Tête-à-Tête-Tête » Neal Boortz

Safe Captain, Unhinged Busybodies

smijer — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:52:30 +0000

John Cole finds plenty of dumb to go around in the aftermath of the Pirate story. And there is plenty of dumb to go around.

Let me back up. I followed the pirate story closely – it was pretty dramatic and scary. I’m very glad it had a happy ending. I didn’t say anything before because I had nothing to say that wasn’t cheap, partisan or stupid, but I repeat myself.

Anyway, I’m with John – great job to the professionals who brought this crisis to a close. Great job to the crew that used their training to retake their boat. Great job to all of the good guys involved.

And, since John missed them – here are a couple more stupids on the net…
The oh so manly Ace of Spades:

In a better world, their lives would now be forfeit.

And of course, the village wouldn’t be complete without its Atlanta radiohead – NB:

One regret. The head shots that killed the three pirates were simultaneous. This means that none of the Muslim goons got to see their buddy’s heads explode. Oh well … can’t have everything, I guess.

I’m sure we all have similar impulses. I’m sorry that some of us are still proud of them.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz
Post tags: Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Boortz {Hearts} the Nanny State

smijer — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:58:36 +0000

Shorter Boortz: Boortz:

If you don’t make it illegal for people to make dumb suicidal choices, their blood is on your hands.

P.S. I like mandatory seatbelt laws and I think that they are consistent with an enlightened freedom-loving system. After all, as Boortz points out, they are public roads (the public monopoly on roadways does little to reduce the force of that argument to my mind), and of course more fatalities means a higher insurance bill even for those of us who do strap in. But “blood on his hands”? Really? Even when Boortz embraces statism he’s so over the top as to be hilarious.

P.P.S. Should I just combine the “Boortz” and “Humor” categories?

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz, Humor
Post tags: Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Who Holds the Slobber Bucket?

smijer — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:27:50 +0000

While Neal “is just saying”?

Will there be any griping and moaning about the $2 billion WalMart has just awarded its employees? Probably not. And do you know why? Because that money went to hourly employees. And to wealth-envy Americans, these are the people that really deserve the bonuses.

Ummm… Or that Wal-Mart didn’t just take a hundred billion dollar bailout? I’ll give this one the “duh” award today.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz
Post tags: Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Dirty Sock Alert

smijer — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:22:48 +0000

Neal needs one.

(In case you missed it this weekend, I’m referring back to an earlier post here.)

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz
Post tags: dehumanization, homeless, Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Fun

smijer — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 20:30:42 +0000

I’m glad Neal Boortz added a comments section to his blog. I’m especially glad that he doesn’t censor them. Every day he posts something or another that, if you read it, slowly kills any faith you may have in humanity or reason. And, every day, at least one or two people point out the dumbth of it. Normally I don’t play in the comments section there… but I did today in a most unconstructive way. Warning – new comments go to the top of the list. Warning 2 – site employs both CAPTCHA and very slow comment moderation. I can understand the first. Maybe someone should explain to them about Akismet, though. Anyway – click and read the forwarded chain letter that he posted as though it were an actual letter from an actual law student – then start at the bottom of the page & read comments bottom to top. I see the letter as a poor attempt at biting satire rather than an actual incitement to civil war. “Robbie”, however, seemed to have some sincere eliminationist feeling behind his comments. Not that I make too much of either – you find this kind of stuff in blogs and especially comment sections no matter which side of the political divide is posting. In other words, there are a lot of assholes out there on the internets – nothing to make a partisan point over. It’s just funny.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz, Fun, Humor
Post tags: eliminationists, Neal Boortz, secessionism

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

Boortz v dKos (DHinMI) on Executive Compensation

smijer — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:01:42 +0000

Two recent quotes. One from Neal Boortz, one from DHinMI of Daily Kos. Can you tell which reads like it’s borrowed from the Cliff Notes of Atlas Shrugged? Which makes more sense?

Quote #1:

These new rules are certain to do two things. First, as I explained earlier this week, the new rules will make it tough for these financial institutions to recruit or to keep the executive talent they so badly need to turn their companies around so that they can once again become profitable. As these rules loom on the horizon you be assured that many of the top executives in these companies are looking to bail – and head to industries where the government isn’t limiting their compensation. Secondly, people wallowing in wealth envy will think that this is just wonderful .. those evil rich people are getting just what they deserved .. and Democrats will gain their undying loyalty.

Quote #2:

But, that already happened, at a much higher rate of compensation. Remember, it was the guys making $20 million and more per year who created this mess.

So, what’s required to get competent managers in these positions? Remember that McCaskill pegged her maximum CEO salary to the salary of the President of the United States. Are we to believe that a CEO making $20 million per year is 50 times more impressive and talented than the President of the United States? (OK, granted, the answer to that question is different today than it was three weeks ago.) And are we to believe that the only reason anyone does a job, in particular these high profile, very powerful jobs, is for the money?

The idea that money is the only reason anyone would take over the reins of Citi or Wells Fargo or General Motors is, of course, crazy. Sure, there are some who only do those jobs for the money. But that’s not who we need right now. We need people who will do the jobs because they care about the companies, are up for the challenge, and realize that if they can do a good job now, that they’ll make a ton of money later on.

The people who got those financial services companies in trouble were for the most part people who didn’t understand risk as well as you should expect of people in those positions—they allowed their companies to be wagered over obscure credit default swaps and derivatives that the CEO’s themselves often didn’t understand—and who didn’t take on any significant personal risk. They got paid exorbitant salaries, even more extravagant benefits and stock options, and then when their companies got in trouble, they were bailed out by us, the taxpayers. And then they still got bonuses.

They privatized success—good things were supposedly because the Masters of the Universe were brilliant, so therefore they should get tons of money—and they socialized failure—the problems were “systemic,” in spite of the brilliance of the Masters of the Universe, and because it supposedly wasn’t their fault, the execs of the failed financial services companies should still get tons of money. Or so they (and the boards of these companies) thought.

The CEO’s have reaped much of the rewards, but have been exposed to little or none of the risk. It’s time for that to change.

What we need now are heads of those corporations who will personally take on the risk that comes with a high profile job where your salary will be, as long as you’re being bailed out by the American taxpayer, capped at “only” $500,000 per year. We need people like that so that they understand risk, both organizationally and personally, that they’re exposed to the the level of personal risk comparable to the risk to which they expose their companies. Furthermore, just as the taxpayers are investing in these companies and want them to succeed for the long-term benefits to the country, the CEO’s of these distressed companies should be making decisions about the long-term health of the company, the long-term interests of the investors in the company—the taxpayers—and their own long-term success, not a single year payout.

Ok.. I guess I have to put the links in there… Great Orange Satan, … Somebody’s Got to Say It, Even if it Doesn’t Make Much Sense.

[poll id="10"]

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz
Post tags: Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh

CBC – Conservatives Being Candid

smijer — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:00:29 +0000

Lot’s of humor in this Boortz article about morality in business despite the fact that I don’t strongly disagree with him on his point. The humor is that Senator Grassley can’t have an opinion on Microsoft’s “moral obligations” because the company doesn’t belong to him. Boortz, on the other hand… I can only assume his maiden name is Gates:

Microsoft has an obligation to protect the interests of its shareholders by retaining the best workers and letting the marginal ones go.

Now, I mention this only because he seems to confuse so completely the notions of “moral obligation” and “financial interest”… in a case of Conservatives Being Candid, the moral obligations to fatten the wallets of shareholders are basically the only ones that matter besides those which are also legal obligations.

Now – we could say that the company has no moral obligation to the stockholder… that it doesn’t make sense to talk about moral obligations in the context of business. But, if we are going to say that the business is morally obliged to the stockholder, then how revealing it is to leave out moral obligations to the community it serves – to avoid harm to the air and water that those dwelling nearby need? To treat workers fairly? To serve the client’s needs well and affordably? Nope… Shareholders are all that matter, and the letter of the law.

And that’s Randianism – or at least Friedmanism – taken to its absurd extreme.

Read full post, see embedded content, and comment here!
Posted in: Boortz
Post tags: Neal Boortz

Feed enhanced by Better Feed from Ozh