Fire Shinseki? Why?

To fire the Secretary of Veteran's Affairs, Eric Shinseki, over the current scandal spreading through the Department would serve only one purpose: to provide the satisfaction of punishing someone.

It would assure that nothing would be done toward solving the problem. It would embroil the Senate in a big confirmation struggle to approve a replacement Secretary..The problem is not management...it is government... probably all three branches.

Long ago, in an effort to protect Civil Service employees from being used as political pawns, the Congress made it almost impossible to fire an under-performing employee.

Then, to reward organized labor for supporting one political party, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) were permitted to set up work rules designed to drain any remaining incentive from Department employees. Betsy McCaughey, former Lt. Governor of New York, says "For AFGE, the VA is a jobs program. The union wants more patients, bigger VA budgets, and more staff, never mind what ailing vets need."

You cannot fix this system. The government should sell every V.A. hospital. Yes, there are many good employees among the current 300,000 work force. Under professional, private administration, the former V.A. hospitals would eagerly retain those good employees.

Then, give the Vets proper health care. Several systems have been suggested. It should be possible to agree on one of the choices.

Politics of group destruction.

Larry  Elder is one of my favorite commentators. Larry holds forth for three hours daily on KABC , an L.A., AM radio station at 790 k.c. Also, I think you can hear his program on line.

More importantly to me, Larry also writes a opinion column. In this week's column, Larry takes white race-card hustlers to task. As Larry points out, these people - largely Democrat office holders - accuse "Republicans" of being racists. Almost without exception, these accusers do not give names. They make the most vile accusations, but never actually tell us whom they are accusing.

The objective, of course, is to keep assuring minority voters that they, the Democrats, are protecting them from the racist Republicans. Which Republicans isn't important. They just want the minority voters to mark a straight Democrat ballot in the next, and every election.

When Bill Clinton sensed that Republicans were accusing him of misdeeds, and giving his full identity, he screamed against "politics of personal destruction". Perhaps this explains why the current white race-card hustlers do not name whom they accuse: include all Republicans in one big swipe and it is not "personal destruction".

There is a lesson to be learned here. When any American, but especially journalists, hear an accusation of racism, they must demand a name. Never permit someone to make accusations in anonymity.

And, if they do give a name, insist they spell out a time and place to substantiate the claim.

Gender inequality in pay.

The firing of new York Times Editor Jill Abramson somehow set off a new round of debate over gender inequality in pay.

It is said that Abramson was paid less than her male predecessor, or less than her male replacement. I forget which.

The whole idea of gender inequality in Abramson's pay is most puzzling because it is being offered by some otherwise smart people. Do these pundits truly go wacko when they discuss wages, or are they simply trying to sell a wacko idea?

There are some lines of employment where gender inequality in pay would be truly wrong. "Piecework" immediately comes to mind. You cannot pay one gender more per widget made. But there are many more examples where unequal pay for equal work is likewise wrong.. Being Editor of a major newspaper is not one of them.

You may remember "The Peter Principle", formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter in 1969. The Peter Principle held that everyone who is promoted up through the ranks, will eventually reach their "level of Incompetence". That is, they will eventually reach a job level in which they cannot perform.

We are told that Abramson was, indeed, promoted up through the ranks. Perhaps she did reach a job description for which she was not competent. Maybe she reached that level sooner than her predecessor. Hence, she never reached his pay level.

As to her replacement, equal pay does not apply here, either. You have to find someone you believe is qualified for the job, and, is willing to take the job! Not an easy trick. If you find someone with successful experience at an equal newspaper, she or he is probably happy in that job and is well paid. It may take a significant increase in pay to lure them away. Gender is not a factor.

Also, wages are a cost of doing business... and must be treated as such. Compassion and sentimentality don't count! That's the hard part for most folks to swallow.

Free Speech? Not always!

In 1828, Arthur J. Stansbury expressed concern that so few Americans "had even a tolerable acquaintance with their Constitution". If alive today, Mr Stansbury would scarcely believe that in the ensuing 186 years, this problem has only worsened.

Recently we have heard many protests that freedom of speech has been denied. Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team made some comments in a private telephone conversation, which was later made public. Many screamed "What happened to Free Speech?"

Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, in an interview, made remarks which drew a flood of criticism. Bundy supporters demanded to know what has happened to free speech.

In both of these instances, free speech is alive and well. The Constitution rules that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". Only government can violate the Constitution by depriving citizens the right of free speech. The NBA, the media and all others are excluded.

In the preface to his Elementary Catechism on The Constitution, Stansbury wrote of the Constitution, "...when its principles are simple, its features plain and obvious, and its brevity surpassing all example, it is certainly a most reprehensible negligence to remain in ignorance of it."

A casual observer can identify two reasons for American's lack of Constitution knowledge. First, the Constitution is hardly taught in American schools. Second, there have been constant efforts to read new meanings into the Constitution. It's enough to confuse the most wary.

One could fill a book with all the various interpretations of the First Amendment., which, in reality, is only 45 words. The First Amendment deals with religion in a mere 16 words. But it has been expanded to prevent the hanging of a picture of Jesus in an elementary school, the display of a cross erected on public land as a memorial to military heroes, and on, and on, and on.

One wonders when a Federal Judge will have backbone enough to apply the Constitution as it was written... not as it has been "expanded".

If you would like to increase your knowledge of the Constitution, Download Stansbury's catechism; or download the entire Constitution and read it for free; purchase a pocket-sized copy from "The Heritage Foundation", or one of several other sources. I have read the entire Constitution while sitting in a doctor's waiting room, waiting for my turn to see the doctor. If you want some background, or an expansion into why the Framers wrote as they did, Hillsdale College offers free online courses on the Constitution.

In the meantime, try to refrain from joining those shouting about citizen's rights which they do not realize we do not have.

Methinks Thou Doest Protest Too Much

Something like that cometh from Hamlet, via the pen of William Shakespeare. But it has literally inundated us since.

The current deluge followed the outing of NBA team owner Donald Sterling. In a private conversation with his girl friend, Sterling made it perfectly clear that he did not want to have a public, personal, social relationship with dark skinned persons. And that he was asking the same of his girl friend.

The deluge was from everyone with a platform, denouncing Sterling's comments as outrageous, hateful, disgusting, etc. The vast majority of them have, indeed, protested too much.

There is no evidence that Sterling discriminated against blacks in the matter of employment. In fact, the NAACP was about to award him with recognition for generosity to the black community. Now, it seems. the NAACP has withdrawn their offer of recognition, admitting it was all about the money. But, have they returned the money?

As basketball great Kareem Abdul Jabbar said, it was disgraceful for the girlfriend to purposefully make public that personal conversation. Listening to it made him feel like an accomplice to a crime.

Sterling is being punished severely for remarks made in confidentiality. Of all those persons using their megaphone to denounce Sterling, I wonder how many have close, personal relationships with dark-skinned people? How many white men would share their girlfriend's time with a black man?

Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, how many black men would wish to share their lover with a white man?

Donald Sterling has been generous with his money, but has offered little to admire character-wise. Yet, as Christ commanded in John 8:7, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." In this case, at him! Be honest. Have you never privately disparaged someone with words you would not use in public?