Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme!
Don’t waste my time, Show me!
Don’t talk of June, Don’t talk of fall!
Don’t talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word.
There isn’t one I haven’t heard.
Here we are together in what ought to be a dream;
Say one more word and I’ll scream!

My Fair Lady 1964 Lyrics by Alan Jay Lerner

Yesterday I wrote about the Bakers union and the idea they might be going Galt. I’ve been thinking about this and I have one question for the union and those who think they have given back too much.

I totally understand the idea of: “Why should I take that pay cut? It’s not fair.” I remember the first job I interviewed after the company I worked for folded had a 25% pay cut. By the time I switched over to what I do now the best I saw out there was a 40% pay cut from the last time I had any sense of job security, coincidentally the last full month before the election of Barack Obama.

It seems to me that if the Bakers and the Teamsters believe they are worth more than Hostess was paying them and such a business can be sustained at the wages they were making as long as the execs aren’t making 6 or 7 figure payouts there is a simple way of proving it.

I would imagine a large scale baker has an intimate knowledge of the making of pastries. And a union is simply a big company with the workers as the product. There are plenty of execs in the Union who are experienced in the management skills necessary to run a company. So here is how they can demonstrate it to the world:

1. Become a bidder for the Hostess/Drakes brands:

Presumably the Teamsters and their associated unions that had millions of dollars to spend on political campaigns should be able to make a credible bid for a bankrupt company. If the company is purchased then they can run the company the way they wish, pay the wages they want and charge the prices to support it. They can show Hostess how it’s done with the Hostess & Drakes brands to do it with.

2. Create their own confectionery/bakery company.

I assume Union bakers who have been baking tasty cakes and good bread can come up with their own version of tasty cakes and good bread that people will want to eat.  They are bakers after all this is what they do.   All they have to do is buy the equipment (now being sold at a discount) grab the staff that is now looking for work and sign up the customers now short of bread and cakes and violá.  

Both of these plans give, as Marx would put it, control of the means of production. If they are right, if management has been taking them for a ride all this time then by becoming management they can demonstrate to the entire world how to do it right.

Of course, it’s my experience that the easiest business to run is a business owned by someone else. If the union thinks they can run a snack cake business better they the management they rejected this is the perfect time to do it. If they do, not only will I and a good chunk of America have the pleasure of enjoying tasty cakes and bread (I LIKE tasty cakes and bread) they will find themselves employed and successful which will be much more satisfying and important than any mea culpas they will earn from us folks on the right.

Of course if they can’t, or don’t choose to and somebody else buys the brand names, and equipment and hires non-union workers and pay what they want to pay to make the company show a profit without them, it will simply prove our point.

I suspect this is the only time in creation that the Bakers Union has been compared to Freddy Eynsford-Hill. Their actions will determine if their words about loving those Union Jobs are as empty as his were about Eliza.

Yesterday WQPH 89.3 Shirley Fitchburg had its official ribbon cutting:

A crowd of more than 100 attended the event

which began with a Rosary

Yeah you hear me on the video louder than others, can’t be helped I’m holding the camera.

after an introduction from Mary Ann Harold

this was followed by the Angelus:

and the official ribbon cutting:

Continue reading “WQPH FM 89.3 Shirley/Fitchburg EWTN Catholic Radio Ribbon Cutting”

Doyle Lonnegan: You see that fella in the red sweather over there? His name’s Donnie McCoy. Works a few of the protection rackets for Cunnaro when he’s waiting for something better to happen. Donnie and I have known each other since we were six. Take a good look at that face, Floyd. Because if he ever finds out I can be beat by one lousy grifter, I’ll have to kill him and every other hood who wants to muscle in on my Chicago operation.

The Sting 1973

“Being Notorious Is Not the Same as Being Famous, But It’s Better Than Being Anonymous.”

Robert Stacy McCain

This was a catch phrase of Robert Stacy McCain on his old blogspot site and today Stacy McCain is putting this phrase to the test with Mr. Bill Schmalfeldt as the test subject.

Having ignored the clear warnings signals of several months Mr. Schmalfeldt has decided to make an enemy of Robert Stacy McCain.

His initials are B.S., which is about all anyone would need to know about him, if he weren’t obsessively cyberstalking people, including my wife. But he has persisted — sending me more than 200 Twitter messages in a 48-hour period from Friday through Sunday afternoon — and his continuing career of harassment means that you’re likely to be hearing more about Bill Schmalfeldt in the near future.

One might question the wisdom of doing this. You have a veteran shoe leather reporter with decades of experience who dedicated an incredible amount of time and money covering the presidential election from Iowa to New Hampshire, from South Carolina to Florida (and that was during the primaries!) without the benefit of a major news organization picking up the tab. Such a person is clearly obsessive/compulsive when getting his hands on a story.

Having established the obsessive compulsive nature of said reporter when on a story you continue to annoy and harass him when he gives subtle but clear signals that this is a bad idea. Mr. Schmalfeldt continued to bait Stacy McCain and his family forgetting that post-election as he had already been informed…:

starting Nov. 7, I’ll have plenty of leisure to write about monstrous fools who vainly imagine they can distract me for more than a few minutes from my continuing coverage of this historic presidential campaign.

…said reporter would have plenty of extra time to concentrate on him.

Ever worse for the aforementioned Mr. Schmalfeldt, said reporter, having invested an inordinate amount of time effort covering a campaign that ended with a disappointing and demoralizing result, might find it cathartic to direct the resulting frustration of this result toward exposing and covering a person who has say; harassed or threatened to harass his wife and family for an extended period of time? Even if he wasn’t obsessive/compulsive when focusing on a story, this might generally be considered a bad thing if you are the focus of said attention.

To wit I give you the math:

According to Stacy McCain’s latest post, Mr. Schmalfeldt, a single person, sent Mr. McCain 200+ tweets in a 48 hour period. Assuming Mr. Schmalfeldt didn’t schedule said tweets this works out to a tweet every 14.4 minutes at Robert Stacy McCain over said period.  This is an impressive number.

Unfortunately for Mr. Schmalfeldt the positive math for him ends there.

Let me throw two numbers out there that are part of this equation: 661 & 16,956.

Those are the relative number of twitter followers Mr. Schmalfeldt & Mr McCain have respectively as of 7 a.m. EST 11/26/12.

That means, for example, if Mr. McCain writes a post as he did last night ending with the phrase: “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar.” and chooses to tweet that out, it will have twenty-five times more views  than all of Mr. Schmalfeldt’s tweets directed toward Mr. McCain in the course of over 5 of those aforementioned 48 hours. Additionally due to the volume of followers it is almost certainly true that more individual people will see a single tweet by Mr. McCain than all of the tweets Mr. Schmalfeldt produced in that same 48 hours.

And that’s not all. If even a small percentage of Mr. McCain’s followers say 4% choose to re-tweet the phrase:  “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar“, that would equal the effect of every single person who follows Mr. Schmalfeldt retweeting him.   This has the effect of moving the phrase: “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar” relentlessly up the Google, Yahoo, Bing etc etc ladder in search engines faster than the phrase:  “Topless Miley Cyrus pics” adds hits to your web totals.

To put it bluntly as an FYI for Mr. Schmalfeldt:  When a person with more than 25 times your twitter followers, and likely 100 times your readership, who is in the top 75k websites worldwide & top 12k nationally with over 2100 sites linking into it (according to Alexa)  starts using the phrase:  Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar.” on a regular basis it generally has a bad effect on your online reputation and searches containing your name.

This effect tends to be magnified when smaller sites such as The Lonely conservative, Hogewash, Lee Stranahan and even this one links to the post with the phrase: “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar”. While all of said sites are smaller than Mr. McCain’s in volume, these four sites alone add 2599 sites which link into them and an additional 37,045 twitter followers into the mix.

And that doesn’t even take into the account the effect when Mr. McCain is regularly picked up by a site that regularly ranks in the top 5000 worldwide and the top 1000 nationally (according to Alexa) with over 13k sites linking into it.  It may in fact be the case that more people in the next 24 hours will see the phrase “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar” than read William Shakespeare phrase: “Can I compare thee to a summer’s day?” during his entire lifetime.

And this is only the 2nd of what will likely be a series of posts concerning Mr. Schmalfeldt that will likely contain the words: “Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar” subject to said web amplification.  And that’s assuming Mr. McCain doesn’t attempt to augment said amplification by including a phrase such as: “Anne Hathaway nude pics” to bump up the hits a tactic Mr. McCain has not been shy about using in the past although in fairness he tends to get in front of such google bombs rather than tagging onto existing ones.

Bottom line we can expect the post titled:  The Dishonesty of Bill Schmalfeldt and the phrase:  Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar to relentlessly move up the search engine results for Mr. Schmalfeldt over the coming days and weeks.

If the end result of all of this attention is what I think it will be then Mr. Schmalfeldt will be able to take some small consolation in proving Mr. McCain’s phrase: “Being Notorious Is Not the Same as Being Famous, But It’s Better Than Being Anonymous.” incorrect.

Perhaps it can be named the “‘Bill Schmalfeldt is a liar’ multiplier”?

Mr. Schmalfeldt takes offense at this post in comments. He asks why I did not contact for this story or my previous post. The answer is quite simple, this story as the one before it, is about the wisdom of tangling with Robert Stacy McCain given their relative voices on the internet. I am not a party to the dispute between him and Mr. McCain and it may interest him to know I did not contact Mr. McCain prior to writing of either story.

If Mr. Schmalfeldt takes exception to my analysis of the relative blog power of him v Stacy McCain in my post, and he certainly has the right to do so, he is more than welcome to express it at his blog, and then perhaps his friends and financial backers great and small will pick up said post and amplify his opinion as loudly as he sees fit. If he thinks I’m a “hack” he is certainly entitled to that opinion too. I trust the greater public can make any decision they wish to make based on said posts. Meanwhile I’ll simply thank him for the link with the hope that he and his had a pleasant thanksgiving and will have a Merry Christmas.

On Conservatively Speaking and to a lesser degree on DaTechGuy on DaRadio we speak about the one party rule in Massachusetts and all the trouble it causes us.

Massachusetts and California may be one side of the coin but the NYT talks a bit about the other side of the equation:

Come January, more than two-thirds of the states will be under single-party control, raising the prospect that bold partisan agendas — on both ends of the political spectrum — will flourish over the next couple of years.

There are risks in such a political situation:

Some politicians are mindful that one-party control carries with it one-party blame — and a risk that a particularly partisan agenda will eventually irk voters and lead to a reversal in the next election.

But there is also a reward in a particular sense.

I am a conservative because I believe it is not only morally right but it produces the greatest good for the greatest number economically and socially and for the future of my children and grandchildren. Let’s work under the assumption that our friends on the left believe the same (we’ll pause for our conservative readers who might have been drinking to wipe off their keyboards after spitting it out).

Previously we have seen the effects of liberal rule in cities like Detroit but now we will be able to actually compare the results between the blue and red state as a whole.

In 2016 we will have years of data to see what states have made it and what states have not, what states have employment and what states do not, and more importantly with four years of Barack Obama ahead of us, we will see which states become places where people are going to want to live and which states are not.

I’m nearly 50, it’s my intention to live and die right where I am, but by the end of the Obama years both of my sons will be out of college and we will see where they will decide to go to make a future for themselves.

May the best states and ideas win. The only question is, will the media report it?