my oldest son a shout out. The Cincinnati Business Courier featured him and his roommate in an article about the valet parking business they started. My son is owner of the company, Blue Chip Parking.

About a year and a half ago, he took a job as a valet for another company. After a while, he realized that the demand for good valet parking services was greater than the supply and decided to form his own company. His company has provided valet services for several special events including at the Cincinnati Art Museum and the Cincinnati Bengals Christmas party. They also have a contract with a local country club. All this while he's attending college studying business.

Good job, buddy.

P.S. When my son was an infant, I read an article in a parenting magazine (can't remember which one) that claimed children whose parents stressed hard work were more successful than children whose parents praised them for their talents or intelligence. The reason for this difference seemed to be that one could always work a little harder but that talent and intelligence were limited. If someone was smarter than you, they were smarter than you. But, if someone worked harder than you, you could increase your effort and work harder than them.

This made perfect sense to me and I always stressed to my kids the importance of working hard. My youngest son has a body made for football, but I told him that their were plenty of guys out there who had good bodies. Hard work would raise him above the others, and it has. Their mother, having grown up on a real farm (not one of those pleasure farms), gives the same advice, hard work makes the difference. My other children have responded similarly to this type of advice/guidance. Maybe I did at least one thing right.