As IF Times

link A Right to Bear Glocks? – NYTimes.com.

First of all, this is an op-ed from the New York Times, so it’s not as if it’s a real news piece.  However, the sentiments expressed are a sample of the knee jerk response from “progressives’ in the aftermath of the tragic shooting in Arizona.  The shooter in this case, Jared Loughner, is by all accounts of people who knew him beforehand, mentally tenuous as many ex friends and even a teacher have stepped forth to claim.  Why he was able to acquire the arsenal of weapons and ammunition given his well known mental state is something the regulators will have to address.  Regardless, the gun control crowd have appeared like drunks at a wake to cite this as another reason to restrict firearms for the law abiding public.

On the same page in google news today is the horrific story of a gay murder in New York in which another disturbed man, this time a young gay model, castrates and kills his older sugar daddy with a wine corkscrew claiming that he was cleansing the older gentleman of homosexual demons.  Try as we might, we don’t find any op-ed pieces condemning this act as one made possible by the ample availability of corkscrews and certainly not playing up the fact that these two players were gay.

The fact of the matter is, the world is populated by mentally tenuous people.  We pass by them every day although they do not always betray their shortcomings.  Some occupy positions of influence in our society and there is evidence that some of the most deranged wind up in politics or the media.  In the Arizona shooting case, the rational, non partisan media have drawn a laugh out loud comical connection between Sarah Palin and the tragedy.  While rational people will dismiss this as juvenile  and partisan finger pointing, there are those not as familiar with logical thinking that will embrace this opinion as being valid.

Jared Loughner, the crazy shooter, apparently took inspiration from such great works of literature as The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, classics for any mentally unstable person.  The fact that he was a left wing nut has been somehow overlooked by the objective media.  In fact, acquaintances have characterized him as a left wing pothead.  Somehow those aspects are ignored and the focus is on the gun.   It was quite inconsiderate that a left wing wacko would go on a shooting rampage.  The media would have you believe that’s the purview of the right.    Good thing he didn’t read Adam Smith or Ronald Reagan.  Supposedly, there are regulations which are designed to prevent the mentally unstable from owning firearms, yet no filters for people who want to become journalists.  Hint for all the brilliant journalists out there;  reading the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf are more a clue of derangement than owing a gun.

link UAW’s King Says Workers Must Share in Auto Turnaround Update1 – Bloomberg.com.

There’s a Yiddish word, chutzpah, which is best described by the famous anecdote.  A boy kills his parents and then throws himself at the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.   This word so aptly describes the latest bleat from Bob King,  the head of the UAW, because unmitigated gall doesn’t really describe it.   According to Mr. King:

“…union members’ sacrifices allowed U.S. automakers to survive and that workers deserve to share in the industry’s new prosperity.  All the sacrifices that our members made to turn these companies around were part of the process that’s really led to this amazing turnaround,” King said in a telephone interview yesterday. “We want our membership to share in a very meaningful way in the upside of these companies…”

Uh, no Bob.  The reason the companies were in trouble in the first place was largely in part due to the laughable compensation packages doled out to union employees.  Secondly, the public were the ones who got nailed on the bankruptcy of GM since all their equity went to zero.

While management can more than take it’s share of blame for the demise of the automobile business in the U.S. with poorly executed products and a history of concessionary labor agreements, the cause of the demise can rest squarely on the cost disadvantage that American manufacturers faced versus their international competitors.  If it was just a case of making the best widgets for the least money, it would be easy.  However, auto manufacturing is probably the most political of industries.  Governments at all levels try to exact their influence and extract their pound of flesh at every step of the manufacturing process.  Auto companies are expected to comply with volumes of regulatory red tape and restrictions.  In addition, labor contracts are typically full of quid pro quo so that over the years, untenable long term compensation was traded for short term sales numbers.

Globalization is a buzzword we hear all the time, but its effects are nowhere more influential than in the automotive market.  To be competitive, automakers had to outsource supply and manufacturing to areas of the world most facilitative to costs and efficiencies.  Even Daimler Benz and BMW opened up operations in the U.S. deep south as part of  their push to be competitive.  GM, Ford and Chrysler were saddled with compensation structures that priced them out of the business.  GM for example operated for decades with a cost disadvantage of $2000 per car as compared to their Japanese rivals.  It became a running joke that GM was a health care company which happened to make cars.

All of this came to a head late in 2008 as the auto manufacturers finally succumbed and had to receive government bailouts to survive.  After a restructuring which cast off billions of dollars in debt and legacy health obligations into a separate entity, the US manufacturers are arguably on the comeback.  Now, without the previous encumbrances, they appear to be competitive again.  The most interesting part of the recovery is now upon us.  Unions want in on the ‘success’.  Well actually, they are now shareholders in GM and Chrysler so it will be amusing to see how they balance the needs of corporate profitability with the demands of their labor ranks.   As far as ‘share in a meaningful way in the upside of the companie’, they will, as risk taking shareholders like every one else.

This notion is likely lost on Mr. King  since the real intent is betrayed by his last comment:

“…You’re going to see the UAW membership grow because the industry is coming back,” King said. “As it’s been a long decline, hopefully it will be a long incline…”

As if.